The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
It's all going to be an irrelevance since we're heading for BINO.
You think?
It's a not inconsiderable carrot......and why shouldn't (for example) Australians have the same rights as Romanians - assuming both countries are parties to comprehensive trade deals?
I can't see it working that way in the case of, say, China or India
The chances of striking comprehensive trade deals with either are tiny - we'd want access to their Service sector - which they both protect. But other economies with similar levels of economic development could be better bets...
Major incident declared on Cambridge Guided Busway between Trumpington and Addenbrookes.
Source: BBC News
I don’t think a bus running to schedule deserves that.
Someone has died after being hit by a bus.
The Cambridge guided bus has been an absolute debacle in a whole host of ways. Massively over budget, massively under predicted passenger numbers, a little chaotic in operation and IMO operationally unsafe. Worse, the concrete beams are cracking up after only about a decade and many need replacing.
They should have reopened the full-fat railway route IMHO
The CAST-IRON approach - and it would been a heck of a lot cheaper than what they ended up with. But in their infinite wisdom Cambridgeshire County Council didn't want that.
In their defence, AIUI there was a large government fund that was available for a busway but not for a tram or railway - but again AIUI the council's overspend was far greater than that fund.
According to wiki, it was priced at £64 million and ended up at £181 million, and was a couple of years late. After seven years of operation, it requires £36 million in repairs.
The people who really seem to like it are the lawyers ...
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
Otherwise, it doesn't mean very much.
The interesting statistics would be how long the average person spend retired on state benefits/pensions, and how that breaks down into useful life and sickness.
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
Otherwise, it doesn't mean very much.
The interesting statistics would be how long the average person spend retired on state benefits/pensions, and how that breaks down into useful life and sickness.
Indeed. Years working to years supported post working.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
Major incident declared on Cambridge Guided Busway between Trumpington and Addenbrookes.
Source: BBC News
I don’t think a bus running to schedule deserves that.
Someone has died after being hit by a bus.
The Cambridge guided bus has been an absolute debacle in a whole host of ways. Massively over budget, massively under predicted passenger numbers, a little chaotic in operation and IMO operationally unsafe. Worse, the concrete beams are cracking up after only about a decade and many need replacing.
They should have reopened the full-fat railway route IMHO
There were high hopes of the guided bus-way I believe.
What counts as sufficiently train-like to get your interest Sunil? I'd imagine that a guided busway is right at the extremes, perhaps trams less so?
Would maglev go too far the other way? Or perhaps Hyper-loop?
I don't share your passion for trains, but I do entirely understand it. I find myself almost admiring your sometime posts about seeking out some untravelled branch line.
Old railway tracks being reincarnated would I imagine be particularly cool?
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
"One of Norway’s richest men has blown a €100m hole in a stability fund that ensures the safety of derivatives trading in European electricity markets.
Coming in the same week as the 10th anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ collapse, the trading losses will focus attention on the robustness of standards promoted by policymakers globally after the financial crisis."
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
Apologies if already poated, but the centre-left have held their 1-seat lead in Sweden after all votes were counted. We now have the official final result, though there will be checks made over the next 24 hours.
Assuming this holds, the Betfair Exchange odds-on for centre-right leader Ulf being the next PM looks too short. The centre-left are claiming that their man (Stefan Lofgren) should stay on, and the rentre-right opposition are declining to comment. I think laying Ulf is wiser than backing Stefan since a compromise candidate might emerge.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
Did you not see Nigel's poster then? No trade deals with Turkey
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
Otherwise, it doesn't mean very much.
The interesting statistics would be how long the average person spend retired on state benefits/pensions, and how that breaks down into useful life and sickness.
Indeed. Years working to years supported post working.
I know of people who will almost certainly spend more time retired than they did working. Which is completely bonkers. Until a decade ago British Airways pilots retired at 55 on around £80-100k index-linked annual pensions, to give just one example.
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here.
Allowing people to come here to work, and allowing them to stay indefinitely are two quite different things. Making it easy for people to live and work here, but making it hard for people to enjoy full rights seems like the way forwards. If the price of making this division is something like id cards then we'll all learn to accept that.
If you can't buy a pint of milk when you're not supposed to be in the country, then you'll probably relocate yourself.
""People who deny climate change... I just think it's the most stupid thing ever," Paul Mc Cartney Can't argue with that.
I thought it was the anthropogenic part that was denied?
Still the most stupid thing ever.
I've just taken a look and UK carbon output per person really isn't so bad. Here are the top nations by absolute output ranked on a per capita basis (+ Qatar)
47.9 Qatar 19.6 Saudi Arabia 16.5 Australia 16.5 USA 15.5 Canada 11.7 South Korea 11.4 Russia 9.8 Germany 9.5 Japan 8.4 S Africa 8.2 Iran 7.2 China 6 Italy 5.9 UK 5.3 France 5.1 Turkey Source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Poland is 8.3 tonnes/person, Sweden 4.6, Croatia 4.3, Iceland and Norway both over 10.
Countries who produce lots of oil & gas have high carbon emissions shocker.
If you included the embedded CO2 emissions of imports (and deducted them from exports) the UK would be significantly higher up the list.
Yes, just as we have off shored our manufacturing and mining, we have off shored our pollution.
and in all instances we shouldnt have.
I'm not sure there's much that can be commercially mined in the UK - and if we force British manufacturers to pay for British coal for British electricity, I'm not sure how competitive they'd be.
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
Otherwise, it doesn't mean very much.
The interesting statistics would be how long the average person spend retired on state benefits/pensions, and how that breaks down into useful life and sickness.
It depends very much on social class. You may find this link useful:
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
Nice video, but I have a fundamental issue with how the life expectancy figures are presented.
People didn't get born, live and "drop-dead" in their late 30s in the 17th or 18th or 19th Centuries, as it suggests. There was a very high infant mortality rate but, if you survived to the age of 16, you stood a good chance of making it to aged 60.
So, I'd far prefer for life expectancy figures to be split and presented into infant mortality, and life expectancy for those who made it in adulthood which, I suspect, was probably the mid-late 50s/early 60s for the working class, and late 60s/early 70s for the middle-upper classes.
""People who deny climate change... I just think it's the most stupid thing ever," Paul Mc Cartney Can't argue with that.
I thought it was the anthropogenic part that was denied?
Still the most stupid thing ever.
I've just taken a look and UK carbon output per person really isn't so bad. Here are the top nations by absolute output ranked on a per capita basis (+ Qatar)
47.9 Qatar 19.6 Saudi Arabia 16.5 Australia 16.5 USA 15.5 Canada 11.7 South Korea 11.4 Russia 9.8 Germany 9.5 Japan 8.4 S Africa 8.2 Iran 7.2 China 6 Italy 5.9 UK 5.3 France 5.1 Turkey Source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Poland is 8.3 tonnes/person, Sweden 4.6, Croatia 4.3, Iceland and Norway both over 10.
Countries who produce lots of oil & gas have high carbon emissions shocker.
If you included the embedded CO2 emissions of imports (and deducted them from exports) the UK would be significantly higher up the list.
Yes, just as we have off shored our manufacturing and mining, we have off shored our pollution.
and in all instances we shouldnt have.
I'm not sure there's much that can be commercially mined in the UK - and if we force British manufacturers to pay for British coal for British electricity, I'm not sure how competitive they'd be.
It would have been cheaper for the UK than paying the social cost of destroying the industries, the jobs and the communities, all because of a twisted right wing ideology.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here.
Allowing people to come here to work, and allowing them to stay indefinitely are two quite different things. Making it easy for people to live and work here, but making it hard for people to enjoy full rights seems like the way forwards. If the price of making this division is something like id cards then we'll all learn to accept that.
If you can't buy a pint of milk when you're not supposed to be in the country, then you'll probably relocate yourself.
Yes. Most countries have four classes of people living in them:
Citizen. Passport holder.
Resident. Here of his own right, can sponsor family but needs to pay for health and education. No entitlement to benefits (including tax credits and housing benefit) except contributory pensions.
Guest worker. Sponsored by an employer who pays health insurance and is responsible for deportation after contract finishes. Aimed at seasonal workers in agriculture. No rights to bring family or claim benefits.
Visitor. Short term, not allowed to work and fined for overstaying.
Major incident declared on Cambridge Guided Busway between Trumpington and Addenbrookes.
Source: BBC News
I don’t think a bus running to schedule deserves that.
Someone has died after being hit by a bus.
The Cambridge guided bus has been an absolute debacle in a whole host of ways. Massively over budget, massively under predicted passenger numbers, a little chaotic in operation and IMO operationally unsafe. Worse, the concrete beams are cracking up after only about a decade and many need replacing.
They should have reopened the full-fat railway route IMHO
There were high hopes of the guided bus-way I believe.
What counts as sufficiently train-like to get your interest Sunil? I'd imagine that a guided busway is right at the extremes, perhaps trams less so?
Would maglev go too far the other way? Or perhaps Hyper-loop?
I don't share your passion for trains, but I do entirely understand it. I find myself almost admiring your sometime posts about seeking out some untravelled branch line.
Old railway tracks being reincarnated would I imagine be particularly cool?
Hi Omnium, just back from completing the GWR mainline out to Penzance (reached Truro on Tuesday), and the St Ives branch, and also squeezed in a little walk around the Hoe in Plymouth - no trains of course, but HMS Kent and Northumberland were moored just off-shore, along with RFA Tiderace
Just the Looe branch left in Cornwall, which if I can do tomorrow morning will allow me to return to London mid-afternoon having successfully executed Operation @SeanT
Guided busway doesn't really run on rails does it? Or Maglev or hyperloop?
I do count Trams, I have done all the UK trams, because they run on rails! They do! In fact some of the outer suburban stretches of Croydon, Sheffield, Midlands Metro and Manchester Metrolink are very train-like, except for the fact that it's a very short "train" (though Manchester do have some double-header trams). Some have been recycled railways, such as Wimbledon to Croydon, the Bury branch and most of the Midland Metro.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
The EU for example...
What about the foreign born wives of fine upstanding citizens like Mr Sandpit and the Son of OKC?
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here.
Allowing people to come here to work, and allowing them to stay indefinitely are two quite different things. Making it easy for people to live and work here, but making it hard for people to enjoy full rights seems like the way forwards. If the price of making this division is something like id cards then we'll all learn to accept that.
If you can't buy a pint of milk when you're not supposed to be in the country, then you'll probably relocate yourself.
Yes. Most countries have four classes of people living in them:
Citizen. Passport holder.
Resident. Here of his own right, can sponsor family but needs to pay for health and education. No entitlement to benefits (including tax credits and housing benefit) except contributory pensions.
Guest worker. Sponsored by an employer who pays health insurance and is responsible for deportation after contract finishes. Aimed at seasonal workers in agriculture. No rights to bring family or claim benefits.
Visitor. Short term, not allowed to work and fined for overstaying.
And in the UK we have five. Top of the heap EU national who has superior rights to Citizens.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
It's all going to be an irrelevance since we're heading for BINO.
You think?
It's a not inconsiderable carrot......and why shouldn't (for example) Australians have the same rights as Romanians - assuming both countries are parties to comprehensive trade deals?
We are supposed to be keeping the forriners out so that they do not bleed the NHS dry, occupy all the houses and take all the jobs that Brits do not want to do cos they'd 'ave no one to moan about in the dole queue...
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
The EU for example...
What about the foreign born wives of fine upstanding citizens like Mr Sandpit and the Son of OKC?
Don't blame me, it was the Tories that brought in the rules against foreign spouses!
Mrs Sandpits best prospect to move here would be Diane Abbott at the Home Office relaxing the rules
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
The EU for example...
What about the foreign born wives of fine upstanding citizens like Mr Sandpit and the Son of OKC?
Don't blame me, it was the Tories that brought in the rules against foreign spouses!
Mrs Sandpits best prospect to move here would be Diane Abbott at the Home Office relaxing the rules
I’ve never voted Tory in my life! I think the son with the foreign national wife did once though.
Brought up proper, to support West Ham & vote Labour; what did ‘e do; go off to work in the City, buy a Chelsea season ticket and Vote Tory..
You do your best for your kids, bring ‘em up decent and what happens!
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
The EU for example...
What about the foreign born wives of fine upstanding citizens like Mr Sandpit and the Son of OKC?
Indeed. The difficulty, as was discussed yesterday, is of allowing British citizens to marry whom they wish, while at the same time preventing arranged marriages and immigration scams from second and third generation immigrants who are now British citizens.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
I presume it would have to be reciprocal - although who knows with this government. As you say its possibly rather academic.
In anycase we already offer visa free travel for 3-6 months for tourism purposes for pretty much every nation we might think it worthwhile doing a deal with (nearly 60 non EU states) from Nicaragua to Vanuatu to Mauritius - so what exactly would these extra travel rights be?
The point is, people want to come to Britain - we should leverage that.
Labour would be 'trade deal blind' in their approach.
We should be prioritising immigrants based on salary and need, so CEOs and footballers, nurses and scientists. For others, take say 20,000 visas and auction them to companies to sponsor people they need but can’t find here. Invest the money raised in scholarships and apprenticeships in the relavent fields.
We should prioritise migrants from countries with a track record of integration and high employment.
The EU for example...
What about the foreign born wives of fine upstanding citizens like Mr Sandpit and the Son of OKC?
Don't blame me, it was the Tories that brought in the rules against foreign spouses!
Mrs Sandpits best prospect to move here would be Diane Abbott at the Home Office relaxing the rules
Err, no. If Corbyn is in charge I’ll be staying very much as an expatriate. Me and a couple of million more higher-rate taxpayers.
""People who deny climate change... I just think it's the most stupid thing ever," Paul Mc Cartney Can't argue with that.
I thought it was the anthropogenic part that was denied?
Still the most stupid thing ever.
I've just taken a look and UK carbon output per person really isn't so bad. Here are the top nations by absolute output ranked on a per capita basis (+ Qatar)
47.9 Qatar 19.6 Saudi Arabia 16.5 Australia 16.5 USA 15.5 Canada 11.7 South Korea 11.4 Russia 9.8 Germany 9.5 Japan 8.4 S Africa 8.2 Iran 7.2 China 6 Italy 5.9 UK 5.3 France 5.1 Turkey Source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Poland is 8.3 tonnes/person, Sweden 4.6, Croatia 4.3, Iceland and Norway both over 10.
Countries who produce lots of oil & gas have high carbon emissions shocker.
If you included the embedded CO2 emissions of imports (and deducted them from exports) the UK would be significantly higher up the list.
Yes, just as we have off shored our manufacturing and mining, we have off shored our pollution.
and in all instances we shouldnt have.
I'm not sure there's much that can be commercially mined in the UK - and if we force British manufacturers to pay for British coal for British electricity, I'm not sure how competitive they'd be.
It would have been cheaper for the UK than paying the social cost of destroying the industries, the jobs and the communities, all because of a twisted right wing ideology.
Well, they were all going to have to close eventually, as coal seams do not continue indefinitely. But ignoring that for a second, who pays the cost?
Let's say that we kept the UK pits open, and stayed on coal as a generating fuel. This would mean that the cost of electricity generated in the UK would be higher than it would otherwise. Should we pass this on to industry and consumers? And if so, would you ban people from generating their own electricity?
If not, and you would prefer it to come out of general government revenue? And if so, would you have the cost of energy to consumer completely divorced from the cost of generation? And what if the gap kept growing?
Major incident declared on Cambridge Guided Busway between Trumpington and Addenbrookes.
Source: BBC News
I don’t think a bus running to schedule deserves that.
Someone has died after being hit by a bus.
The Cambridge guided bus has been an absolute debacle in a whole host of ways. Massively over budget, massively under predicted passenger numbers, a little chaotic in operation and IMO operationally unsafe. Worse, the concrete beams are cracking up after only about a decade and many need replacing.
They should have reopened the full-fat railway route IMHO
(edit:cut out my text for space)
Hi Omnium, just back from completing the GWR mainline out to Penzance (reached Truro on Tuesday), and the St Ives branch, and also squeezed in a little walk around the Hoe in Plymouth - no trains of course, but HMS Kent and Northumberland were moored just off-shore, along with RFA Tiderace
Just the Looe branch left in Cornwall, which if I can do tomorrow morning will allow me to return to London mid-afternoon having successfully executed Operation @SeanT
Guided busway doesn't really run on rails does it? Or Maglev or hyperloop?
I do count Trams, I have done all the UK trams, because they run on rails! They do! In fact some of the outer suburban stretches of Croydon, Sheffield, Midlands Metro and Manchester Metrolink are very train-like, except for the fact that it's a very short "train" (though Manchester do have some double-header trams). Some have been recycled railways, such as Wimbledon to Croydon, the Bury branch and most of the Midland Metro.
Ok, so rails it is. Perhaps with a bit of sneaky shipping. When I was younger I'd certainly have described your fascination as deeply uncool, but as I age I think I perhaps realise that in fact it's deeply cool!
Years ago there was a computer game called Railroad Tycoon - it was great! There have been more recent incarnations, but none of them (tried a few) have captured things like signalling, or timetables. Somehow the old game did.
I don't get why I like railways, and timetabling, and signalling, and I guess most of all tunneling (I'm a Londoner), but I do.
Just like, mind, you won't catch me on some long forgotten branch line. The intricate tales though are not unread, and certainly not unappreciated, at least by me.
Well, they were all going to have to close eventually, as coal seams do not continue indefinitely. But ignoring that for a second, who pays the cost?
Let's say that we kept the UK pits open, and stayed on coal as a generating fuel. This would mean that the cost of electricity generated in the UK would be higher than it would otherwise. Should we pass this on to industry and consumers? And if so, would you ban people from generating their own electricity?
If not, and you would prefer it to come out of general government revenue? And if so, would you have the cost of energy to consumer completely divorced from the cost of generation? And what if the gap kept growing?
It is one of the weirdest things of the last 50 years that almost everyone thinks Thatcher destroyed the coal industry.
The simple fact, of course, is that more pits were closed, and more jobs were lost, in the 11 years before her premiership than during it.
No matter how often one points out this simple fact, it is impossible to get it into the heads of the majority of the population, and the entirety of the Left. Such is the power of myth.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
It's possible for Brexit to lead to an increase in immigration as the rules are loosened for non-EU countries, as well as EU ones. India and Australia indicated this as an ask for FTAs with us. India in particular wants to supply cheap and well qualified staff into the.UK domestic labour market.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
It's possible for Brexit to lead to an increase in immigration as the rules are loosened for non-EU countries, as well as EU ones. India and Australia indicated this as an ask for FTAs with us. India in particular wants to supply cheap and well qualified staff into the.UK domestic labour market.
Well Indian staff are often cheap - qualification and skill levels are often however in the eye of the beholder....
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
""People who deny climate change... I just think it's the most stupid thing ever," Paul Mc Cartney Can't argue with that.
I thought it was the anthropogenic part that was denied?
Still the most stupid thing ever.
I've just taken a look and UK carbon output per person really isn't so bad. Here are the top nations by absolute output ranked on a per capita basis (+ Qatar)
47.9 Qatar 19.6 Saudi Arabia 16.5 Australia 16.5 USA 15.5 Canada 11.7 South Korea 11.4 Russia 9.8 Germany 9.5 Japan 8. 5.3 France 5.1 Turkey Source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Poland is 8.3 tonnes/person, Sweden 4.6, Croatia 4.3, Iceland and Norway both over 10.
Countries who produce lots of oil & gas have high carbon emissions shocker.
If you included the embedded CO2 emissions of imports (and deducted them from exports) the UK would be significantly higher up the list.
Yes, just as we have off shored our manufacturing and mining, we have off shored our pollution.
and in all instances we shouldnt have.
I'm not sure there's much
It would have been cheaper for the UK than paying the social cost of destroying the industries, the jobs and the communities, all because of a twisted right wing ideology.
Well, they were all going to have to close eventually, as coal seams do not continue indefinitely. But ignoring that for a second, who pays the cost?
Let's say that we kept the UK pits open, and stayed on coal as a generating fuel. This would mean that the cost of electricity generated in the UK would be higher than it would otherwise. Should we pass this on to industry and consumers? And if so, would you ban people from generating their own electricity?
If not, and you would prefer it to come out of general government revenue? And if so, would you have the cost of energy to consumer completely divorced from the cost of generation? And what if the gap kept growing?
So who paid the unemployment benefits, the healthcare costs, the social services costs and all of the other negative impacts of throwing entire communities on the scrap heap? All of these costs are passed on to taxpayers, both individuals and businesses. And the cost is higher.
Plus we have the balance of payments impact of importing raw materials and manufactured goods that we used to be self sufficient in.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
It's all going to be an irrelevance since we're heading for BINO.
You think?
It's a not inconsiderable carrot......and why shouldn't (for example) Australians have the same rights as Romanians - assuming both countries are parties to comprehensive trade deals?
We are supposed to be keeping the forriners out so that they do not bleed the NHS dry, occupy all the houses and take all the jobs that Brits do not want to do cos they'd 'ave no one to moan about in the dole queue...
Duh!
And you wonder why the vote was lost.
No, I do not wonder actually. I have a very good idea as to why it was lost.
I simply do not care any more. It is the stupidest decision since the Golgafrinchams adopted the leaf as a form of currency, but hey-ho.....
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
It's possible for Brexit to lead to an increase in immigration as the rules are loosened for non-EU countries, as well as EU ones. India and Australia indicated this as an ask for FTAs with us. India in particular wants to supply cheap and well qualified staff into the.UK domestic labour market.
The paper qualifications of Indians seem to bear little resemblance to their skills, from personal experience. Until they can work to international audited standards of education they’re going to have problems.
As an anecdote, a lot of Indians in Dubai are doing internationally-recognised professional qualifications - ACA, PMP, CCNP etc. to prove to employers they actually have the required skills.
He's wrong of course. It's like those muppets who sold their shares the morning after the Brexit vote. Those who went in the market and bought had made a heap of cash within weeks.
What would happen is that a) people would not put their property on the market to "wait and see", restricting supply b) those that had to sell would have to drop their price. London way more than in the sticks. Because they are already massively overpriced by foreign demand.
BUT a no-deal Brexit would almost certainly see a considerable fall in the pound. The combined effect: making property much cheaper for your average Chinese or Russian wanting to buy UK property. Not great for Generation Rent, but they will just have a Chinese or Russian biznizman as their landlord.....
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Actually by the time they hit 40 most people in the Midlands, the North, Wales and Scotland will have bought a house, it is only really London and the Home Counties where it is so difficult but of course those areas have the highest value estates left as inheritances too
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Indeed. Some sort of price correction would, in the round, be a good thing, although not so for recent buyers. Trying to scare people on the basis of house prices isn't a great pitch.
Well, they were all going to have to close eventually, as coal seams do not continue indefinitely. But ignoring that for a second, who pays the cost?
Let's say that we kept the UK pits open, and stayed on coal as a generating fuel. This would mean that the cost of electricity generated in the UK would be higher than it would otherwise. Should we pass this on to industry and consumers? And if so, would you ban people from generating their own electricity?
If not, and you would prefer it to come out of general government revenue? And if so, would you have the cost of energy to consumer completely divorced from the cost of generation? And what if the gap kept growing?
It is one of the weirdest things of the last 50 years that almost everyone thinks Thatcher destroyed the coal industry.
The simple fact, of course, is that more pits were closed, and more jobs were lost, in the 11 years before her premiership than during it.
No matter how often one points out this simple fact, it is impossible to get it into the heads of the majority of the population, and the entirety of the Left. Such is the power of myth.
Leaving aside base politics, there might be a reason for the weirdness. Before the 1970s or 1980s, there were many mines. If one closed, there would be employment in another mine nearby. Miners might move long distances to find work (e.g. from Scotland to Yorkshire). As more mines closed and combined, a closure might mean that it was the last mine in the area, and the closure would rip the heart out of a village or area.
In the 1980s a critical moment was reached: coal mining was not large enough to support even the reduced numbers. There was no other mine to move to, at least with the number of vacancies required.
Too many communities existed only because of a mine, and grew around it. In many cases, closure of the mine meant the reason for the community ended - especially as miners were (rightly IMO) well paid.
The 1980s was the tipping point, and it was inevitable. That's not to say the government handled it well, but I doubt there was a 'good' realistic alternative.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
Where does it say that? It's linked to trade, which seems sensible enough. In any case, preferential is a relative measure, not absolute.
It's possible for Brexit to lead to an increase in immigration as the rules are loosened for non-EU countries, as well as EU ones. India and Australia indicated this as an ask for FTAs with us. India in particular wants to supply cheap and well qualified staff into the.UK domestic labour market.
The paper qualifications of Indians seem to bear little resemblance to their skills, from personal experience. Until they can work to international audited standards of education they’re going to have problems.
As an anecdote, a lot of Indians in Dubai are doing internationally-recognised professional qualifications - ACA, PMP, CCNP etc. to prove to employers they actually have the required skills.
I would agree with that. I ran Indian Software teams in and around the Year 2000 and for some years afterwards and it was quite apparent that they fell into two groups
1) The smaller group - talented and capable 2) The larger group - supposedly qualified. Supposedly
They were all shipped here from India to earn the same daily rate for their employer. Part of my job was sorting the wheat from the chaff and demanding large reductions in rates for the less talented. Picking them out was not hard and often only took a few minutes.
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
I wouldn’t say a crash is inevitable but we certainly need a very long period where housing falls in value in real terms if not nominal terms. QE and ultra low interest rates may have saved the bar stewards working for banks but the rest of paid a very heavy price.
The UK is preparing a post-Brexit immigration regime that will give preferential access to citizens from countries that strike comprehensive trade deals with Britain, according to people briefed on the government’s plans.
The overhaul by the Home Office is partly intended to honour the government’s pledge to end the free movement of people to Britain from the European Economic Area — the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
However, for countries that strike deep trade deals with the UK, the new immigration regime is expected to offer preferential access rights to their citizens — when seeking to work in Britain, or just visit — compared with people from nations with less comprehensive agreements. https://www.ft.com/content/e585ee9a-b75f-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1
That's called making a virtue of necessity. Counterparties will insist on good access for their citizens in FTAs with us, particularly for GATS mode 4 exports of services.
Considering that Brexit was (supposedly) about reducing immigration, is the govt now saying that as a result of Brexit it will have to go up?
We need the workers one way or another. We should be grateful that the large majority of our immigrants are employed and hard working. Much of the rest of Europe has many African immigrants who are unemployed and hanging around town centres and sleeping in the parks.
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Indeed. Some sort of price correction would, in the round, be a good thing, although not so for recent buyers. Trying to scare people on the basis of house prices isn't a great pitch.
The other thing that gets missed in commentary, is that while prices are falling it will be almost impossible to get a mortgage on anything without a massive deposit. If prices fall 30% inside a year, banks will want to see 50-60% minimum deposits to ensure they don’t get upside-down on the loans.
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Indeed. Some sort of price correction would, in the round, be a good thing, although not so for recent buyers. Trying to scare people on the basis of house prices isn't a great pitch.
The other thing that gets missed in commentary, is that while prices are falling it will be almost impossible to get a mortgage on anything without a massive deposit. If prices fall 30% inside a year, banks will want to see 50-60% minimum deposits to ensure they don’t get upside-down on the loans.
That would only be true if they fell in nominal terms. Who could doubt that the BoE and the Treasury could skilfully thread a path between nominal and real? :-)
Prices have risen in London by circa 50 per cent since Carney took over and even higher in some areas - so that would only take us back to pre Carney levels. His policies have probably done more to damage the prospects of young people buying a home of any BoE Chairman in history - and destroyed the Tories future source of voters. Of course one day in their mid 60s they may inherit their parents house - just as their own kids leave university after 40 years renting!
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Indeed. Some sort of price correction would, in the round, be a good thing, although not so for recent buyers. Trying to scare people on the basis of house prices isn't a great pitch.
The other thing that gets missed in commentary, is that while prices are falling it will be almost impossible to get a mortgage on anything without a massive deposit. If prices fall 30% inside a year, banks will want to see 50-60% minimum deposits to ensure they don’t get upside-down on the loans.
That would only be true if they fell in nominal terms. Who could doubt that the BoE and the Treasury could skilfully thread a path between nominal and real? :-)
Indeed. Your earlier comment that what’s required is a sustained stability in money terms is pretty much correct. Maybe deflation of 1-2% might be okay, but more than that and there will be problems. Of course this is all mainly a problem in London and the surrounding areas.
Fertility rates are dropping quite markedly, but nearly all the population growth in africa is baked in, due to declining child mortality.
Indeed, 4 out of 10 of the most populous nations will be in Africa in 2060 compared to only 1 out of 10 now
The dropping off the list of Russia is notable. Low birth rates plus emigration of many younger people.
More outgrown, like many developed countries. Russia actually gets quite a lot of immigrants, particularly from the East Ukrain and the Central Asian 'Stans. It has quite a high Muslim population as a result too, higher than UK or Sweden.
""People who deny climate change... I just think it's the most stupid thing ever," Paul Mc Cartney Can't argue with that.
I thought it was the anthropogenic part that was denied?
Still the most stupid thing ever.
I've just taken a look and UK carbon output per person really isn't so bad. Here are the top nations by absolute output ranked on a per capita basis (+ Qatar)
47.9 Qatar 19.6 Saudi Arabia 16.5 Australia 16.5 USA 15.5 Canada 11.7 South Korea 11.4 Russia 9.8 Germany 9.5 Japan 8.4 S Africa 8.2 Iran 7.2 China 6 Italy 5.9 UK 5.3 France 5.1 Turkey Source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Poland is 8.3 tonnes/person, Sweden 4.6, Croatia 4.3, Iceland and Norway both over 10.
Countries who produce lots of oil & gas have high carbon emissions shocker.
If you included the embedded CO2 emissions of imports (and deducted them from exports) the UK would be significantly higher up the list.
Yes, just as we have off shored our manufacturing and mining, we have off shored our pollution.
and in all instances we shouldnt have.
I'm not sure there's much that can be commercially mined in the UK - and if we force British manufacturers to pay for British coal for British electricity, I'm not sure how competitive they'd be.
we force british manufacturers and consumers to subsidise just about every type of energy we have and the clean up
in any case my point was more about pollution, did your mother never tell you tou should always clean your mess up after yourself ?
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Not enough. Need at least double that, probably 3x , or it is doomed to be SDP mark 2.
37 MPs as Cable predicts would be 15 more than the SDP got in 1983 though and 16 more than they got in 1987 and also more than the LDs got in 1992, 2015 and 2017
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Not enough. Need at least double that, probably 3x , or it is doomed to be SDP mark 2.
What I don't understand is what the Lib Dems would get out of all of this - or even from their new Big Idea of forming the kernel of a newer mass-membership organisation. By the time you get serious numbers of MPs (preferably ones with defensible majorities) and a wave of new members and activists on-board (and participating in policy-setting), what's the guarantee that the old Lib Dem core will still decide the direction of it all? They are handing over control of their party, as David Herdson has pointed out more eloquently than me before. Is their only purpose to be a generally wishy-washy party with a central theme of "Rejoin the EU" , do they not have other things they believe in? Because they seem to be pitching themselves as such and that is going to be reflected in the new membership they draw in. Plenty of people want to stop Brexit/rejoin the EU for all kinds of reasons. It'd be a diverse coalition. The top of the Lib Dem party seems to me to be very, very weak on talent and I think it's likely that the Lib Dem old guard would pretty promptly be supplanted by the entrants.
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Not enough. Need at least double that, probably 3x , or it is doomed to be SDP mark 2.
What I don't understand is what the Lib Dems would get out of all of this - or even from their new Big Idea of forming the kernel of a newer mass-membership organisation. By the time you get serious numbers of MPs (preferably ones with defensible majorities) and a wave of new members and activists on-board (and participating in policy-setting), what's the guarantee that the old Lib Dem core will still decide the direction of it all? They are handing over control of their party, as David Herdson has pointed out more eloquently than me before. Is their only purpose to be a generally wishy-washy party with a central theme of "Rejoin the EU" , do they not have other things they believe in? Because they seem to be pitching themselves as such and that is going to be reflected in the new membership they draw in. Plenty of people want to stop Brexit/rejoin the EU for all kinds of reasons. It'd be a diverse coalition. The top of the Lib Dem party seems to me to be very, very weak on talent and I think it's likely that the Lib Dem old guard would pretty promptly be supplanted by the entrants.
It would be what the City would call a reverse takeover. What the current LibDems would get is the opportunity to have some relevance to how the country is governed, albeit as a small part of a larger group. Whether they want that or not is moot.
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Not enough. Need at least double that, probably 3x , or it is doomed to be SDP mark 2.
What I don't understand is what the Lib Dems would get out of all of this - or even from their new Big Idea of forming the kernel of a newer mass-membership organisation. By the time you get serious numbers of MPs (preferably ones with defensible majorities) and a wave of new members and activists on-board (and participating in policy-setting), what's the guarantee that the old Lib Dem core will still decide the direction of it all? They are handing over control of their party, as David Herdson has pointed out more eloquently than me before. Is their only purpose to be a generally wishy-washy party with a central theme of "Rejoin the EU" , do they not have other things they believe in? Because they seem to be pitching themselves as such and that is going to be reflected in the new membership they draw in. Plenty of people want to stop Brexit/rejoin the EU for all kinds of reasons. It'd be a diverse coalition. The top of the Lib Dem party seems to me to be very, very weak on talent and I think it's likely that the Lib Dem old guard would pretty promptly be supplanted by the entrants.
They can say they are the sensible party of the centre. Tory's are right wing, labour is left wing but look, we are the centre party, this is why these Lab and Con moderates joined us.
Fertility rates are dropping quite markedly, but nearly all the population growth in africa is baked in, due to declining child mortality.
Indeed, 4 out of 10 of the most populous nations will be in Africa in 2060 compared to only 1 out of 10 now
The dropping off the list of Russia is notable. Low birth rates plus emigration of many younger people.
Lagos traffic is going to be interesting.
Company I worked for five years ago had an office in Lagos. They did a serious study about buying or leasing helicopters to get around the traffic. They would have done if they’d have found a company who would agree to service them correctly by international standards - as opposed to Lagos maintainance standards, which pretty much guarantee a crash every couple of years. People now allow a whole day to get from one side of the city to the other by car.
After today's tranch of brexit papers I think we can say no deal/wto has sunk without trace
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
That's a bit glib but there's a nuance - are they supporting Theresa May or are they supporting, as you call it, BINO?
It sounds as though you and others expect the EU to water down Chequers even further until it is effectively BINO at which point everyone will declare it a fantastic result and be delighted we've avoided the cliff edge.
BINO will then go through the Commons on a tide of popular acclaim for the Prime Minister after which we will "leave" the EU after the required transition period and in all honesty nothing will change or be any different - a little tinkering with immigration policy and blue passports and that's all 23/6/16 will come to signify.
If you really believe it will be as easy as that....
I stopped the daily mail and mail on sunday newspaper delivery when the paper went on line some time ago at £9.99 per month. The actual paper downloads on upto 3 tablets/phones at around 11.00pm nightly. It is a big saving on buying the paper daily but also my wife loves the on line puzzle section.
After today's tranch of brexit papers I think we can say no deal/wto has sunk without trace
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
It marks the end of the Dacre era. The Daily Mail under the new management might soon support a new public vote on the leave terms!
Strange that the daily mail has just come in line with the mail on sunday, and they are much in line with my view on Brexit now
Not that strange they moved the editor from MOS to DM for that purpose
I didn't realise that BJO but I never understood the two papers strongly divergent views on Brexit
During the 2016 campaign the Mail on Sunday was pro-Remain. Made for lots of interesting links to their opinion pieces, where people were thinking the Daily Mail had switched sides.
Sir Vince Cable claims he has had meetings with 4 or 5 Tory MPs who are ready to defect to the LDs if Theresa May is ousted and Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg replace her as Tory leader.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
Not enough. Need at least double that, probably 3x , or it is doomed to be SDP mark 2.
What I don't understand is what the Lib Dems would get out of all of this - or even from their new Big Idea of forming the kernel of a newer mass-membership organisation. By the time you get serious numbers of MPs (preferably ones with defensible majorities) and a wave of new members and activists on-board (and participating in policy-setting), what's the guarantee that the old Lib Dem core will still decide the direction of it all? They are handing over control of their party, as David Herdson has pointed out more eloquently than me before. Is their only purpose to be a generally wishy-washy party with a central theme of "Rejoin the EU" , do they not have other things they believe in? Because they seem to be pitching themselves as such and that is going to be reflected in the new membership they draw in. Plenty of people want to stop Brexit/rejoin the EU for all kinds of reasons. It'd be a diverse coalition. The top of the Lib Dem party seems to me to be very, very weak on talent and I think it's likely that the Lib Dem old guard would pretty promptly be supplanted by the entrants.
They can say they are the sensible party of the centre. Tory's are right wing, labour is left wing but look, we are the centre party, this is why these Lab and Con moderates joined us.
"They can say they are the sensible party of the centre. ... We are the centre party"
In an age of extremes, the appeal of a centrist/moderate position appear obvious, but my point is that if the Lib Dems (who have so far failed spectacularly to benefit from the apparent advantages of their positioning) go down the reverse-takeover route - as Richard N so nicely put it - it's going to end up being a different they and a different we. This is a fine old party with centuries of history behind it, with far far more to its tradition than wishywashyism and europhilia, do they just want to throw the towel in now and just become a part of something bigger, newer and flasher? Or are they so deluded about the scale and depth of their senior talents that they think, by rights, they shall be the ones who get to steer this grand new ship?
After today's tranch of brexit papers I think we can say no deal/wto has sunk without trace
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
That's a bit glib but there's a nuance - are they supporting Theresa May or are they supporting, as you call it, BINO?
It sounds as though you and others expect the EU to water down Chequers even further until it is effectively BINO at which point everyone will declare it a fantastic result and be delighted we've avoided the cliff edge.
BINO will then go through the Commons on a tide of popular acclaim for the Prime Minister after which we will "leave" the EU after the required transition period and in all honesty nothing will change or be any different - a little tinkering with immigration policy and blue passports and that's all 23/6/16 will come to signify.
If you really believe it will be as easy as that....
No of course it will not be as easy as that but that may be near the end destination. The daily mail has in the last few days strongly supported TM Chequers deal and seems to be distancing itself from ERG and more especially the 5 -10 extreme brexiteers
It is remarkable that after today's no deal cabinet meeting attended by Carney with all kinds of negative economic predictions not one of the cabinet brexiteers have demured. Furthermore Dominc Raab is really beginning to impress after a difficult start and is coming over far better than David Davis ever did.
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
It is remarkable that after today's no deal cabinet meeting attended by Carney with all kinds of negative economic predictions not one of the cabinet brexiteers have demured. Furthermore Dominc Raab is really beginning to impress after a difficult start and is coming over far better than David Davis ever did.
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
The Brexiteers want Brexit. To hell with the consequences.
It is remarkable that after today's no deal cabinet meeting attended by Carney with all kinds of negative economic predictions not one of the cabinet brexiteers have demured. Furthermore Dominc Raab is really beginning to impress after a difficult start and is coming over far better than David Davis ever did.
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
The Brexiteers want Brexit. To hell with the consequences.
After today's tranch of brexit papers I think we can say no deal/wto has sunk without trace
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
That's a bit glib but there's a nuance - are they supporting Theresa May or are they supporting, as you call it, BINO?
It sounds as though you and others expect the EU to water down Chequers even further until it is effectively BINO at which point everyone will declare it a fantastic result and be delighted we've avoided the cliff edge.
BINO will then go through the Commons on a tide of popular acclaim for the Prime Minister after which we will "leave" the EU after the required transition period and in all honesty nothing will change or be any different - a little tinkering with immigration policy and blue passports and that's all 23/6/16 will come to signify.
If you really believe it will be as easy as that....
No of course it will not be as easy as that but that may be near the end destination. The daily mail has in the last few days strongly supported TM Chequers deal and seems to be distancing itself from ERG and more especially the 5 -10 extreme brexiteers
The really curious bit is the DM cheerleading diversity:
“No-deal” Brexit has become a live issue this summer, with extensive discussion of whether it might happen and what the consequences would be if it did. One major missing voice in this discussion, however, has been the British public. Do they think “no-deal” Brexit is likely? What disruptions are they braced for if it comes to pass – and which would come as a surprise?
The public recognise the risk of a no-deal is substantial. While few rate it as certain, a majority of people see it as more likely than not. This majority is remarkably consistent across both partisan and referendum voting divides. The past few months of heated debate over no deal risks and preparations have cut through to voters, most of whom will not be surprised if a “chaotic Brexit” comes to pass next spring.
It is remarkable that after today's no deal cabinet meeting attended by Carney with all kinds of negative economic predictions not one of the cabinet brexiteers have demured. Furthermore Dominc Raab is really beginning to impress after a difficult start and is coming over far better than David Davis ever did.
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
The Brexiteers want Brexit. To hell with the consequences.
After today's tranch of brexit papers I think we can say no deal/wto has sunk without trace
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
That's a bit glib but there's a nuance - are they supporting Theresa May or are they supporting, as you call it, BINO?
It sounds as though you and others expect the EU to water down Chequers even further until it is effectively BINO at which point everyone will declare it a fantastic result and be delighted we've avoided the cliff edge.
BINO will then go through the Commons on a tide of popular acclaim for the Prime Minister after which we will "leave" the EU after the required transition period and in all honesty nothing will change or be any different - a little tinkering with immigration policy and blue passports and that's all 23/6/16 will come to signify.
If you really believe it will be as easy as that....
No of course it will not be as easy as that but that may be near the end destination. The daily mail has in the last few days strongly supported TM Chequers deal and seems to be distancing itself from ERG and more especially the 5 -10 extreme brexiteers
The really curious bit is the DM cheerleading diversity:
It is remarkable that after today's no deal cabinet meeting attended by Carney with all kinds of negative economic predictions not one of the cabinet brexiteers have demured. Furthermore Dominc Raab is really beginning to impress after a difficult start and is coming over far better than David Davis ever did.
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
The Brexiteers want Brexit. To hell with the consequences.
And what do Remainers want?
To Remain. The status quo. To continue with life as it was before all this came along and made difficulties we do not need.
BINO makes me laugh. The Brexiteers will have forced us into a subservient rule-taker were we have even less ability to do what they want. The UK will be further away than ever from being the world-striding trade colossus that we were assured was our glorious future.
Comments
In their defence, AIUI there was a large government fund that was available for a busway but not for a tram or railway - but again AIUI the council's overspend was far greater than that fund.
According to wiki, it was priced at £64 million and ended up at £181 million, and was a couple of years late. After seven years of operation, it requires £36 million in repairs.
The people who really seem to like it are the lawyers ...
What counts as sufficiently train-like to get your interest Sunil? I'd imagine that a guided busway is right at the extremes, perhaps trams less so?
Would maglev go too far the other way? Or perhaps Hyper-loop?
I don't share your passion for trains, but I do entirely understand it. I find myself almost admiring your sometime posts about seeking out some untravelled branch line.
Old railway tracks being reincarnated would I imagine be particularly cool?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Survivaltree.png
Coming in the same week as the 10th anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ collapse, the trading losses will focus attention on the robustness of standards promoted by policymakers globally after the financial crisis."
https://www.ft.com/content/43c74e02-b749-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe
Assuming this holds, the Betfair Exchange odds-on for centre-right leader Ulf being the next PM looks too short. The centre-left are claiming that their man (Stefan Lofgren) should stay on, and the rentre-right opposition are declining to comment. I think laying Ulf is wiser than backing Stefan since a compromise candidate might emerge.
'About 20 Labour MPs were also “waiting to see where Brexit leads” before deciding whether to defect, form a new party or go independent.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sir-vince-cable-sneaking-several-tory-mps-into-his-office-to-discuss-potential-defections-to-libdems-a3934951.html
If you can't buy a pint of milk when you're not supposed to be in the country, then you'll probably relocate yourself.
https://twitter.com/HealthFdn/status/1036140425927634944?s=19
The EU for example...
https://twitter.com/mapsome/status/1028672565752070146?s=19
Fertility rates are dropping quite markedly, but nearly all the population growth in africa is baked in, due to declining child mortality.
Citizen. Passport holder.
Resident. Here of his own right, can sponsor family but needs to pay for health and education. No entitlement to benefits (including tax credits and housing benefit) except contributory pensions.
Guest worker. Sponsored by an employer who pays health insurance and is responsible for deportation after contract finishes. Aimed at seasonal workers in agriculture. No rights to bring family or claim benefits.
Visitor. Short term, not allowed to work and fined for overstaying.
Just the Looe branch left in Cornwall, which if I can do tomorrow morning will allow me to return to London mid-afternoon having successfully executed Operation @SeanT
Guided busway doesn't really run on rails does it? Or Maglev or hyperloop?
I do count Trams, I have done all the UK trams, because they run on rails! They do! In fact some of the outer suburban stretches of Croydon, Sheffield, Midlands Metro and Manchester Metrolink are very train-like, except for the fact that it's a very short "train" (though Manchester do have some double-header trams). Some have been recycled railways, such as Wimbledon to Croydon, the Bury branch and most of the Midland Metro.
Mrs Sandpits best prospect to move here would be Diane Abbott at the Home Office relaxing the rules
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1040301646528565254
Brought up proper, to support West Ham & vote Labour; what did ‘e do; go off to work in the City, buy a Chelsea season ticket and Vote Tory..
You do your best for your kids, bring ‘em up decent and what happens!
Let's say that we kept the UK pits open, and stayed on coal as a generating fuel. This would mean that the cost of electricity generated in the UK would be higher than it would otherwise. Should we pass this on to industry and consumers? And if so, would you ban people from generating their own electricity?
If not, and you would prefer it to come out of general government revenue? And if so, would you have the cost of energy to consumer completely divorced from the cost of generation? And what if the gap kept growing?
Years ago there was a computer game called Railroad Tycoon - it was great! There have been more recent incarnations, but none of them (tried a few) have captured things like signalling, or timetables. Somehow the old game did.
I don't get why I like railways, and timetabling, and signalling, and I guess most of all tunneling (I'm a Londoner), but I do.
Just like, mind, you won't catch me on some long forgotten branch line. The intricate tales though are not unread, and certainly not unappreciated, at least by me.
The simple fact, of course, is that more pits were closed, and more jobs were lost, in the 11 years before her premiership than during it.
No matter how often one points out this simple fact, it is impossible to get it into the heads of the majority of the population, and the entirety of the Left. Such is the power of myth.
Oh, and whatever happened to hectopascals?
Of course no one can know for certain what will happen to house prices and it wouldn't be even across the country - and Carney's predictions haven't exactly been entirely accurate so far! And it would give him another excuse to have more QE and cut interest rates which will no doubt suit his old Goldman Buddies.
A house price crash Is inevitable sometime. No doubt the same people who benefitted from the last serious crash in the early 1990s - 2009 was merely a ripple - and bought homes dirt cheap in London will moan and say how disastrous it would be - even though it dealt them a favour 25 to 30 years ago!
Plus we have the balance of payments impact of importing raw materials and manufactured goods that we used to be self sufficient in.
I simply do not care any more. It is the stupidest decision since the Golgafrinchams adopted the leaf as a form of currency, but hey-ho.....
As an anecdote, a lot of Indians in Dubai are doing internationally-recognised professional qualifications - ACA, PMP, CCNP etc. to prove to employers they actually have the required skills.
What would happen is that a) people would not put their property on the market to "wait and see", restricting supply b) those that had to sell would have to drop their price. London way more than in the sticks. Because they are already massively overpriced by foreign demand.
BUT a no-deal Brexit would almost certainly see a considerable fall in the pound. The combined effect: making property much cheaper for your average Chinese or Russian wanting to buy UK property. Not great for Generation Rent, but they will just have a Chinese or Russian biznizman as their landlord.....
In the 1980s a critical moment was reached: coal mining was not large enough to support even the reduced numbers. There was no other mine to move to, at least with the number of vacancies required.
Too many communities existed only because of a mine, and grew around it. In many cases, closure of the mine meant the reason for the community ended - especially as miners were (rightly IMO) well paid.
The 1980s was the tipping point, and it was inevitable. That's not to say the government handled it well, but I doubt there was a 'good' realistic alternative.
1) The smaller group - talented and capable
2) The larger group - supposedly qualified. Supposedly
They were all shipped here from India to earn the same daily rate for their employer. Part of my job was sorting the wheat from the chaff and demanding large reductions in rates for the less talented. Picking them out was not hard and often only took a few minutes.
in any case my point was more about pollution, did your mother never tell you tou should always clean your mess up after yourself ?
https://twitter.com/bbradleymp/status/1040167331010408448?s=21
Indeed BINO or near seems the likely deal. I am happy with that and the momentum seems to be gathering for TM and the ERG increasingly isolated.
Interesting that the Daily Mail have turned against ERG and are now supporting TM
https://twitter.com/jakubkrupa/status/1040332168852066304?s=21
People now allow a whole day to get from one side of the city to the other by car.
It sounds as though you and others expect the EU to water down Chequers even further until it is effectively BINO at which point everyone will declare it a fantastic result and be delighted we've avoided the cliff edge.
BINO will then go through the Commons on a tide of popular acclaim for the Prime Minister after which we will "leave" the EU after the required transition period and in all honesty nothing will change or be any different - a little tinkering with immigration policy and blue passports and that's all 23/6/16 will come to signify.
If you really believe it will be as easy as that....
In an age of extremes, the appeal of a centrist/moderate position appear obvious, but my point is that if the Lib Dems (who have so far failed spectacularly to benefit from the apparent advantages of their positioning) go down the reverse-takeover route - as Richard N so nicely put it - it's going to end up being a different they and a different we. This is a fine old party with centuries of history behind it, with far far more to its tradition than wishywashyism and europhilia, do they just want to throw the towel in now and just become a part of something bigger, newer and flasher? Or are they so deluded about the scale and depth of their senior talents that they think, by rights, they shall be the ones who get to steer this grand new ship?
If we had had Raab and Hunt from the start, instead of the lazy Davis and riduculous Boris, maybe a deal would have been a lot easier
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1040278769334857733?s=19
Heaven has a place for a sinner who repents. All rather different to swarming immigrants wearing Burkas.
The public recognise the risk of a no-deal is substantial. While few rate it as certain, a majority of people see it as more likely than not. This majority is remarkably consistent across both partisan and referendum voting divides. The past few months of heated debate over no deal risks and preparations have cut through to voters, most of whom will not be surprised if a “chaotic Brexit” comes to pass next spring.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/09/what-voters-actually-think-about-no-deal-brexit
NEW THREAD
https://www.covi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Common-Vision-A-Generation-Together-July-2018-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwig8P_T5bjdAhWpDcAKHe8RArUQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2pgucqqCaFNfJa2KxMu81p
BINO makes me laugh. The Brexiteers will have forced us into a subservient rule-taker were we have even less ability to do what they want. The UK will be further away than ever from being the world-striding trade colossus that we were assured was our glorious future.
Brexit is a pig-in-a-poke outcome.