I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’re really talking about Brexit. If you don’t like it, don’t do it
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’re really talking about Brexit. If you don’t like it, don’t do it
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
The number of new private sector jobs created must be very significant.
UC reforms to make work pay are working. That is much better for people to be in work and able to support themselves than relying upon a broken benefits system.
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
The number of new private sector jobs created must be very significant.
UC reforms to make work pay are working. That is much better for people to be in work and able to support themselves than relying upon a broken benefits system.
It is excellent news that so many people have found work.
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
The number of new private sector jobs created must be very significant.
There was some discussion about this on the BBC stats program More or Less today.
Contrary to popular belief, the employment growth figures are not skewed by disproportionate growth in low hours or zero hours contract work.
The number of involuntary temporary and part-time workers seems to have peaked early in 2013 and fallen steadily since (although still higher than before the recession):
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
There was some discussion about this on the BBC stats program More or Less today.
Contrary to popular belief, the employment growth figures are not skewed by disproportionate growth in low hours or zero hours contract work.
I'm a big fan of More or Less - really lucid and doesn't dumb down with silly examples like some science programmes. But a more common critique of the employment figures is that they reflect employers drawing on an abundance of very cheap labour and the economy as a whole is under-productive. High employment is clearly better than the reverse. But in a really healthy economy, employers automate and people upskill, though it's very difficult to make that work smoothly.
There was some discussion about this on the BBC stats program More or Less today.
Contrary to popular belief, the employment growth figures are not skewed by disproportionate growth in low hours or zero hours contract work.
I'm a big fan of More or Less - really lucid and doesn't dumb down with silly examples like some science programmes. But a more common critique of the employment figures is that they reflect employers drawing on an abundance of very cheap labour and the economy as a whole is under-productive. High employment is clearly better than the reverse. But in a really healthy economy, employers automate and people upskill, though it's very difficult to make that work smoothly.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
They'll keep it as well.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
So its 25% in the UK, 26% in Germany and 27% in Austria but the Netherlands has 50% part time employment ???
If someone is employed for 2 or 3 days a week, does that mean they're not included in the unemployment figures? Interesting question.
If you work just one hour a week and if you work unpaid for family, such as caring for a family member, you appear to be classified as employed and therefore not included in the unemployment figures.
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work."
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
What do they teach Republicans these days? Smh...
Ann Coulter is mad as a hatter.
But...she did go on the record to say that Trump would become President - to mighty guffaws and mocking.
"Well," to quote Bob Monkhouse "they're not laughing now..."
He joins the long, long list of people on all sides of the Brexit shitfest that really need to be beaten around the head with an inflated puffer fish until they come to their senses.
So its 25% in the UK, 26% in Germany and 27% in Austria but the Netherlands has 50% part time employment ???
If someone is employed for 2 or 3 days a week, does that mean they're not included in the unemployment figures? Interesting question.
If you work just one hour a week and if you work unpaid for family, such as caring for a family member, you appear to be classified as employed and therefore not included in the unemployment figures.
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work."
So its 25% in the UK, 26% in Germany and 27% in Austria but the Netherlands has 50% part time employment ???
If someone is employed for 2 or 3 days a week, does that mean they're not included in the unemployment figures? Interesting question.
If you work just one hour a week and if you work unpaid for family, such as caring for a family member, you appear to be classified as employed and therefore not included in the unemployment figures.
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work."
There was some discussion about this on the BBC stats program More or Less today.
Contrary to popular belief, the employment growth figures are not skewed by disproportionate growth in low hours or zero hours contract work.
I'm a big fan of More or Less - really lucid and doesn't dumb down with silly examples like some science programmes. But a more common critique of the employment figures is that they reflect employers drawing on an abundance of very cheap labour and the economy as a whole is under-productive. High employment is clearly better than the reverse. But in a really healthy economy, employers automate and people upskill, though it's very difficult to make that work smoothly.
One of the best programmes on radio IMO. Thinking Allowed is good too.
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
What do they teach Republicans these days? Smh...
Ann Coulter is mad as a hatter.
But...she did go on the record to say that Trump would become President - to mighty guffaws and mocking.
"Well," to quote Bob Monkhouse "they're not laughing now..."
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
They'll keep it as well.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
Our Brexit-voting nextdoor neighbours are not wealthy but did put their savings into a flat in southern Spain. They thought retiring there would be cheap because of free healthcare etc. It'll be interesting to see if they still make a go of it.
George HW Bush? The WWII naval aviator who survived a crash into the Pacific? Former CIA head George HW Bush? The President who won a war so convincingly that they paused the bombing because they were killing too many enemy troops? That George HW Bush???
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
The Donald may have lost but Melania's won some money off the Telegraph.
We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/26/melania-trump-apology/
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
It's all very well carping and complaining but I don't see you coming up with any better solutions.
Don’t need a solution to the Monarchy, it knits state and democracy together very nicely, certainly better than an elected president in the role, who could be some hands on extremist. Other alternative to elected presidency would be to expand and beef up the office of commons speaker, giving them extra responsibilities and power. Ha! Nuff said? We love our Queen.
Things are a darn sight clearer than this time last week. The Murrison amendment passes, the Gov, DUP, ERG and Dublin and EU then start working together getting creative with backstop mechanics and clever words effectively putting up ladders to help brexit MPs down from the lofty positions they built for themselves, help down to ensure May’s deal gets through. And it will. We will exit EU this spring or early summer based on May’s deal, once the Murrison amendment is passed, because it lights a path forward where May’s deal passes parliament all the other scenario, no deal crash out, peoples vote, Norway models will all be dead in the water.
Maybe not early as Tuesday evening but certainly before end of coming week, betting markets will show brexit as near certain to happen in coming months. And if you really don’t like what I am saying, and consider this crazy, see you here same time next week. 😁
This is a betting blog, here’s an interesting bet. When we brexit without CU this spring early summer, how long until we are back in the customs union? Nothing to stop parties adding this to their GE manifesto’s. A majority, perhaps plurality of voters would be in favour, so its not going to harm anyone’s chances of winning a GE with that in their manifesto. But I cant see it in any Conservative manifesto any time soon, so there’s clear water between them and other parties. It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Torys fight it, they cant use disrespecting the 2016 vote because we will have brexited based on 2016 vote, hence whole new ball game, fair play for parties to add it to their manifestos and fight GE on signing up to the CU.
I reckon not much more than 8 years, that’s two GE, perhaps even less. 🤔
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
It's all very well carping and complaining but I don't see you coming up with any better solutions.
Don’t need a solution to the Monarchy, it knits state and democracy together very nicely, certainly better than an elected president in the role, who could be some hands on extremist. Other alternative to elected presidency would be to expand and beef up the office of commons speaker, giving them extra responsibilities and power. Ha! Nuff said? We love our Queen.
I was thinking of a solution to the current brexit zugzwang. I'm perfectly prepared to consider options that *don't* involve Her Majesty faking her own death and starting a new life in Penang, but I want to hear about the specifics.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
I think it's implicit in @Dura_Ace's post that there's support for the monarchy with the current Queen. I wouldn't go so far as to extrapolate that to all eternity like @Casino_Royale does but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
I expect a small drop, but probably only temporary. The end of the second Elizabethan age will be something to reflect upon. The Britain and Empire of 1953 was a lifetime ago, and a very diferent country.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’ve continually argued that? Did nobody point out that EEA countries already take part and have observers on the management board?
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’re really talking about Brexit. If you don’t like it, don’t do it
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I don't think anyone is too fucked about that apart from, perhaps, a certain amount of bemusement at his choices.
He is a conceited fucker who can't keep his mouth shut. He will be acutely aware that he has been The Man Who Would be King for a very long time and may not have a very long reign as active monarch. He will want to make his mark and secure his historical legacy. Calamity will ensue.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
While it is unlikely Charles would be a good, popular or long lasting king, I doubt if he would be fatal for the monarchy. One, his age makes it improbable any head of steam could be built up for a republic during what will almost certainly be the short time he is king. Two, his sons are more popular - especially William - and if there were a crisis Charles' abdication in his favour would almost certainly resolve it. Three, there is an awful lot of other stuff to unpick - remember Her Maj is the queen or Head of State of the UK, sixteen other countries, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - and throwing them into involuntary chaos would be unpopular just at the moment we're grovelling for trade deals. I don't see us abolishing the monarchy until at least Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Jamaica have.
The real problem is not only that republicans are a minority and a very small if very vocal one, but that bluntly there are more urgent constitutional issues out there than the monarchy. Shall we start with the House of Lords, the emasculation of local government partly through these daft unitary authorities the size of postage stamps, the decolutionary imbalance and the absurdity of the Speaker being MP for a specific constituency? I don't see anyone pushing for fundamental reform of the Head of State role until these have been sorted out.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I don't think anyone is too fucked about that apart from, perhaps, a certain amount of bemusement at his choices.
He is a conceited fucker who can't keep his mouth shut. He will be acutely aware that he has been The Man Who Would be King for a very long time and may not have a very long reign as active monarch. He will want to make his mark and secure his historical legacy. Calamity will ensue.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’ve continually argued that? Did nobody point out that EEA countries already take part and have observers on the management board?
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
I expect a small drop, but probably only temporary. The end of the second Elizabethan age will be something to reflect upon. The Britain and Empire of 1953 was a lifetime ago, and a very diferent country.
Look we know Charles is someone who will break his marriage vows for his own degenerate pleasures, a man like that will break his coronation oath to the country for similar reasons, then country really will be in a bad place.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
I expect a small drop, but probably only temporary. The end of the second Elizabethan age will be something to reflect upon. The Britain and Empire of 1953 was a lifetime ago, and a very diferent country.
Look we know Charles is someone who will break his marriage vows for his own degenerate pleasures, a man like that will break his coronation oath to the country for similar reasons, then country really will be in a bad place.
You mean it will be like last time? Will there be some kind of break with a powerful and corrupt trans-European organisation determined on stamping out dissent, but we keep everything the same except the blue passports, er, Head of the Church?
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’ve continually argued that? Did nobody point out that EEA countries already take part and have observers on the management board?
Fundamentally it makes sense for the IK to play a full role in the EMA. The EU has rejected that. As with Galileo it’s a silly short-sighted decision
Surely it makes sense for an EU organisation to a) have only EU members as full members and b) to be based in an EU member country.
And, IIRC the UK decided to leave, as a consequence of Brexit. Like Euratom.
Something like the EMA works well in no small part thanks to the contribution of the MHRA. There are no benefits to public health of fragmenting the approval of drugs and regulatory standards. There are no sovereignty implications of the U.K. remaining a member post Brexit.
In a rational world the authorities would create an associate membership for the U.K.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
They'll keep it as well.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
Our Brexit-voting nextdoor neighbours are not wealthy but did put their savings into a flat in southern Spain. They thought retiring there would be cheap because of free healthcare etc. It'll be interesting to see if they still make a go of it.
They need to get their skates on. When the UK becomes a third country, third country immigration rules will apply to UK citizens.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
We could ease into a republic gently by saying the monarch has to be someone in the royal family, but the voters get to pick which one.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
We could ease into a republic gently by saying the monarch has to be someone in the royal family, but the voters get to pick which one.
Er, no. I thought about that as a possible compromise once, but the risk of Prince Andrew becoming King is simply too high.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
Yes, who would have thought that leaving the EU would mean no longer hosting EU bodies?
It rather reminds me of this classic poll finding on Freedom of Movement:
While there's a hefty dollop of 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrisy in that there is also a certain logic.
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Quite right, rich people should have rights to Freedom of movement that poor people should not. Those poor folk should stay where they belong.
Which is exactly the policy governments follow all across the world.
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
Yes, the irony is that @roger, @tyson and myself will all effectively keep FOM, as will the Dysons and Moggs of the world, but the Leavers who formerly retired to the Costas lose it.
They'll keep it as well.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
To retire to the Costas currently you need the price of an air fare, enough money to pay your rent and to live on day to day. You need money, but you don't have to be rich. Not for much longer.
To work on the Costas - as many tens of thousands of very ordinary Brits do either full-time or seasonally - you just need UK citizenship. Not for much longer.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
We could ease into a republic gently by saying the monarch has to be someone in the royal family, but the voters get to pick which one.
I hesitate to suggest any historical parallel with a distinguished historian about, but isn't that what the Saxons did before those wretched European Normans took over the Government?
Of course it wasn't his country then! Or, arguably, mine!
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
I don’t think any of the Remainers who gave responded on this topic have actually read my post.
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
The EU was acting in the only way open to it - as the approach of a No Deal Brexit demonstrates.
Er, no. I thought about that as a possible compromise once, but the risk of Prince Andrew becoming King is simply too high.
Or come at the compromise from the opposite end: The monarchy passes in a direct line through the Royal Family as now, but every year the monarch rolls 3 dice, and if they all come up sixes we elect a new family.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
You’ve continually argued that? Did nobody point out that EEA countries already take part and have observers on the management board?
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
I'm not quite sure if that includes the loss of 150 temporary workers or not though. If it doesn't the figure would be around 32%.
“Redundancy is not being offered to staff who don’t want to move to Amsterdam”
I’m sure that under our ever so lax UK employment regulations you can’t force a employee to move country...
Mr Eagles would know more than this given he's been affected, but my understanding of UK law is that if you relocate, you are obliged to offer your staff the chance to move with you. However, if they do not wish to move, you are not then obliged to assist them further and can hold them to have resigned.
Responsible, flexible and humane employers wouldn't behave like that, of course, but the EU are not responsible, are completely inflexible and prize abstract principles above employees (except Selmayr) so that doesn't apply.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
I'm not quite sure if that includes the loss of 150 temporary workers or not though. If it doesn't the figure would be around 32%.
“Redundancy is not being offered to staff who don’t want to move to Amsterdam”
I’m sure that under our ever so lax UK employment regulations you can’t force a employee to move country...
IIRC the staff were asked if they wanted to go. There's also the question of the agency work carried out by our own MHRA, which may or may not continue.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
We could ease into a republic gently by saying the monarch has to be someone in the royal family, but the voters get to pick which one.
I hesitate to suggest any historical parallel with a distinguished historian about, but isn't that what the Saxons did before those wretched European Normans took over the Government?
Of course it wasn't his country then! Or, arguably, mine!
Only if there was no clear heir, as under Edward the Confessor. But that applied under the Normans too - cf Stephen, Henry II, and Henry VII, not to mention James I and George I.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’s unnecessary in the sense that the staff don’t want it, the FDA doesn’t like it, the pharma companies don’t want it and patients will suffer. But the EU commission can go and buff their nails and feel good about themselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
Is she planning to drop dead? Because that is the only thing she could do that would temporarily unite the nation. Even me and my fellow small R republicans would be happy because the monarchy is not going to survive C&C.
It's worth a shot - I bet the EU would grant an extension if TMay said everybody was busy with state funerals and things.
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
Couple of disgusting posts here.
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
The people agree with you (at least, back in 2013 )
Those numbers will collapse once Charles becomes King.
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Seem to recall a poll somewhere which suggested that the Crown should skip a generation and pass straight from Elizabeth II to William V.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
We could ease into a republic gently by saying the monarch has to be someone in the royal family, but the voters get to pick which one.
I hesitate to suggest any historical parallel with a distinguished historian about, but isn't that what the Saxons did before those wretched European Normans took over the Government?
Of course it wasn't his country then! Or, arguably, mine!
Only if there was no clear heir, as under Edward the Confessor. But that applied under the Normans too - cf Stephen, Henry II, and Henry VII, not to mention James I and George I.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
I don't see us abolishing the monarchy until at least Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Jamaica have.
The Australians, possibly with one eye on the Brexit fiasco, are going for a two referendum model. The first will be a Yes/No republic question and the second will decide the replacement as head of state. Labor (currently 1.1 odds to win the imminent election) are going to create a cabinet minister for Quexit to oversee the process with a view to completing it within the term of the government.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
I'm not quite sure if that includes the loss of 150 temporary workers or not though. If it doesn't the figure would be around 32%.
“Redundancy is not being offered to staff who don’t want to move to Amsterdam”
I’m sure that under our ever so lax UK employment regulations you can’t force a employee to move country...
Mr Eagles would know more than this given he's been affected, but my understanding of UK law is that if you relocate, you are obliged to offer your staff the chance to move with you. However, if they do not wish to move, you are not then obliged to assist them further and can hold them to have resigned.
Responsible, flexible and humane employers wouldn't behave like that, of course, but the EU are not responsible, are completely inflexible and prize abstract principles above employees (except Selmayr) so that doesn't apply.
Surely it’s our liability since we’re kicking out the EU.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’sthemselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
Not really. It is approaching because Mrs May triggered Article 50. It was only then that the EMA gave notice of its departure.
I thought Henry VII was 'right of conquest', battlefield coronation and so on. And hadn't George I been designated ever since Anne's surviving child died?
Yes, but according to primogeniture he was from the junior line, not the senior line. The Act of Settlement however disinherited all his older cousins including James II's son and settled the crown on the only other Protestant, Sophia of Hanover (whose son George was).
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
That timetable was set when we took back control by invoking A50. The movement of the Agency was inevitably triggered by that.
This is just one of many ways our influence on world affairs is diminished by Brexit, but should surprise no one.
I am sure a Brexiteer will be along in a minute to tell us that
1) this never happened. It is all EU lies or 2) this is a great victory for Britain or 3) All of the above...
It’s a shame, unnecessary and a net negative to world health. But the EU has chosen to do it. I note that they are not highlighting how many EMA staff have chosen to stay in London and work for the MHRA...
Unnecessary? Seriously delusional. We voted to leave. You support it. What on Earth do you expect?
I’ve continually argued that the EU and U.K. would benefit from opening up the EMA to non EU members.
It’sthemselves.
I think it’s outrageous the Commission itself is not in Norway.
You may be happy with the institution you support taking actions that will damage public health. I would not be, if I in your shoes.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
The EMA is an EU institution that quite obviously should be located within a territory where EU law is sovereign and will remain so.
We scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
There is however a problem with that argument and that is it seems unlikely to function effectively in Amsterdam either. One quarter of their staff have left, and most of the big research centres are still in the UK.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
The approach of a No Deal Brexit shows that the decision to rush was exactly right.
No deal Brexit is approaching because everything has been done too fast. So actually it tends to undermine your point.
Not really. It is approaching because Mrs May triggered Article 50. It was only then that the EMA gave notice of its departure.
When you hear Trump talking to his country as if they're simpletons it's difficult not to think of them like that. A bit like you do with the studio audience of Britain's Got Talent
Comments
Nothing has changed!
' Doncaster, Barnsley and Grimsby have the worst employment prospects of any major towns in the UK, according to an independent analysis.
A study by the Work Foundation found the three Northern cities were the hardest hit from the recession, with "very low" levels of employment in growth sectors combined with relatively low-skilled populations.
All three areas also rely heavily on public sector jobs, meaning they will take a further hit when the Government sheds hundreds of thousands of state workers to bring down the country's deficit. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7871466/Revealed-UK-towns-where-its-hardest-to-find-a-job.html
makes an interesting contrast this month's Guardian:
' South Yorkshire and Merseyside recorded the strongest levels of jobs growth in the decade since the financial crisis, according to a report that also finds low-income households have benefited more than richer ones.
The rise in the national employment rate to 75.7%, the highest level on record, has been driven by comparatively low-employment areas of the UK “catching up” over the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation.
While it is often assumed that job creation is centred on London, the thinktank’s report found that the biggest regional increase in the employment rate since the 2008 financial crash was in South Yorkshire. Employment rose by 6.5 percentage points to 71.7% in the region, which contains Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/14/uk-jobs-boom-strongest-in-south-yorkshire-and-merseyside-thinktank-finds
The number of new private sector jobs created must be very significant.
What do they teach Republicans these days? Smh...
British people who move to other European countries tend to work in better jobs and/or be more affluent than the locals whereas people who migrate to Britain from other European countries tend to work in lower level jobs and/or be poorer.
And people generally are happier with rich and highly skilled migrants rather than poor and lower skilled migrants.
Contrary to popular belief, the employment growth figures are not skewed by disproportionate growth in low hours or zero hours contract work.
To be fair, Ann Coulter is very much on the howling-at-the-moon wing of the party. She makes even the nuttiest pols we've got here look like geniuses.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics
According to the ONS the countries with the highest levels of part time employment are those with the lowest levels of unemployment:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics
So its 25% in the UK, 26% in Germany and 27% in Austria but the Netherlands has 50% part time employment ???
https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2018/12/10/narrower-productivity-figures/
Its a lot easier for a millionaire or a brain surgeon to migrate to another country than a poverty stricken peasant.
To retire to the Costas you need money.
For that matter you need money if you retire to Clacton or Cleethorpes.
"The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/methodologies/aguidetolabourmarketstatistics#employment
"Well," to quote Bob Monkhouse "they're not laughing now..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC9Pch4__M8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_and_Wickford_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Francois
I wonder if he is personally bitter towards May ?
This seems to be a strange government job:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Portsmouth
Have any other towns had their own ministers ?
https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html
I can't stop laughing...
Outstanding.
Two or three days ago, the Express was telling us anyone who was not a No Deal Brexit -let's launch the dambusters-at-Germany again - swine - was a traitor.
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1088922351675363328
She doesn't have to actually die necessarily - she could fake it and change her identity and have a proper retirement away from all that monarchying business.
We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/26/melania-trump-apology/
Republicans showing their true nastiness and illustrating why Britain will never be a Republic.
Maybe not early as Tuesday evening but certainly before end of coming week, betting markets will show brexit as near certain to happen in coming months. And if you really don’t like what I am saying, and consider this crazy, see you here same time next week. 😁
This is a betting blog, here’s an interesting bet. When we brexit without CU this spring early summer, how long until we are back in the customs union? Nothing to stop parties adding this to their GE manifesto’s. A majority, perhaps plurality of voters would be in favour, so its not going to harm anyone’s chances of winning a GE with that in their manifesto. But I cant see it in any Conservative manifesto any time soon, so there’s clear water between them and other parties. It would be interesting to see on what grounds the Torys fight it, they cant use disrespecting the 2016 vote because we will have brexited based on 2016 vote, hence whole new ball game, fair play for parties to add it to their manifestos and fight GE on signing up to the CU.
I reckon not much more than 8 years, that’s two GE, perhaps even less. 🤔
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/26/melania-trump-apology/
Morning everybody!
He’s an adulterer and fornicator for starters which is incompatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
And in Greece nobody worked at all until 2008 - we know this because their tax returns said so.
I expect a small drop, but probably only temporary. The end of the second Elizabethan age will be something to reflect upon. The Britain and Empire of 1953 was a lifetime ago, and a very diferent country.
It was always going to happen. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
Which, given the actuarial probabilities, it might yet.
Fundamentally it makes sense for the IK to play a full role in the EMA. The EU has rejected that. As with Galileo it’s a silly short-sighted decision
I’m talking about the EMA.
He is a conceited fucker who can't keep his mouth shut. He will be acutely aware that he has been The Man Who Would be King for a very long time and may not have a very long reign as active monarch. He will want to make his mark and secure his historical legacy. Calamity will ensue.
The real problem is not only that republicans are a minority and a very small if very vocal one, but that bluntly there are more urgent constitutional issues out there than the monarchy. Shall we start with the House of Lords, the emasculation of local government partly through these daft unitary authorities the size of postage stamps, the decolutionary imbalance and the absurdity of the Speaker being MP for a specific constituency? I don't see anyone pushing for fundamental reform of the Head of State role until these have been sorted out.
And, IIRC the UK decided to leave, as a consequence of Brexit. Like Euratom.
We are very likely to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. How on earth would the EMA have functioned in the UK in that scenario?
The EMA leaving is the inevitable consequence of the decision voters such as yourself took in June 2016.
In a rational world the authorities would create an associate membership for the U.K.
As for moving location, it’s a plum asset so of course I can understand why the EU relocated it. However something like 40% of the staff have resigned - that is going to slow down drug approvals until they are replaced and result in a loss of institutional knowledge. In my view that is deleterious to public health.
It's like everything else with Brexit - it's been rushed and therefore it's been bungled.
Strangely however I am not too worried about that one as after all the US FDA does an awful lot of the actual work on these things. If however the EBA is similarly damaged the world economy is in for a very bumpy ride.
https://www.realista.com/resources/spanish-residence-visa-permits/
I’ve said (a) it was inevitable and (b) it is a bad thing for public health
You could engage with the substance. But I guess it’s easier to take cheap shots instead of debating whether if not the EU is acting in a sensible way.
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/more-ema-staff-expected-to-move-to-amsterdam/20205789.article?firstPass=false
I'm not quite sure if that includes the loss of 150 temporary workers or not though. If it doesn't the figure would be around 32%.
To work on the Costas - as many tens of thousands of very ordinary Brits do either full-time or seasonally - you just need UK citizenship. Not for much longer.
I’m sure that under our ever so lax UK employment regulations you can’t force a employee to move country...
Of course it wasn't his country then! Or, arguably, mine!
We have regained sovereignty over medicines, though will now exercise that by rubber stamping edicts from Amsterdam.
Responsible, flexible and humane employers wouldn't behave like that, of course, but the EU are not responsible, are completely inflexible and prize abstract principles above employees (except Selmayr) so that doesn't apply.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/united-kingdoms-withdrawal-european-union-brexit
And the reason Henry was able to claim the crown or even win the battle was because the nobles, most importantly Stanley and Northumberland, backed him as King ahead of Richard. Something to do with Richard's nephews having vanished...
This is just one of many ways our influence on world affairs is diminished by Brexit, but should surprise no one.