As far as I can see the only difference between Corbyn's planned Deal and May's Deal is Corbyn wants the UK in a permanent Customs Union rather than a temporary Customs Union with a few more workers' rights added on, so if he did extend Article 50 that would be what he was aiming for
Corbyn wants a cakeist customs union where the UK and Commission jointly run trade policy for the EU + UK.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
As far as I can see the only difference between Corbyn's planned Deal and May's Deal is Corbyn wants the UK in a permanent Customs Union rather than a temporary Customs Union with a few more workers' rights added on, so if he did extend Article 50 that would be what he was aiming for
Corbyn wants a cakeist customs union where the UK and Commission jointly run trade policy for the EU + UK.
As far as I can see the only difference between Corbyn's planned Deal and May's Deal is Corbyn wants the UK in a permanent Customs Union rather than a temporary Customs Union with a few more workers' rights added on, so if he did extend Article 50 that would be what he was aiming for
It is not Corbyn's deal. It is Labour's and specifically Starmers. Jezza wants out of the capitalists club. Always has and always will.
But he can't decide what to actually do, because he loses friends and fellow campaigners which ever way turns.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
Are you been serious or polemic?
Ironic
You can't be ironic about a steelworks. It's a pig of thing to do.
Corbyn is not having a great week: https://www.twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1076378828912689152 But the suggestion Pidcock might be his successor is a crazy one. She would be the youngest leader of a political party since 1783, and she is no Pitt the Younger or even William Hague. She is controversial even among Labour and she still has awkward questions to answer about her work ethic (Italy vs UC, anybody)?
Replacing Corbyn with her would be like replacing a pea-shooter with a water pistol before a battle with somebody sporting an AK 47.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
We tried all of that. It just resulted in us making really shitty cars and products others don’t want. We now have highest levels of labour participation since the whole post war consensus in the 70s collapsed around us.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
I was going to say 'politics' but on reflection...
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
As far as I can see the only difference between Corbyn's planned Deal and May's Deal is Corbyn wants the UK in a permanent Customs Union rather than a temporary Customs Union with a few more workers' rights added on, so if he did extend Article 50 that would be what he was aiming for
It is not Corbyn's deal. It is Labour's and specifically Starmers. Jezza wants out of the capitalists club. Always has and always will.
But he can't decide what to actually do, because he loses friends and fellow campaigners which ever way turns.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
Of course the Tories did it!!!! It's as stupid to say the Tories didn't do it as to say the Nazis didn't 'do it' because a majority of the public voted for Hitler. They asked the country a stupid question which they were unqualified to answer and we're left deep in the shit as a result.
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
Short-term yes, but you're taking on a debt: Those people who would have eventually got jobs in something more productive (where they had a comparative advantage) are still in destroying value, and you have to keep on subsidizing the business to keep them doing it.
There may be a case for doing this kind of thing short-term to smooth the transition, but democratic politics isn't very good at making decisions like this; What tends to happen in practice is that resources get sucked into lobbying and bribing politicians instead, the people who need help don't get helped, and zombie industries just keep on sucking up subsidies indefinitely. Whereas if you help people whose industries die with normal methods like benefits, tax credits, free/subsidized education and training etc, the government doesn't have to micromanage who should get it, so there's less scope for corruption and mismanagement.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
Outdated? So no one builds ships, no one makes steel, no one mines coal, no one makes textiles, no one makes consumer white goods?
All of these industries are very much alive and well. Elsewhere.
That’s OK though - the nail bar sector is flourishing.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
The Tories are in charge and, at the moment, they are running full-steam towards the cliff-edge. They can see the polls showing opinion has changed but they insist that nothing has changed and we must Brexit.
It is in their power to stop this. If they choose not to then the blame is all theirs.
I will also save a portion for Corbyn, but his crime is more one of being a blinkered ar*e in thtrall to an out-moded and discredited political doctrine. Marxiem has been a failure everywhere it has been tried.
If enough outraged MPs created a Centrist party with the countries best interests at heart then i wold vote for it in a heartbeat.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
Of course the Tories did it!!!! It's as stupid to say the Tories didn't do it as to say the Nazis didn't 'do it' because a majority of the public voted for Hitler. They asked the country a stupid question which they were unqualified to answer and we're left deep in the shit as a result.
It may be a stupid question to people who want to remain in the EU.
We are entitled to get a certain amount of expertise from our government if not a duty of care. If we wanted a bunch of moronic fat slobs from Harlipool to determine our future at least they could give us sufficent waning so that those of us with an IQ abouve room temperature could have time to make altenative arrangents.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
Nationalising and bailing out Rolls-Royce when they bankrupted themselves developing the RB211 was probably the right move in hindsight.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
Outdated? So no one builds ships, no one makes steel, no one mines coal, no one makes textiles, no one makes consumer white goods?
All of these industries are very much alive and well. Elsewhere.
As far as I can see the only difference between Corbyn's planned Deal and May's Deal is Corbyn wants the UK in a permanent Customs Union rather than a temporary Customs Union with a few more workers' rights added on, so if he did extend Article 50 that would be what he was aiming for
It is not Corbyn's deal. It is Labour's and specifically Starmers. Jezza wants out of the capitalists club. Always has and always will.
But he can't decide what to actually do, because he loses friends and fellow campaigners which ever way turns.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
Of course the Tories did it!!!! It's as stupid to say the Tories didn't do it as to say the Nazis didn't 'do it' because a majority of the public voted for Hitler. They asked the country a stupid question which they were unqualified to answer and we're left deep in the shit as a result.
It may be a stupid question to people who want to remain in the EU.
I'm afraid it's a stupid question. Full stop. We are the EU and the EU are us. Their rules are our rules and vice versa. We can't split from then any more than we can split from ourselves because it is one and the same thing.
That’s OK though - the nail bar sector is flourishing.
At the risk of sounding like the kind of cunt I hate, you're talking Britain down. Britain has a lot of really good industries that it does really well. Pharma is excellent, higher education is very good, software development is good and often great especially stuff like game development, finance is often world-beating. The things I mentioned are are *service* industries, but "service industry" doesn't equal "nail bar" and the hard currency you get for selling those services to foreigners is just as good as if you were selling them coal. And there's a fair bit of high-value-add manufacturing too.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
Outdated? So no one builds ships, no one makes steel, no one mines coal, no one makes textiles, no one makes consumer white goods?
All of these industries are very much alive and well. Elsewhere.
That’s OK though - the nail bar sector is flourishing.
We still build ships, planes, cars and military vehicles. However we use bits from other countries in the construction process. Those bits will become harder to obtain post-Brexit and the locally-constructed substitutes will be more expensive and/or worse.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
Of course the Tories did it!!!! It's as stupid to say the Tories didn't do it as to say the Nazis didn't 'do it' because a majority of the public voted for Hitler. They asked the country a stupid question which they were unqualified to answer and we're left deep in the shit as a result.
It may be a stupid question to people who want to remain in the EU.
I'm afraid it's a stupid question. Full stop. We are the EU and the EU are us. Their rules are our rules and vice versa. We can't split from then any more than we can split from ourselves because it is one and the same thing.
That’s OK though - the nail bar sector is flourishing.
At the risk of sounding like the kind of cunt I hate, you're talking Britain down. Britain has a lot of really good industries that it does really well. Pharma is excellent, higher education is very good, software development is good and often great especially stuff like game development, finance is often world-beating. The things I mentioned are are *service* industries, but "service industry" doesn't equal "nail bar" and the hard currency you get for selling those services to foreigners is just as good as if you were selling them coal. And there's a fair bit of high-value-add manufacturing too.
I completely agree. It always annoyed me that "services" are treated like an after-thought to Manufacturing. As if they were somehow 2nd rate
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
You've been telling us all that was imminently going to happen for the last 30 months.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
Of course the Tories did it!!!! It's as stupid to say the Tories didn't do it as to say the Nazis didn't 'do it' because a majority of the public voted for Hitler. They asked the country a stupid question which they were unqualified to answer and we're left deep in the shit as a result.
There was no election in which a majority of the German public voted for Hitler. The best he managed in a contested election was 43% in 1933. The best he managed in a democratic election was 37% in July 1932 (and that was more than he got in a personal vote in the 1932 presidential election).
There were referendums but they were rigged, had only one party for election, and were marked by even more massive massive voter intimidation.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
What if the sky doesn't fall in? What will you piss and moan about then?
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit .
Holding the referendum was a Tory policy. The party was officially neutral, and did everything possible to legitimise Brexit so as not to offend their own members. This included having serving cabinet ministers say that if we vote Leave we can dictate the terms because they need us more than we need them.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
What if the sky doesn't fall in? What will you piss and moan about then?
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
What if the sky doesn't fall in? What will you piss and moan about then?
Why is it good for the country? It might be, but fans of Norman Tebbitt's "on your bike", German economic performance and Pret A Manger sandwiches, should note that renting means a more flexible labour market.
And yet semi manufactured goods exports are up, even the EU statistics say that they are importing more from the UK.
It's much more likely that this guy has a bad business model and is trying to pin the blame elsewhere like Jamie Oliver when his restaurants went under.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
What if the sky doesn't fall in? What will you piss and moan about then?
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
It's like you read the first half of my comment, but missed the second.
What's wrong with how Germany has revitalised the forner DDR?
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
I am pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about.
"undertakings and organisations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names or, if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date."
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Why is it good for the country? It might be, but fans of Norman Tebbitt's "on your bike", German economic performance and Pret A Manger sandwiches, should note that renting means a more flexible labour market.
I rather suspect that Norman's subsequent advice on finding a job would have been to buy a house.
The converse to flexibility is stability - too much of one side is not necessarily a good thing.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
And yet semi manufactured goods exports are up, even the EU statistics say that they are importing more from the UK.
It's much more likely that this guy has a bad business model and is trying to pin the blame elsewhere like Jamie Oliver when his restaurants went under.
Just read the guys posts - he talks about business down across the board and he explicitly mentioned China as a problem area
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
What if the sky doesn't fall in? What will you piss and moan about then?
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
What's the problem with anybody having a 'eu' domain? Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
The only one I can think of that ever gained any sort of traction is, rather ironically, leave.eu
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
What's the problem with anybody having a 'eu' domain? Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
None, just weird if you are solely operating in the UK. Like I said, I suspect a lot of those are redirects.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
The only one I can think of that ever gained any sort of traction is, rather ironically, leave.eu
Hah, very true. I hope the EU enjoys the couple of quid they get a year from that
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
Yes, the UK could do that - the domains are owned by countries and countries can do what they like. Japan does something similar with .co.jp domains: You have to provide a bunch of corporate registration documents to get one. (OTOH you can register .jp without any fuss.)
Hopefully it won't be too long before a properly decentralized DNS system like ENS gets some traction and we won't have this weird layer of legacy nation states getting between us and our cat pictures.
McDonnell said as much on Thursday. However, he went on to say that he agreed with the Varoufakis approach of sending as many socialists as possible to Brussels to achieve reform from within.
Madness. The abandonment of state aid has made the whole European continent wealthier and leaner.
I'm sure the former steelworkers of Redcar will agree.
The UK lacks indigenous iron ore. It lacks cheap energy.
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Look at the bigger picture. If you shut down industry the state has to pay people to sit at home. Healthcare costs rise. Social services costs rise. Criminality increases. Academic performance of the next generation declines. Other businesses in the area go to the wall. Our balance of payments deficit gets worse.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
When you say ‘can’, could you point to an example of when supporting outdated industry has been a success?
Nationalising and bailing out Rolls-Royce when they bankrupted themselves developing the RB211 was probably the right move in hindsight.
Sometimes pragmatism requires exceptions. But it must only ever be done for a short time. The current single market rules do allow state aid in exceptional circumstances.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
It's surprisingly common. However, the cost of setting up an Estonian subsidiary to own the .eu domain is de minimis
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
What's the problem with anybody having a 'eu' domain? Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
We can ban non-UK companies if we wish. Don't see why we'd bother though.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
What's the problem with anybody having a 'eu' domain? Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
None, just weird if you are solely operating in the UK. Like I said, I suspect a lot of those are redirects.
As for tv, it also stands for television.
... which is why the users chose it. Presumably Tuvalu gets some dosh out of it.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
We can ban non-UK companies if we wish. Don't see why we'd bother though.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
Why were they using a .eu address in the first place if it's a UK-only company? I suspect a lot of these are just redirects. e.g., bbc.eu goes to bbc.co.uk
What's the problem with anybody having a 'eu' domain? Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
None, just weird if you are solely operating in the UK. Like I said, I suspect a lot of those are redirects.
As for tv, it also stands for television.
... which is why the users chose it. Presumably Tuvalu gets some dosh out of it.
And the benefit of using only an eu address if you are UK company? Might be cheaper, but I suspect most of them are redirects to a uk address.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
We can ban non-UK companies if we wish. Don't see why we'd bother though.
I agree, it seems like a stupid and petty idea, if anything getting overseas companies to register .co.uk domains and websites/redirects is advantageous IMO.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
Leave.eu might have to pay for some rebranding though.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
Leave.eu might have to pay for some rebranding though.
Transition to Leave.uk and campaign for an independent England.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
We can ban non-UK companies if we wish. Don't see why we'd bother though.
I agree, it seems like a stupid and petty idea, if anything getting overseas companies to register .co.uk domains and websites/redirects is advantageous IMO.
Different TLDs were established for different reasons and were approved on that basis. It's not possible to then change these rules without seeking agreement from ICANN - and that would be a very long and involved process. However, if the .eu TLD was designed specifically to allow EU-based businesses to identify themselves as such it also makes no sense to allow non-EU businesses to own them.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
The waste of time and money comes in redoing existing materials, literature, businesses cards etc.
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
The waste of time and money comes in redoing existing materials, literature, businesses cards etc.
For the handful of companies that use it as their main address. The rest will just let it expire at no expense.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
And, if these problems don't occur, what will you complain about then?
I should add that i did have some customers who were uk based and traded in Holland under a .eu domain. That was their only domain and so they will undoubtedly be affected
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
And, if these problems don't occur, what will you complain about then?
One little snippet - there are 317,000 ".eu" domains registered to British companies. After Brexit none of these companies will be allowed to keep their .eu domains.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
I'm pretty sure anyone can register any kind of domain.
No, you have to be domiciled in an EU member state. There are similar rules for many other TLDs.
Does that mean we can bar EU companies from registering .co.uk domains? Seems like a crazy system...
The rules are established when the TLD is signed off. Different TLDs have different rules. I am not sure why you'd want a .co,uk TLD if you do not do business in the UK or are not a UK-based company. There might even be an argument that using one if you have no UK link is actually deceptive.
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
The waste of time and money comes in redoing existing materials, literature, businesses cards etc.
I doubt it will be a big issue for many, to be honest.
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
That's just projection. Lot's of people support Brexit, and support the Conservatives accordingly,
And when the supermarket doesn't have x,y,z because of Brexit the Conservatives will collect all the blame.
The only reason it isn't obvious now is because Labour is so bad....
There are a couple of generations of UK citizens who have grown up in a world of almost endless choice, and ready supply of goods, food and services. You have to be at least, what 50-odd, to even remember the three day week or 70s power cuts etc, never mind war rationing.
Given the state people get into when say KFC can't deliver, or there is a rail strike, then there will be almighty hell if any of the No Deal warnings turn out to be true.
I should add that i did have some customers who were uk based and traded in Holland under a .eu domain. That was their only domain and so they will undoubtedly be affected
Can they not do what Robert suggested, open an Estonian subsidiary for peanuts and keep the website registered under that subsidiary?
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
And, if these problems don't occur, what will you complain about then?
Catastropharians always find something new.
Catastropharians should take it easy, man. Hit the ganja...might be your last spliff inna babylon....
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
The Tories did not do this, the public voted for Brexit and both Tories and Labour are officially in favour of Brexit.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
When we are in a massive recession and numerous supply problems, lacking fresh food, transport issues etc etc the public will blame the Tories and they will pay dearly for the mess. It is the Tory Brexit. They own it, lock, stock and broken barrel.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
And, if these problems don't occur, what will you complain about then?
Comments
But he can't decide what to actually do, because he loses friends and fellow campaigners which ever way turns.
This is instructive from Demos researcher: https://capx.co/brexit-will-be-jeremy-corbyns-waterloo/
https://twitter.com/menosave/status/1076051191468036096/photo/1
Would the ERG headbangers campaign under a manifesto that included May's deal? or a 2nd referendum?
Equally, would Morgan Soubry, Clarke, Greive, Hammond, Rudd etc. etc. camapign for a manifesto which had No Deal in it?
The more I think about it, let's have a snap GE!
(At least there are lots of edge pieces I see!
Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise things that we cannot have a competitive advantage in perpetually?
Or would it be better if the government - as happened in East Germany - encouraged and subsidised areas to move on?
Corbyn is not having a great week:
https://www.twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1076378828912689152
But the suggestion Pidcock might be his successor is a crazy one. She would be the youngest leader of a political party since 1783, and she is no Pitt the Younger or even William Hague. She is controversial even among Labour and she still has awkward questions to answer about her work ethic (Italy vs UC, anybody)?
Replacing Corbyn with her would be like replacing a pea-shooter with a water pistol before a battle with somebody sporting an AK 47.
https://twitter.com/batanball/status/1076230038251622400
The Tories are going to reap a whirlwind for doing this to Britain.
It can be more cost effective for government to intervene to support British industry and British society. As well being the ethical thing to do.
How do you choose and direct who gets support?
It was the people of Britain who voted to leave.
The Tories being in government means they will deservedly take more blame for any negative outcomes, but this idea the Tories have 'done this' to Britain is one of those absolutely ludicrous things that just keeps popping up. Even pointing to the fact they did indeed authorise the referendum does not help that, since it still required the public to approve it, and then the vast majority of MPs, Labour and Tory, to actually enact the result.
There may be a case for doing this kind of thing short-term to smooth the transition, but democratic politics isn't very good at making decisions like this; What tends to happen in practice is that resources get sucked into lobbying and bribing politicians instead, the people who need help don't get helped, and zombie industries just keep on sucking up subsidies indefinitely. Whereas if you help people whose industries die with normal methods like benefits, tax credits, free/subsidized education and training etc, the government doesn't have to micromanage who should get it, so there's less scope for corruption and mismanagement.
All of these industries are very much alive and well. Elsewhere.
That’s OK though - the nail bar sector is flourishing.
It is in their power to stop this. If they choose not to then the blame is all theirs.
I will also save a portion for Corbyn, but his crime is more one of being a blinkered ar*e in thtrall to an out-moded and discredited political doctrine. Marxiem has been a failure everywhere it has been tried.
If enough outraged MPs created a Centrist party with the countries best interests at heart then i wold vote for it in a heartbeat.
It wont count one jot to bleat to voters 'oh but you voted for it in a referendum' or 'Labour put it in their manifesto too'.
https://twitter.com/naeemsarfraz/status/1075688060485029888?s=21
There were referendums but they were rigged, had only one party for election, and were marked by even more massive massive voter intimidation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46649565
That's what we British do best.
The costs of updating websites and marketing materials are not zero. Also the time spent re-working stuff.
All unnecessary cost and wasted time.
It's much more likely that this guy has a bad business model and is trying to pin the blame elsewhere like Jamie Oliver when his restaurants went under.
What's wrong with how Germany has revitalised the forner DDR?
Still anyone who stops working for him will soon be recruited by more successful businesses.
"undertakings and organisations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names or, if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date."
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names
The converse to flexibility is stability - too much of one side is not necessarily a good thing.
Many companies have a 'tv' extension without having any connection to Tuvalu.
As for tv, it also stands for television.
Hopefully it won't be too long before a properly decentralized DNS system like ENS gets some traction and we won't have this weird layer of legacy nation states getting between us and our cat pictures.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13759
This was first published in The Times.
https://domaintyper.com/top-websites/most-popular-websites-with-eu-domain
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1076459301319987200
It's also the case that it costs very little to register and maintain a TLD, so it would be very unusual for a UK business to have a .eu TLD and not a .co.uk one if they are domiciled here, so in practical terms the loss of the .eu moniker is not going to be that disruptive for many businesses.
The only reason it isn't obvious now is because Labour is so bad....
I have sent the Christmas Crossword to Mike's email address. It's a (Christmas) Cracker!
Please can you confirm this has been received and that the grid is in a format that is able to be published. Thanks.
St John
A .eu domain allowed the staff to have a .eu email address whichever office they work out of.
Until Brexit.
Given the state people get into when say KFC can't deliver, or there is a rail strike, then there will be almighty hell if any of the No Deal warnings turn out to be true.