Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
But he agreed to that in CETA!
No he didn't. Admittedly the immigration rules built into CETA are limited but they apply equally to all EU nationalities. The EU enforces non discrimination in practice by reciprocating on the other's most restricted policy. So Canada had a visa requirement for certain East European countries but not for Germans, French etc. The EU said they would apply visas for Canadians visiting any part of Schengen if they didn't lift their own visa requirements.
Competent speech as a holding operation. I wouldn't think it will be remembered for very long (any more than Corbyn's this year), but it should give a reasonable poll bounce next week, and more importantly it creates a breathing space to do something.
But what?
Sell Brexiteers down the river.... After conning them into voting for her in 2017?
Being a Brexiteer, especially at this late juncture, is equivalent to wearing a sandwich board saying "PLEASE CON ME" in foot-high letters. You can hardly complain when people take you up on the offer.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
*** Unless he means the Irish. ***
Javid’s plan is to prevent people like his father immigrating, isn’t it?
Probably not in practice, given all the various areas of the economy that are going to demand exemptions to fill jobs. It won't be "free movement" but it will still be a couple of hundred thousand people a year moving to the UK. The only real difference is that maybe some EU citizens will find it marginally harder than simply getting on a coach and ferry, and in no case will nationality be the issue.
Exactly. If we are short of fruit pickers 18 year old Romanians straight out of school will I'm sure be welcome to pick it on a temporary visa.
What will hopefully end is the state of affairs where said 18 year old Romanian (or any other citizen of the EU) can pitch up without a word of the language or affinity for the UK no questions asked, whereas 32 year old Australian doctors who have every skill to fit right in immediately have far more hoops to jump through.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
*** Unless he means the Irish. ***
Javid’s plan is to prevent people like his father immigrating, isn’t it?
Probably not in practice, given all the various areas of the economy that are going to demand exemptions to fill jobs. It won't be "free movement" but it will still be a couple of hundred thousand people a year moving to the UK. The only real difference is that maybe some EU citizens will find it marginally harder than simply getting on a coach and ferry, and in no case will nationality be the issue.
I suspect that this is right. And it will be predominantly EU citizens filling the vacancies because the UK is easier and cheaper to get to for them - and they will not need visas to enter the country.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
They damn well should!
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
No, that's a red herring, the government has repeatedly said it will have rules based primarily on the needs of the economy, and nursing is a candidate for very generous rules indeed.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
No, that's a red herring, the government has repeatedly said it will have rules based primarily on the needs of the economy, and nursing is a candidate for very generous rules indeed.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
Since there is so few of them the answer is most surely no. Not to mention NI and income tax receipts.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
They damn well should!
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
Any leaver with any sense would realise that BINO is exactly what they need. Getting out with minimal disruption now will create the smallest number of losers and make the whole thing an anti-climax. They can then chip away at the various things they object to one at a time. Three terms of anti Eu governments will achieve everything they want. There's no need for any but the most minor of disruption - just a reasonable amount of patience.
Wise words. I have never understood why my fellow Brexiteers, doughty yeopersons full of pluck though they may be... are in such a tearing hurry.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Have a listen to what he actually said.
Is the tweet not an accurate reflection of his speech?
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
Nope. There are several ways that a person is considered valuable to a country. Either they earn a high salary and contribute financially, they invest money in businesses that create jobs, or they fulfil a role for which we have a shortage.
Footballers and nurses are both going to be welcome. Big Issue sellers and Uber drivers less so. Farm workers could be accommodated under something similar to the temporary work permit scheme we had before FoM, whereby a farmer or gangmaster is responsible for his workers and ensuring they leave the country before their visa expires.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
I'm 99% certain that whatever rules we have in future that footballers, the clubs, the Premier League, and Sky will not be unhappy. It would take a particularly stupid politician or civil servant to mess with that particular part of the economy.
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
I assume you mean the parliament. If it does wouldn't that simply be democracy in action?
It would be the mother of all crisis for the EU which would effectively be voting down an agreement between the 27 and UK
It would send stock markets and currencies into chaos
Well whatever way the UK leaves is going to be disruptive. But if the EU parliament has a right to veto the deal that isn't a constitutional problem. It does make agreeing to a deal a little harder because we have to satisfy a lot of people's red lines. But that is what we voted for. Brexit means Brexit.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
No, that's a red herring, the government has repeatedly said it will have rules based primarily on the needs of the economy, and nursing is a candidate for very generous rules indeed.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
When it comes to who Chelsea or Man City want, no.
There's already (or was at least), I think, some "formula" based on having played x% of internationals for a team in the top 75 of FIFA's list, so that Lionel Messi doesn't get excluded, should he fancy a change of scene, in favour of some clodhopper from Finland playing in Bolton's reserves.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
No, the A50 deal is agreed by QMV.
Article 50(2):
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the [European] Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
I'm 99% certain that whatever rules we have in future that footballers, the clubs, the Premier League, and Sky will not be unhappy. It would take a particularly stupid politician or civil servant to mess with that particular part of the economy.
'It would take a particularly stupid politician or civil servant to mess with that particular part of the economy.’
Neither are in short supply at the moment. Particularly the former.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
They do have to pay those costs up front. The local government pension schemes have to be fully-funded. They're not like central government schemes which are paid out of current revenue (and which therefore can build up huge future liabilities without an immediate impact).
"Every country in the world (other than the U.S.) has signed the Paris Climate Agreement, a landmark treaty designed to curtail the effects of global warming. The core of the treaty is the goal to limit total warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Any more warming than that would have catastrophic consequences for the entire planet and every person living there.
But a report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gives a grim prognosis about reaching that goal. In an environmental impact statement published in July, the NHTSA predicts nearly twice as much warming as the maximum allowed by the Paris Agreement: about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or nearly 4 degrees Celsius.
What’s more, the NHTSA uses that extreme warming prediction as a reason to justify rolling back environmental regulations aimed at curbing emissions from cars and trucks. Essentially, the administration’s argument is that future warming will be so severe that there’s no point in doing anything to stop it."
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
No, the A50 deal is agreed by QMV.
Article 50(2):
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the [European] Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Yes, you're right. The withdrawal agreement needs only QMV, but the Withdrawal agreement is intended to be followed up by a new treaty establishing the UK's permanent relationship with the EU, which would require unanimous consent.
I presume the New Treaty is intended to happen... at some point.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
They damn well should!
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
But we are not short of footballers and there is no advantage to a foreign footballer paying tax over a native footballer.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
No, that's a red herring, the government has repeatedly said it will have rules based primarily on the needs of the economy, and nursing is a candidate for very generous rules indeed.
Clearly that’s right. However, without ‘overseas’ footballers, will the Premier League be able to sell it’s (TV) product overseas? And there’s always a long discussion in the autumn among cricket aficionados about which overseas player their club should hire next season. I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
When it comes to who Chelsea or Man City want, no.
There's already (or was at least), I think, some "formula" based on having played x% of internationals for a team in the top 75 of FIFA's list, so that Lionel Messi doesn't get excluded, should he fancy a change of scene, in favour of some clodhopper from Finland playing in Bolton's reserves.
Yes, it’s been an issue with the occasional African or South American player over the years, failing to get a work permit as not a regular international player at the right level. IMO if someone is offered a salary of £5m on PAYE then the Home Office should bend over backwards for them, unless the security services have an objection.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni border issue because it is of utmost importance to the Irish and the British don't take it seriously, as the last comments on this thread demonstrate. I don't particularly blame Theresa May for Brexit so far turning out as I confidently expected it to. But her government has been cackhanded on quite a lot of points. None more so than Ireland, which will be damaged in equal measure to us and therefore shares an interest in the outcome and should normally be an ally for us in the EU. I guess that's a downside to throwing their lot in with the DUP who rather like Irish borders.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
Listening to Verhofstadt banging on they should, but back in the real world the Irish would have a fit of the vapours about having to choose, and so everyone will reach for the GFA to wrap the fudge in and waffle on about "long standing agreements pre dating the EU"
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
They damn well should!
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
But we are not short of footballers and there is no advantage to a foreign footballer paying tax over a native footballer.
But there's no disadvantage to letting clubs pay foreign benchwarmers stupid wages. We ought to encourage as many of these people to come here as we can.
TM pledge directly to the Scottish Fishing Industry to rid them of the Fishery policy will have been very well received throughout the North of Scotland and her attack on Nicola Sturgeon over fishing was well made
I remember my dear late father in law, who was himself one of Scotlands most successful skippers, berating the EU as we were about to join. The fishermen were livid
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
Most - possibly all - EU countries discriminate on the rights of particular non-EU citizens to live and work in their country - mostly as regards their former Empire. So, there are special rules on Cape Verde residents living and working in Portugal. As these do not confer any special privileges on the ability of Cap Verdians (?) to reside outside Portugal, they are legal. So, I think the EU would struggle to alter arrangements (not just Ireland, but Malta and Cyprus) that predated EU membership (or even existence).
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni border issue because it is of utmost importance to the Irish and the British don't take it seriously, as the last comments on this thread demonstrate. I don't particularly blame Theresa May for Brexit so far turning out as I confidently expected it to. But her government has been cackhanded on quite a lot of points. None more so than Ireland, which will be damaged in equal measure to us and therefore shares an interest in the outcome and should normally be an ally for us in the EU. I guess that's a downside to throwing their lot in with the DUP who rather like Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
Listening to Verhofstadt banging on they should, but back in the real world the Irish would have a fit of the vapours about having to choose, and so everyone will reach for the GFA to wrap the fudge in and waffle on about "long standing agreements pre dating the EU"
The EU has principles like Groucho Marx.
The EU's key principle - like every rational economic actor - is to put its own (institutional) interests firsts.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
Listening to Verhofstadt banging on they should, but back in the real world the Irish would have a fit of the vapours about having to choose, and so everyone will reach for the GFA to wrap the fudge in and waffle on about "long standing agreements pre dating the EU"
The EU has principles like Groucho Marx.
The EU's key principle - like every rational economic actor - is to put its own (institutional) interests firsts.
Sure. Which is why they can be creative when they feel like it. Which is fine.
It's the pious incantations of "the four freedoms" being kissed like some latter day saintly relic, as if Juncker had gone up Mt Blanc and come back with them lasered by Godly lightening into granite, that get me.
Mr. 1000, the EU puts its political goals above economic reality. Cramming together so many countries into the single currency was a political, not economic, project.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
Want to bet?
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
You raise a good point about the Irish, who aren't considered foreigners under UK law. Will the EU insist that practice end in the name of ending discrimination?
Listening to Verhofstadt banging on they should, but back in the real world the Irish would have a fit of the vapours about having to choose, and so everyone will reach for the GFA to wrap the fudge in and waffle on about "long standing agreements pre dating the EU"
The EU has principles like Groucho Marx.
The EU's key principle - like every rational economic actor - is to put its own (institutional) interests firsts.
Sure. Which is why they can be creative when they feel like it. Which is fine.
It's the pious incantations of "the four freedoms" being kissed like some latter day saintly relic, as if Juncker had gone up Mt Blanc and come back with them lasered by Godly lightening into granite, that get me.
Tell me about it! The word sanctimonious comes to mind.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni border issue because it is of utmost importance to the Irish and the British don't take it seriously, as the last comments on this thread demonstrate. I don't particularly blame Theresa May for Brexit so far turning out as I confidently expected it to. But her government has been cackhanded on quite a lot of points. None more so than Ireland, which will be damaged in equal measure to us and therefore shares an interest in the outcome and should normally be an ally for us in the EU. I guess that's a downside to throwing their lot in with the DUP who rather like Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni border issue because it is of utmost importance to the Irish and the British don't take it seriously, as the last comments on this thread demonstrate. I don't particularly blame Theresa May for Brexit so far turning out as I confidently expected it to. But her government has been cackhanded on quite a lot of points. None more so than Ireland, which will be damaged in equal measure to us and therefore shares an interest in the outcome and should normally be an ally for us in the EU. I guess that's a downside to throwing their lot in with the DUP who rather like Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
The other parties are Sinn Fein ( hardly friends ) and FF ditto
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
"There are many factors at play here. The dissident threat is obviously top of the list. Most Nationalists joining the PSNI pretty much have to give up everything – they can’t live in a Nationalist area, they may have to give up their sport and other social interests, their families and friends are intimidated."
"Also, the pay is not great. You start out at £23k. Would you seriously risk your life for that? I would not want that grief. There is a huge skills shortage across Northern Ireland. You can walk into an IT job or similar that pays more money and with zero risk of anyone trying to stick a bomb under your car."
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni border issue because it is of utmost importance to the Irish and the British don't take it seriously, as the last comments on this thread demonstrate. I don't particularly blame Theresa May for Brexit so far turning out as I confidently expected it to. But her government has been cackhanded on quite a lot of points. None more so than Ireland, which will be damaged in equal measure to us and therefore shares an interest in the outcome and should normally be an ally for us in the EU. I guess that's a downside to throwing their lot in with the DUP who rather like Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
The other parties are Sinn Fein ( hardly friends ) and FF ditto
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
And, of course, the Irish would argue it the other way around. What is indisputable is that the UK created the problem and that before the referendum we were told by the Buccaneering Brexiteers there were absolutely no issues to worry about.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni e Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
The other parties are Sinn Fein ( hardly friends ) and FF ditto
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
And, of course, the Irish would argue it the other way around. What is indisputable is that the UK created the problem and that before the referendum we were told by the Buccaneering Brexiteers there were absolutely no issues to worry about.
Maybe, but Varadkar has chosen to create a problem in addition to anything else. Pissing about with the North is generally a no gain option for politicians Irish or British. Worse since he has made even less preparatiuons than the UK he is truly "backed" as TMay might say if there is no agreement.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni e Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
The other parties are Sinn Fein ( hardly friends ) and FF ditto
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
And, of course, the Irish would argue it the other way around. What is indisputable is that the UK created the problem and that before the referendum we were told by the Buccaneering Brexiteers there were absolutely no issues to worry about.
Maybe, but Varadkar has chosen to create a problem in addition to anything else. Pissing about with the North is generally a no gain option for politicians Irish or British. Worse since he has made even less preparatiuons than the UK he is truly "backed" as TMay might say if there is no agreement.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
The EU is intransigent on the Ni e Irish borders.
It is of no importance to the Irish in any meaningful way, read an Irish newspaper, the UK talks more about the border than the Irish do,
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
If this is just a chance for somewhat out of character Fine Gael Brit bashing, presumably other parties are taking a different line and are sharply criticising the government's approach.
The other parties are Sinn Fein ( hardly friends ) and FF ditto
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
And, of course, the Irish would argue it the other way around. What is indisputable is that the UK created the problem and that before the referendum we were told by the Buccaneering Brexiteers there were absolutely no issues to worry about.
Maybe, but Varadkar has chosen to create a problem in addition to anything else. Pissing about with the North is generally a no gain option for politicians Irish or British. Worse since he has made even less preparatiuons than the UK he is truly "backed" as TMay might say if there is no agreement.
An idiot
We'll see.
I doubt there will be much to see, both sides need an agreement now so one will get done.
It was difficult not to conclude that Tory party has been gamified in a way that rewards aggressive imbecility. The signal that you wish to be taken seriously as leadership material is to say something incredibly stupid. For Jeremy Hunt, that meant declaring, pointedly: “The EU was set up to protect freedom. It was the Soviet Union that stopped people leaving.” Yes. Last year the EU was Hitler; this year it is Stalin. Like almost every minister who has insulted the other side in this negotiation since article 50 was triggered, Hunt predicated his trash talk on the idea that the EU doesn’t have the internet, and that this sort of WTF-ery is somehow firewalled by the white cliffs of Dover. It isn’t, as furious condemnation from the people we want a deal off has since confirmed.
Whether or not they can admit it to themselves, both parties (though Labour more so, being the opposition) are effectively waiting for a crisis to shift the numbers in their favour. No deal, a recession, a welfare system failure – the best hope for moving the polls is one disaster or another befalling the people whom their different forms of ineptitude have already shamefully failed. That is the most likely gamechanger – and a reminder that however atrocious the current state of politics feels, it is still not the darkest timeline. There are much darker ones, and we could easily cross into several of them.
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev, as much as I disagree with you about the EU, you should stay and post whatever the hell you like. We hear enough claptrap about ancient Rome, trains and F1 on here, so having a shoe crazy, Irish passport wielding, gobby bird on here is the least of our worries!
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev, as much as I disagree with you about the EU, you should stay and post whatever the hell you like. We hear enough claptrap about ancient Rome, trains and F1 on here, so having a shoe crazy, Irish passport wielding, gobby bird on here is the least of our worries!
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev, as much as I disagree with you about the EU, you should stay and post whatever the hell you like. We hear enough claptrap about ancient Rome, trains and F1 on here, so having a shoe crazy, Irish passport wielding, gobby bird on here is the least of our worries!
I still cannot buy that. Unless there is a deal which pleases a lot of people (vs satisfies enough), which won't happen, then while her position can strengthen, she is still holed below the waterline as it were when it comes to another election, and even appearing stronger and that she might continue on itself provokes others to be clear they will not allow it.
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev - you post on what you want - don't let anyone decide what you can and can't say... (well, within limits anyway - but little is worse than TSE's attempts at humour)
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev, as much as I disagree with you about the EU, you should stay and post whatever the hell you like. We hear enough claptrap about ancient Rome, trains and F1 on here, so having a shoe crazy, Irish passport wielding, gobby bird on here is the least of our worries!
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
Ok. I can arrange that.
Bev, as much as I disagree with you about the EU, you should stay and post whatever the hell you like. We hear enough claptrap about ancient Rome, trains and F1 on here, so having a shoe crazy, Irish passport wielding, gobby bird on here is the least of our worries!
Indeed so.
Also +1
(But I’d like to point out we most definitely do not hear enough claptrap about AV or pineapple pizza )
Sorry to see an awful lot of rubbish being posted on here in relation to Brexit - Alan Brooke take a bow.
To change the subject - what do people think about ending the cap on local government borrowing to build housing? I've had grave concerns about councils getting involved in the property investment business to plug the hole in their finances. Regional governments have gone bust all over the world. Perhaps if it is well regulated?
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
They damn well should!
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
But we are not short of footballers and there is no advantage to a foreign footballer paying tax over a native footballer.
UK football is a good export earner for the UK, so I don't think that's true. Would the Premier League be able to sell rights for so much to Korean TV if Son Heung Min didn't play for Tottenham?
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
She had to face down immediately any possible barbs and did so with style, elegance and, can I be saying this, wit.
Sorry to see an awful lot of rubbish being posted on here in relation to Brexit - Alan Brooke take a bow.
To change the subject - what do people think about ending the cap on local government borrowing to build housing? I've had grave concerns about councils getting involved in the property investment business to plug the hole in their finances. Regional governments have gone bust all over the world. Perhaps if it is well regulated?
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
Sorry to see an awful lot of rubbish being posted on here in relation to Brexit - Alan Brooke take a bow.
To change the subject - what do people think about ending the cap on local government borrowing to build housing? I've had grave concerns about councils getting involved in the property investment business to plug the hole in their finances. Regional governments have gone bust all over the world. Perhaps if it is well regulated?
One man's rubbish is another man's expert opinion. I can't see how you can be the judge of what is or isn't a valid view on Brexit, being as no fecker seems to know what the hell is going on.
It has all become rather vulgar really. Very difficult to imagine Thatcher doing anything like that - never mind Macmillan, Eden or Churchill. Not that Labour are any better.
Just seen the short warm up speech before TM by Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General. That was a speech and a half, quite brilliant. A bit like Richard Burton declaiming Prince Hal's Agincourt address.
Unfortunately I don't have the skill to post it here. I saw it on temporary subscription to the Telegraph website courtesy of Waitrose.
Just seen the short warm up speech before TM by Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General. That was a speech and a half, quite brilliant. A bit like Richard Burton declaiming Prince Hal's Agincourt address.
Unfortunately I don't have the skill to post it here. I saw it on temporary subscription to the Telegraph website courtesy of Waitrose.
Comments
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/two-in-five-irish-exporters-traded-only-with-the-uk-in-2016-37380913.html
What will hopefully end is the state of affairs where said 18 year old Romanian (or any other citizen of the EU) can pitch up without a word of the language or affinity for the UK no questions asked, whereas 32 year old Australian doctors who have every skill to fit right in immediately have far more hoops to jump through.
The footballer is liable for taxes that would pay for dozens of nurses not just one.
I wonder if there’ll be controls on sports people.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1047497722155229185?s=20
Footballers and nurses are both going to be welcome. Big Issue sellers and Uber drivers less so. Farm workers could be accommodated under something similar to the temporary work permit scheme we had before FoM, whereby a farmer or gangmaster is responsible for his workers and ensuring they leave the country before their visa expires.
Shouldn't she have given credit to the person who wrote it for her ?
There's already (or was at least), I think, some "formula" based on having played x% of internationals for a team in the top 75 of FIFA's list, so that Lionel Messi doesn't get excluded, should he fancy a change of scene, in favour of some clodhopper from Finland playing in Bolton's reserves.
Article 50(2):
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the [European] Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Neither are in short supply at the moment. Particularly the former.
Can't imagine it's a happy day in the Corbyn Lubyanka.
I can't think of a single country in the world where immigration policies do not discriminate on terms of nationality. I would be genuinely staggered if we were different.
And that's not by accident. That are historic cultural, as well as geographical ties. I would be extremely surprised if - for example - we were to remove the historic rules that treat Irish citizens differently from those from the rest of the world. Equally, I would expect that working holidays for young people from former Commonwealth countries would continue. And I can think of a dozen more examples.
That said, a footballer's salary would provide the tax revenue to pay for quite a few nurses.
"Every country in the world (other than the U.S.) has signed the Paris Climate Agreement, a landmark treaty designed to curtail the effects of global warming. The core of the treaty is the goal to limit total warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Any more warming than that would have catastrophic consequences for the entire planet and every person living there.
But a report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gives a grim prognosis about reaching that goal. In an environmental impact statement published in July, the NHTSA predicts nearly twice as much warming as the maximum allowed by the Paris Agreement: about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or nearly 4 degrees Celsius.
What’s more, the NHTSA uses that extreme warming prediction as a reason to justify rolling back environmental regulations aimed at curbing emissions from cars and trucks. Essentially, the administration’s argument is that future warming will be so severe that there’s no point in doing anything to stop it."
http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/science/trump-administration-forecasts-7-degrees-fahrenheit-global-warming-2100/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFpYYZjj4I8
I presume the New Treaty is intended to happen... at some point.
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1047507432325488646?s=20
The EU has principles like Groucho Marx.
@Sandpit
Exactly. If the new Ronaldo is from Thailand, and Liverpool want to pay him £5M I can't see HMRC passing up over £2M.
I remember my dear late father in law, who was himself one of Scotlands most successful skippers, berating the EU as we were about to join. The fishermen were livid
It i simply a negotiating pawn and Varadkar is using it to brit bash ahead of an impending GE to boost his popularity.
Any sensible Irish government would not have allowed it to be used as an issue and pragmatically sorted the issue out with its biggest trading partner
but Leo had 3600 graves he felt he could use.
It's the pious incantations of "the four freedoms" being kissed like some latter day saintly relic, as if Juncker had gone up Mt Blanc and come back with them lasered by Godly lightening into granite, that get me.
Moscovici: “In Italia governo euroscettico e xenofobo. Faremo rispettare le regole”
Italy is run by eurosceptics and xenophobes. We will make them obey the rules
https://www.lastampa.it/
my view remains FG have cut a deal with the Commission to use the border in return for going easy on tax reform.
Varadkar has set back UK Irish relations after a decade of steady improvement, the man is an idiot
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1047509719055835137?s=20
PSNI struggling to attract Catholics
https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/10/03/with-80-of-police-recruits-now-coming-from-the-unionist-community-is-this-another-example-of-how-northern-ireland-is-regressing/
"There are many factors at play here. The dissident threat is obviously top of the list. Most Nationalists joining the PSNI pretty much have to give up everything – they can’t live in a Nationalist area, they may have to give up their sport and other social interests, their families and friends are intimidated."
"Also, the pay is not great. You start out at £23k. Would you seriously risk your life for that? I would not want that grief. There is a huge skills shortage across Northern Ireland. You can walk into an IT job or similar that pays more money and with zero risk of anyone trying to stick a bomb under your car."
An idiot
Whether or not they can admit it to themselves, both parties (though Labour more so, being the opposition) are effectively waiting for a crisis to shift the numbers in their favour. No deal, a recession, a welfare system failure – the best hope for moving the polls is one disaster or another befalling the people whom their different forms of ineptitude have already shamefully failed. That is the most likely gamechanger – and a reminder that however atrocious the current state of politics feels, it is still not the darkest timeline. There are much darker ones, and we could easily cross into several of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/03/theresa-may-tory-conference-boris-johnson-marina-hyde
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-cornwall-45735591
The rebels may not be so confident they have the grass roots behind them.
I expect those predicting booing are feeling particularly foolish.
(But I’d like to point out we most definitely do not hear enough claptrap about AV or pineapple pizza
To change the subject - what do people think about ending the cap on local government borrowing to build housing? I've had grave concerns about councils getting involved in the property investment business to plug the hole in their finances. Regional governments have gone bust all over the world. Perhaps if it is well regulated?
Cf 8 Mile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVje4C1nTt0
Unfortunately I don't have the skill to post it here. I saw it on temporary subscription to the Telegraph website courtesy of Waitrose.
It's here for those who have access:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/03/move-boris-johnson-tories-have-new-brexit-champion-sir-geoffrey/
Rather bizarre interlude at 2:20