Mr. Fire, yet again a pro-Remain/pro-EU person raises the Empire and attributes that to the Leave side. The only people banging on about the Empire are Remainers who wish to paint the other side in a bad light. It's silly. You are a silly sausage.
I do sometimes think that there was a strain of Pro Europeanism in the Civil Service and in politics who saw joining the EEC as a way to replace the Empire. They thought we would naturally end up leading because we were so much better at it than Johnny foreigner.
We might have been among the leaders if we'd gone to the talks in the 1950s and jointly set up the EEC, along with Scandinavia, Ireland and Austria. We snootily ignored them and set up EFTA.
France wrote most of the EEC's rules. It bore little relation to what the UK / Denmark / Ireland/ Sweden might have wanted / suggested.
Being inside the tent, pissing out is usually a bit more effective than the opposite. Varoufakis is no EU fan but supports the UK staying in for this reason.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
Yes, I'm deeply concerned about this scheme - sounds completely unworkable. It also suggests panic at the very heart of government: they know that the complete annulment of EU trading arrangements will be catastrophic, so are desperate to cobble together something - anything - that sounds vaguely like a plan. I'm filled with foreboding.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
Mr. kle4, ha, I wouldn't mind dropping Monaco but it won't happen.
Street circuits are convenient because there are a shitload of potential spectators right there already. They're mostly rubbish because they tend to be constricted and the corners are mostly right angles, which is terrible.
F1 has outgrown Monaco, but for historical reasons that race isn’t going anywhere.
I don’t know what the Miami circuit will look like, but they should look to Baku rather than Monaco for inspiration when they’re designing the layout. Downtown Miami does look rather grid-like, hopefully they’ll find a way of putting some curves in it somewhere.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
I don't think NI numbers say anything about your right to permanent settlement or your nationality. Although I am not certain on that. I think anyone working here even only for a short time gets an NI number. I think...
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
Having an NI number doesn't prove citizenship, although it could be used to prove that you have been in the UK for ages.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
Good question - I just checked my NI records online going back 38 years....of course its possible full time home makers who had never entered the labour market would not have an NI - but surely most would....
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
Mostly they will have but some partners may have worked in the home rather than being paid by an employer.
The Home Office may not have felt inclined to check government files for the historical evidence of national insurance or tax records of those with NI numbers.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
Having an NI number doesn't prove citizenship, although it could be used to prove that you have been in the UK for ages.
Some of the Windrush people definitely did have NI numbers.
It was a key part of their case that they'd lived, worked, and paid tax in the UK all this time, i.e. not exactly the MO of illegal immigrants.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
With whom we don’t have any land borders and a much smaller volume of trade (and it’s not pure ‘WTO terms’ anyway).
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
With whom we don’t have any land borders and a much smaller volume of trade (and it’s not pure ‘WTO terms’ anyway).
The USA is the UK's second largest trading partner. America is also the UK's second largest export market. It accounted for 19% of the value of UK exports in 2016/17
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
With whom we don’t have any land borders and a much smaller volume of trade (and it’s not pure ‘WTO terms’ anyway).
The USA is the UK's second largest trading partner. America is also the UK's second largest export market. It accounted for 19% of the value of UK exports in 2016/17
And growing. Unlike the EU which is inexorably shinking as a share of the market
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
I don't think NI numbers say anything about your right to permanent settlement or your nationality. Although I am not certain on that. I think anyone working here even only for a short time gets an NI number. I think...
The Gov't has a record of how much NI you've paid each year, the records go back to at least 1999 (And probably further) though. That's the key.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
With whom we don’t have any land borders and a much smaller volume of trade (and it’s not pure ‘WTO terms’ anyway).
The USA is the UK's second largest trading partner. America is also the UK's second largest export market. It accounted for 19% of the value of UK exports in 2016/17
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
I don't think NI numbers say anything about your right to permanent settlement or your nationality. Although I am not certain on that. I think anyone working here even only for a short time gets an NI number. I think...
The Gov't has a record of how much NI you've paid each year, the records go back to at least 1999 (And probably further) though. That's the key.
Oh I am not saying I agree with it or how it has been handled at all. Remember I am the one who wants more freedom of movement and more people having the right to come here not less. I was just pointing out that having an NI number does not necessarily say anything about your right to remain or even your nationality. I have a Norwegian NI number but it does not give me an automatic right to permanent residence in Norway.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
I don't think NI numbers say anything about your right to permanent settlement or your nationality. Although I am not certain on that. I think anyone working here even only for a short time gets an NI number. I think...
The Gov't has a record of how much NI you've paid each year, the records go back to at least 1999 (And probably further) though. That's the key.
The records go back way before that. I started working in the 1970s and it's all there on my record for figuring out state pension eligibility. Because it affects the state pension, it's one thing you can pretty much guarantee has been carefully recorded.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
With whom we don’t have any land borders and a much smaller volume of trade (and it’s not pure ‘WTO terms’ anyway).
The USA is the UK's second largest trading partner. America is also the UK's second largest export market. It accounted for 19% of the value of UK exports in 2016/17
Land borders?
We don't have a land border with the Continent of Europe.
OT. My fascistic hairdresser wanted to know how it was possible that the Windrush people didn't have national insurance numbers. Is there a simple answer?
I don't think NI numbers say anything about your right to permanent settlement or your nationality. Although I am not certain on that. I think anyone working here even only for a short time gets an NI number. I think...
The Gov't has a record of how much NI you've paid each year, the records go back to at least 1999 (And probably further) though. That's the key.
Oh I am not saying I agree with it or how it has been handled at all. Remember I am the one who wants more freedom of movement and more people having the right to come here not less. I was just pointing out that having an NI number does not necessarily say anything about your right to remain or even your nationality. I have a Norwegian NI number but it does not give me an automatic right to permanent residence in Norway.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
The non-customs union customs union idea IS bonkers. I'm pretty sure Olly Robbins who apparently is promoting it knows that, although it's possible Theresa May does genuinely believe in six impossible things before Brexit. Leaver suspicion of the motives of those promoting the idea is well founded, I suspect. Having said that, I think we will end up in a customs union. It's a question of when people face up to the inevitable compromise.
More inevitable is World Trade Organisation terms.
We should have started with WTO and negotiated with the EU from that position.
That's precisely what we did by making our starting position that we would leave the single market and customs union, but unless we can actually operate on that basis in the real world, it's not a viable negotiating strategy.
We already operate on the WTO basis with the USA and China for example.
There are seven treaties between the EU and the US governibg trade, so while the tariffs are WTO, there is privileged access to the US from the EU (and vice versa).
The USA is the UK's second largest trading partner. America is also the UK's second largest export market. It accounted for 19% of the value of UK exports in 2016/17
Land borders?
We don't have a land border with the Continent of Europe.
We have a 300 mile land border with the EU27, and the Channel Tunnel is effectively a land border crossing with France.
Comments
France wrote most of the EEC's rules. It bore little relation to what the UK / Denmark / Ireland/ Sweden might have wanted / suggested.
Being inside the tent, pissing out is usually a bit more effective than the opposite. Varoufakis is no EU fan but supports the UK staying in for this reason.
I don’t know what the Miami circuit will look like, but they should look to Baku rather than Monaco for inspiration when they’re designing the layout. Downtown Miami does look rather grid-like, hopefully they’ll find a way of putting some curves in it somewhere.
The Home Office may not have felt inclined to check government files for the historical evidence of national insurance or tax records of those with NI numbers.
It was a key part of their case that they'd lived, worked, and paid tax in the UK all this time, i.e. not exactly the MO of illegal immigrants.
new thread