So we'll do our business elsewhere and they won't get the benefit of our services.
Their loss.
More likely is that UK events businesses and others that operate in services industries will open up in the single market and organise from there, so creating more opportunities for EU citizens and fewer for UK ones.
Nah, people will just get the permits. We did it every year to go to E3 in California and our team in the US did it every year to attend Gamescom in Cologne. It's about 30 minutes of online forms for the admin assistant.
That's attendees. I am thinking about the event organisers. We're likely to open an office in the single market. I doubt we're alone. I agree that most UK delegates will just swallow the extra cost of going to events as they won't have much choice. There'll probably be a tax write-off in any case.
We were exhibitors in both cases and running a number of workshops as well as meetings with the wider industry. In none of those has getting permits been an issue or prevented one of he US team from doing anything at Gamescom.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Wolfgang Munchau made a funny point. The EU and Britain deserve each other.
He's a bit contrarian but he also made an interesting point. If you had no deal, both sides could see how much damage it was doing and from this year zero point a trade deal could only be a win win! Maybe in the long run relations would benefit from that.
As a consequence of the misfortunes facing Britain, Marine Le Pen, France’s far right leader, followed public opinion and abandoned her old promises to take France out of the EU and is now committed to remaining.
So Remainers are on the same side as the fascists. Glad we've cleared that one up.
No, Leavers like you were on the same side as the fascists, fascists like Marien Le Pen urged Brits to vote Leave back in 2016.
Then the world saw what leaving the EU actually means.
If it has become impossible to leave the EU then we got out just in time.
No, leaving the EU is possible at any time, as we've proved.
Leaving the EU but retaining all the benefits of the EU without any costs, as espoused by the Vote Leave, Marine Le Pen, and others is what has been proven to be demonstrable bollocks.
At heart the eu is a protectionist system. If you believe in free trade, there are consequences such as your own industries getting undercut by places which can do things cheaper. Great for the consumer, less so for the home widget maker. I had hoped that the eu would want to be in a free trade zone with us, but it seems their fear of a successful uk is stopping this. Why else are they so set on level playing fields in the manner described? If the real demands of the eu side are anything like what is suggested (unilateral actions on lpf, sanctions based on ratchet actions) then sadly we cannot accept. It really does seem that they see us not as an independent nation.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
As a consequence of the misfortunes facing Britain, Marine Le Pen, France’s far right leader, followed public opinion and abandoned her old promises to take France out of the EU and is now committed to remaining.
So Remainers are on the same side as the fascists. Glad we've cleared that one up.
No, Leavers like you were on the same side as the fascists, fascists like Marien Le Pen urged Brits to vote Leave back in 2016.
Then the world saw what leaving the EU actually means.
If it has become impossible to leave the EU then we got out just in time.
How easy would it be to leave the WTO and the UN and maintain our international position? Almost impossible, so does that mean there is an urgent need to leave them?
The UN is hardly equivalent to the EU. Besides, we still have our veto...
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
So what marvelous things will the government do on 2/1 with their new found sovereignty? What will change that makes people see the benefit of no deal departure? Who will be sliding off to the bank with their sovereignty to bank? I still don’t get any of this as it does nothing to advance the national well being.
They will be eating their blue passports as a large chunk of food imports will be stalled at Dover
As a consequence of the misfortunes facing Britain, Marine Le Pen, France’s far right leader, followed public opinion and abandoned her old promises to take France out of the EU and is now committed to remaining.
So Remainers are on the same side as the fascists. Glad we've cleared that one up.
No, Leavers like you were on the same side as the fascists, fascists like Marien Le Pen urged Brits to vote Leave back in 2016.
Then the world saw what leaving the EU actually means.
If it has become impossible to leave the EU then we got out just in time.
No, leaving the EU is possible at any time, as we've proved.
Leaving the EU but retaining all the benefits of the EU without any costs, as espoused by the Vote Leave, Marine Le Pen, and others is what has been proven to be demonstrable bollocks.
At heart the eu is a protectionist system. If you believe in free trade, there are consequences such as your own industries getting undercut by places which can do things cheaper. Great for the consumer, less so for the home widget maker. I had hoped that the eu would want to be in a free trade zone with us, but it seems their fear of a successful uk is stopping this. Why else are they so set on level playing fields in the manner described? If the real demands of the eu side are anything like what is suggested (unilateral actions on lpf, sanctions based on ratchet actions) then sadly we cannot accept. It really does seem that they see us not as an independent nation.
Fake news, the single market is one of Mrs Thatcher's finest achievements.
The so called Tory Party is about to undo all of that.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Just to put into context the UK has signed third party trade deals with 28 parties worth around £150-160bn in existing trade. Last year before Liz Truss took over it was basically zero. She's done a fantastic job.
No Deal now isn't anywhere as bad as it would have been last year.
We have a lot more continuity trade thanks to Truss, we have sorted the Irish border and we have prepared for No Deal with all the customs site at least at basic levels of construction.
It's almost just the EU breakdown to consider and many businesses (far from all) have prepared for that all along.
For clarity I'd still prefer a deal, but not at any price.
I'd have liked an extra year or two to figure out customs arrangements better and to bed in the existing agreements with Canada and maybe look to extend the six major agreements we have (Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Korea, Singapore) into services as well as formally apply and be accepted into the CPTPP from January 1st 2022/23 or whenever the transition period ended. The other suggestion I've seen is talking to Canada, Australia and New Zealand about customs pre-clearance/trusted trader as part of existing or future trade infrastructure similar to what we suggested to the EU and is being implemented for NI.
The flexibility the UK has outside of the EU wrt third party trade is actually much wider than even I had originally thought. Nations seem very interested in signing services based trade deals with the UK which is something you and I both said back in 2016 and was denied time and again by remainers.
Yes, agree with all of that. I'm not worried long-term. It's the next 6-12 months that will be rocky.
Yeah and this is why I think Boris made a mistake in not walking back the no extension stance after May when it was clear that the economy was going to be in turmoil because of the pandemic. We should have got at least a one year extension to talks then on the basis of the virus slowing everything down and spent the additional time on fixing all of the customs stuff and bringing some of our trade deals into a trusted trader scheme. These small but significant moves on customs would allow UK importation of Japanese/Canadian goods without the need for customs clearance as you couldn't imagine a company like Sony, Panasonic or Toyota breaking UK rules in such a scheme. It clears out significant customs capacity for the inevitable no deal situation and the need to have customs processing for EU imports.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
Two ranks higher? What happens if a full general, or field marshal, is court-martial?
NATO takes over.
This is starting to remind me of the famous and possibly apocryphal story of a vicious man eating bear that wasn’t killed by a German municipality because under their laws he had to be tried by a jury of twelve of his peers before execution - and nobody was brave enough to round up the jury.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
"The fundamental problem is that the two sides view the negotiations very differently. As one weary British official puts it: “They view us as a departing member state not as a country they are doing a trade deal with.”
The British view is that the withdrawal agreement dealt with the process of leaving and so this agreement should be about the future. But much of the EU’s thinking reflects a mindset that fails to appreciate that the UK was quite serious about leaving in the first place. For instance, the EU is keen that Britain doesn’t deliver what it regards as unfair state aid when the Covid recovery starts. But the EU itself has no plans to restrict itself in this way and thinks that not only its coronavirus recovery scheme but Commission and European Investment Bank funding in general should be exempt from subsidy rules. It is clearly not reciprocal for the EU to be able to exempt its 750 billion euro fund from the treaty’s subsidy rules when the UK’s post-Covid funding would be subject to them.
These double-standards would quickly pose problems in other areas. Imagine, for example, that the EU decides to fund an effort to develop a zero-emissions jet aeroplane. ‘Supranational’ subsidies for this project would not be caught in the current agreement, but if Johnson went ahead with his own “jet zero” he’d be expected to follow the treaty’s state-aid rules. This is not fair. The EU should make clear that for any EU-level funding that is exempt from state aid rules, a proportionate amount of UK funding would be.
The same problem can be seen in the biggest sticking point in the talks, the so-called ratchet clause. This is meant to address what happens if the EU tightens its regulations in an area and the UK does not follow suit. The EU wants the right to unilaterally impose tariffs in these circumstances. There would be no obligation to show that the UK’s different standards were distorting trade. The EU would simply be able to act. But the UK would not be able to hit back. The text proposed by the EU would block us from responding to measures that they thought were unfair or disproportionate with their tariffs.
It is not sustainable to have a system where the EU can act as judge and jury and then unilaterally disarm the UK to prevent it from taking countermeasures.
There is a potential solution to this problem. The EU could still have the right to respond if it increased regulations and the UK didn’t follow. It would, though, not be able to do this automatically. Rather, it would have to go to arbitration and show that the different standards were having a material effect. This would deal with the EU’s medium-term concern about the UK trying to undercut it while maintaining zero tariff, zero quota access to its market. But it would also reassure the British side that it could not be subject to capricious actions by Brussels every time the EU introduced a relatively minor change.
."
Reads like a story written in No 10 and sent to the husband of the Press Secretary. Which worries me, as it's not a message to EU negotiators - these points will have been made ad nauseam in the room - but a message to a key section of the Johnson voting coalition. First time I've thought this isn't a bluff and they really are now laying the ground for No Deal.
It's a bit late to lay the ground for No Deal to people who were not expecting it i.e most people.
According to the poll OGH quoted in the Header it seems most people are actually expecting No Deal now.
Yes, that's why I used the past tense.
As I said above, justifying going No Deal is one thing, and I have some sympathy for the picture painted in the article pasted above if that is indeed the case, but being able to justify not preparing for it is quite another. However it happened, rightly or wrongly, for the last 30 years we have been wound very firmly into the EU web. Unpicking those threads was always possible but it was never easy. But the process has, wrongly, been sold as being straighforward since before the referendum. The resulting failure in expecation management, and lack of preparation by everyone in this country, from individuals through businesses to the government, is as a result of Brexiteers underselling how difficult this would be.
Johnson has made a career of telling us how bad the EU is. Brexiteer demonisation of the EU is commonplace. Surely he/they knew, as a result, that this was a possible outome? So why didn't he say so months or years ago rather than expressly saying it was a one in a million chance which, to the casual obsever, means no chance?
As a result we are in a position where the actual and factual fallout from the 2016 decision (nothing in practical terms has changed since 2016) will come as a shock to many many people. Expectation management at its worst.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
So we'll do our business elsewhere and they won't get the benefit of our services.
Their loss.
More likely is that UK events businesses and others that operate in services industries will open up in the single market and organise from there, so creating more opportunities for EU citizens and fewer for UK ones.
Nah, people will just get the permits. We did it every year to go to E3 in California and our team in the US did it every year to attend Gamescom in Cologne. It's about 30 minutes of online forms for the admin assistant.
That's attendees. I am thinking about the event organisers. We're likely to open an office in the single market. I doubt we're alone. I agree that most UK delegates will just swallow the extra cost of going to events as they won't have much choice. There'll probably be a tax write-off in any case.
We were exhibitors in both cases and running a number of workshops as well as meetings with the wider industry. In none of those has getting permits been an issue or prevented one of he US team from doing anything at Gamescom.
Yes, exhibitors are not the people running the event. They pay the people who run the event. That and delegate fees is how the people running the event make their money.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
So we'll do our business elsewhere and they won't get the benefit of our services.
Their loss.
More likely is that UK events businesses and others that operate in services industries will open up in the single market and organise from there, so creating more opportunities for EU citizens and fewer for UK ones.
Nah, people will just get the permits. We did it every year to go to E3 in California and our team in the US did it every year to attend Gamescom in Cologne. It's about 30 minutes of online forms for the admin assistant.
That's attendees. I am thinking about the event organisers. We're likely to open an office in the single market. I doubt we're alone. I agree that most UK delegates will just swallow the extra cost of going to events as they won't have much choice. There'll probably be a tax write-off in any case.
We were exhibitors in both cases and running a number of workshops as well as meetings with the wider industry. In none of those has getting permits been an issue or prevented one of he US team from doing anything at Gamescom.
Yes, exhibitors are not the people running the event. They pay the people who run the event. That and delegate fees is how the people running the event make their money.
The people running the event will be based in the EU anyway, since this story is about people from the UK going to the EU.
Edit: Sorry, I see you mentioned this earlier with the fact your company does events overseas. That will be more onerous, indeed.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Nevertheless, it might not be safe for some, even if it is for nearly all, if the breach is a matter of arbitrary rejection. Presumably you are still supposed to at least check rather than simply declare people pre rejected?
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
How can you say that when the person tweeting is describing it as an EU wall? And not in a negative way. You can't just pretend they are saying the opposite.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
Fuck knows where everyone was going but Sheffield (T3) was heaving with traffic this evening.
People are fed up. The only thing that will save us now is a rapid vaccine roll out for people under 50. An ideal situation would be for the AZ vaccine to be approved only for under 55s leaving the government with no choice but to start the under 55s roll out in January alongside the Pfizer rollout for older people.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
The biggest imaginable disaster for the EU is that Brexit is a roaring success. So they have played every dirty trick imaginable to impede the process of leaving,
As however it was never very likely, all they have really done is end up with an even more outsize clusterfuck than they needed to, which will have very serious consequences for at least one, probably four, EU member states.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
Ok, Mr Pedant, for the sake of clarity I was expressing my view of the situation, not attempting to rephrase his.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
I know it's something that is beginning to dawn on people. The EU is absolutely shit scared of the UK finding a path outside the EU. It's difficult to continue telling nations like Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands that they need to keep paying the bill because there's no alternative when the UK is proving there is.
I actually think part of this is because of the sterling work of Liz Truss, the speed and depth of our non-EU deals has surprised a lot of people. That's where a lot of the fear comes from, lots expected the UK to get bogged down in minutiae of trade deals, especially when their ones take between 5 and 8 years on average. They didn't expect the UK to be making friends and formal allies as quickly as this. It means our companies have got huge developed markets to export to even in a no deal scenario they didn't think we'd have.
As a consequence of the misfortunes facing Britain, Marine Le Pen, France’s far right leader, followed public opinion and abandoned her old promises to take France out of the EU and is now committed to remaining.
So Remainers are on the same side as the fascists. Glad we've cleared that one up.
No, Leavers like you were on the same side as the fascists, fascists like Marien Le Pen urged Brits to vote Leave back in 2016.
Then the world saw what leaving the EU actually means.
If it has become impossible to leave the EU then we got out just in time.
No, leaving the EU is possible at any time, as we've proved.
Leaving the EU but retaining all the benefits of the EU without any costs, as espoused by the Vote Leave, Marine Le Pen, and others is what has been proven to be demonstrable bollocks.
At heart the eu is a protectionist system. If you believe in free trade, there are consequences such as your own industries getting undercut by places which can do things cheaper. Great for the consumer, less so for the home widget maker. I had hoped that the eu would want to be in a free trade zone with us, but it seems their fear of a successful uk is stopping this. Why else are they so set on level playing fields in the manner described? If the real demands of the eu side are anything like what is suggested (unilateral actions on lpf, sanctions based on ratchet actions) then sadly we cannot accept. It really does seem that they see us not as an independent nation.
The EU are terrified.
It shows the true weakness of their position and makes me much more sanguine about No Deal.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Not quite, they'll ignore if they have any (sole) living relatives in the UK.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
Ok, Mr Pedant, for the sake of clarity I was expressing my view of the situation, not attempting to rephrase his.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
The biggest imaginable disaster for the EU is that Brexit is a roaring success. So they have played every dirty trick imaginable to impede the process of leaving,
As however it was never very likely, all they have really done is end up with an even more outsize clusterfuck than they needed to, which will have very serious consequences for at least one, probably four, EU member states.
They are overestimating the consequences for us and underestimating them for themselves.
At the end of the day 55% of our trade will be totally unaffected by this and the remaining 45% just falls back on WTO rules - which are extensive.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
Dismal. 'Prosperous neighbours make good customers' is the best policy.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Not quite, they'll ignore if they have any (sole) living relatives in the UK.
Is there not a route for legal migration for relatives of those legally resident in the UK?
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
We've upset them just by approving a vaccine - under *existing* EU rules.
God knows how they're going to react when we start doing other nimble and effective stuff.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
The biggest imaginable disaster for the EU is that Brexit is a roaring success. So they have played every dirty trick imaginable to impede the process of leaving,
As however it was never very likely, all they have really done is end up with an even more outsize clusterfuck than they needed to, which will have very serious consequences for at least one, probably four, EU member states.
The strange thing is if they'd just played up this as British eccentricity, we were always half divorced anyway, then thar would likely have been the end of the matter.
But now they've tried every trick if Britain is as I expect a success story then that may end up making it more rather than less likely for others to follow.
Though ultimately besides a few non-EZ members I think most people, success or failure, regard it as British eccentricity either way.
Just to put into context the UK has signed third party trade deals with 28 parties worth around £150-160bn in existing trade. Last year before Liz Truss took over it was basically zero. She's done a fantastic job.
No Deal now isn't anywhere as bad as it would have been last year.
We have a lot more continuity trade thanks to Truss, we have sorted the Irish border and we have prepared for No Deal with all the customs site at least at basic levels of construction.
It's almost just the EU breakdown to consider and many businesses (far from all) have prepared for that all along.
For clarity I'd still prefer a deal, but not at any price.
I'd have liked an extra year or two to figure out customs arrangements better and to bed in the existing agreements with Canada and maybe look to extend the six major agreements we have (Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Korea, Singapore) into services as well as formally apply and be accepted into the CPTPP from January 1st 2022/23 or whenever the transition period ended. The other suggestion I've seen is talking to Canada, Australia and New Zealand about customs pre-clearance/trusted trader as part of existing or future trade infrastructure similar to what we suggested to the EU and is being implemented for NI.
The flexibility the UK has outside of the EU wrt third party trade is actually much wider than even I had originally thought. Nations seem very interested in signing services based trade deals with the UK which is something you and I both said back in 2016 and was denied time and again by remainers.
Yes, agree with all of that. I'm not worried long-term. It's the next 6-12 months that will be rocky.
Yeah and this is why I think Boris made a mistake in not walking back the no extension stance after May when it was clear that the economy was going to be in turmoil because of the pandemic. We should have got at least a one year extension to talks then on the basis of the virus slowing everything down and spent the additional time on fixing all of the customs stuff and bringing some of our trade deals into a trusted trader scheme. These small but significant moves on customs would allow UK importation of Japanese/Canadian goods without the need for customs clearance as you couldn't imagine a company like Sony, Panasonic or Toyota breaking UK rules in such a scheme. It clears out significant customs capacity for the inevitable no deal situation and the need to have customs processing for EU imports.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
From a logistics point of view is it not better to focus on the sites that can distribute more vaccines? The amount of time you'd spend getting the vaccines out to a place that does 50 a week is probably not worth it.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
Ok, Mr Pedant, for the sake of clarity I was expressing my view of the situation, not attempting to rephrase his.
That’s Dr Pedant, please, Mr Glenn
Naturally I assumed you were a Consultant Pedant so would prefer to go by Mr.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
The biggest imaginable disaster for the EU is that Brexit is a roaring success. So they have played every dirty trick imaginable to impede the process of leaving,
As however it was never very likely, all they have really done is end up with an even more outsize clusterfuck than they needed to, which will have very serious consequences for at least one, probably four, EU member states.
They are overestimating the consequences for us and underestimating them for themselves.
At the end of the day 55% of our trade will be totally unaffected by this and the remaining 45% just falls back on WTO rules - which are extensive.
Yes, this is why Liam Fox was so useless. The political draw of no deal is very attractive in the face of the trade terms on offer from the EU.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATESAND TERRITORIESOF CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GUAM, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND WASHINGTONAS AMICI CURIAEIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND IN OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILEA BILL OF COMPLAINT
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
Ok, Mr Pedant, for the sake of clarity I was expressing my view of the situation, not attempting to rephrase his.
That’s Dr Pedant, please, Mr Glenn
Naturally I assumed you were a Consultant Pedant so would prefer to go by Mr.
They’re only called Mr because doctors in this country are not doctors.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
How can you say that when the person tweeting is describing it as an EU wall? And not in a negative way. You can't just pretend they are saying the opposite.
With all due respect, I think you're all missing the point. The wall is already there, it was built 30 odd years ago. You, ie. the British governments at the time, were among the architects. The wall around our little tribal village has served its purpose, it's kept a lot of the wolves (and worse) away. You only just made the decision to relocate your camp beyond that wall. You will now have to learn to find and love the benefits of doing so.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Not quite, they'll ignore if they have any (sole) living relatives in the UK.
If someone has living relatives in the UK then there is a legal method to apply for immigration via family reunification isn't there?
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Not quite, they'll ignore if they have any (sole) living relatives in the UK.
Is there not a route for legal migration for relatives of those legally resident in the UK?
We're clusterfucking that up as well.
See here.
An ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Birmingham city council after it considered deporting an 11-year-old girl following the death of her mother.
The girl, who was born in the UK, was considered for deportation to the country where her surviving relatives lived, despite being looked after by family friends who had applied to the council for help and financial support as foster parents.
After the child’s mother died from a terminal illness, the council refused an application made by the woman caring for the child for allowances and the support of a social worker, saying it was a “private arrangement”.
The local government and social care ombudsman found in the woman’s favour following an appeal against the decision, saying the council had been at fault for not granting the application, causing “injustice” to the child.
It also found that by not recognising the family friends as official foster carers, the girl missed out on additional support and legal protection given to looked-after children, including legal advice and representation to ensure she could stay in the UK.
Though the girl was born in the UK, she was not a British citizen and had leave to remain in the country until December 2018. Her father, whom she had not seen since she was a baby, had been refused permission to enter the UK and had declined to care for the girl when asked by her terminally ill mother.
Historians will gawp at the stupidity of the repeated "save xmas" nonsense, started by No 10 weeks ago and fed to favoured journos, which has led to this point.
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
I know it's something that is beginning to dawn on people. The EU is absolutely shit scared of the UK finding a path outside the EU. It's difficult to continue telling nations like Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands that they need to keep paying the bill because there's no alternative when the UK is proving there is.
I actually think part of this is because of the sterling work of Liz Truss, the speed and depth of our non-EU deals has surprised a lot of people. That's where a lot of the fear comes from, lots expected the UK to get bogged down in minutiae of trade deals, especially when their ones take between 5 and 8 years on average. They didn't expect the UK to be making friends and formal allies as quickly as this. It means our companies have got huge developed markets to export to even in a no deal scenario they didn't think we'd have.
I don't want to give William a coronary but No Deal could actually be fatal to the EU.
If they want their Union to last they need regional geopolitical stability and us on their side in a friendly relationship - gambling everything on trying to ideologically pwn a departing member state might make the other existing member states realise just how crud the EU institutions are and disintegration from within.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
The UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and to its 1967 protocol, a piece of international law designed to protect refugees.
I should have been clearer. Which part would be breached. Those don't give people the right to go through countless safe countries to go to the country of their choosing.
Based on what I saw earlier, on making it arbitrary rejection without conducting an assessment.
The assessment being France is a safe country? A contentious one, I'll admit.
Not quite, they'll ignore if they have any (sole) living relatives in the UK.
Is there not a route for legal migration for relatives of those legally resident in the UK?
We're clusterfucking that up as well.
See here.
An ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Birmingham city council after it considered deporting an 11-year-old girl following the death of her mother.
The girl, who was born in the UK, was considered for deportation to the country where her surviving relatives lived, despite being looked after by family friends who had applied to the council for help and financial support as foster parents.
After the child’s mother died from a terminal illness, the council refused an application made by the woman caring for the child for allowances and the support of a social worker, saying it was a “private arrangement”.
The local government and social care ombudsman found in the woman’s favour following an appeal against the decision, saying the council had been at fault for not granting the application, causing “injustice” to the child.
It also found that by not recognising the family friends as official foster carers, the girl missed out on additional support and legal protection given to looked-after children, including legal advice and representation to ensure she could stay in the UK.
Ministers have quietly changed immigration rules to prevent people fleeing war or persecution from claiming asylum in the UK if they have passed through a “safe” third country, prompting accusations of a breach of international law.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
How can you say that when the person tweeting is describing it as an EU wall? And not in a negative way. You can't just pretend they are saying the opposite.
With all due respect, I think you're all missing the point. The wall is already there, it was built 30 odd years ago. You, ie. the British governments at the time, were among the architects. The wall around our little tribal village has served its purpose, it's kept a lot of the wolves (and worse) away. You only just made the decision to relocate your camp beyond that wall. You will now have to learn to find and love the benefits of doing so.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
From a logistics point of view is it not better to focus on the sites that can distribute more vaccines? The amount of time you'd spend getting the vaccines out to a place that does 50 a week is probably not worth it.
Only if you are sure people will attend these 'super' centres and they wont descend into chaos. Pharmacists and GPs have been doing this for flu for years - leaving them out of the delivery will be a mistake imho.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
How can you say that when the person tweeting is describing it as an EU wall? And not in a negative way. You can't just pretend they are saying the opposite.
With all due respect, I think you're all missing the point. The wall is already there, it was built 30 odd years ago. You, ie. the British governments at the time, were among the architects. The wall around our little tribal village has served its purpose, it's kept a lot of the wolves (and worse) away. You only just made the decision to relocate your camp beyond that wall. You will now have to learn to find and love the benefits of doing so.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
The tweet refers to the EU building a wall.
Yes, and that's a stupid point. The decision to build a wall was made when we decided to leave, and the thickness of the wall is a function of our desire to diverge.
I can’t help if you think accuracy is stupid, William, it remains accuracy,
Ok, Mr Pedant, for the sake of clarity I was expressing my view of the situation, not attempting to rephrase his.
That’s Dr Pedant, please, Mr Glenn
Naturally I assumed you were a Consultant Pedant so would prefer to go by Mr.
Mr is only for Surgeons who have passed their surgical exams, Dr is for non surgical specialities.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
From a logistics point of view is it not better to focus on the sites that can distribute more vaccines? The amount of time you'd spend getting the vaccines out to a place that does 50 a week is probably not worth it.
Only if you are sure people will attend these 'super' centres and they wont descend into chaos. Pharmacists and GPs have been doing this for flu for years - leaving them out of the delivery will be a mistake imho.
In my view it depends on the vaccine, Pfizer's equipment to be kept at -70 doesn't lend itself to village GP practices whereas Oxford does. So it should be more centralised for Pfizer (Over 50) and widely distributed for Oxford (Under 50). Just needs a bit of common sense..
It shows how insecure they are about Britain proving that the EU is unnecessary in a globalised world.
It is curious that if Brexit is indeed going to be such a disaster for Britain they seem to be so desperate to protect themselves from a (presumably devastated) Britain....
I know it's something that is beginning to dawn on people. The EU is absolutely shit scared of the UK finding a path outside the EU. It's difficult to continue telling nations like Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands that they need to keep paying the bill because there's no alternative when the UK is proving there is.
I actually think part of this is because of the sterling work of Liz Truss, the speed and depth of our non-EU deals has surprised a lot of people. That's where a lot of the fear comes from, lots expected the UK to get bogged down in minutiae of trade deals, especially when their ones take between 5 and 8 years on average. They didn't expect the UK to be making friends and formal allies as quickly as this. It means our companies have got huge developed markets to export to even in a no deal scenario they didn't think we'd have.
I don't want to give William a coronary but No Deal could actually be fatal to the EU.
If they want their Union to last they need regional geopolitical stability and us on their side in a friendly relationship - gambling everything on trying to ideologically pwn a departing member state might make the other existing member states realise just how crud the EU institutions are and disintegration from within.
Have you spent much time in the EU, Casino ? I don't ask this as a hostile question, but in my relatively recent experience on the continent this bears very little relationship to reallty. So far this is entirely the opposite lesson from the one others have generally drawn from our departure. That may or not change in the future, but the inescapable fact is that this is light years from the current continent of europe. Britain's departure is currently seen as a self-indicting failure in general by most around europe, and it would take something extraordinary, or a very long time, to shift that.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
It's more like, 'The British are building a wall. We're not going to let them send us the bill.'
How can you say that when the person tweeting is describing it as an EU wall? And not in a negative way. You can't just pretend they are saying the opposite.
With all due respect, I think you're all missing the point. The wall is already there, it was built 30 odd years ago. You, ie. the British governments at the time, were among the architects. The wall around our little tribal village has served its purpose, it's kept a lot of the wolves (and worse) away. You only just made the decision to relocate your camp beyond that wall. You will now have to learn to find and love the benefits of doing so.
It's a silly analogy whichever way you look at it.
Sounds like most pharmacies will NOT be involved in the vaccination programme. Another clusterf*ck incoming from NHS/Hancock Half Hour???
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
Only one MP on QT this evening. Has that ever happened before?
Are you sure? I thought Carrie had cancelled the Tories' boycott.
The Tories never boycotted QT did they? I thought it was Newsnight they weren't interested in going on.
They certainly never cancelled sneaking in their councillors into the audience.
Isn't the audience always full of activists?
Yes. Question Time shouldn't have an audience - I honestly do not give a tuppenny jizz about the half-arsed opinions of Lesley from Folkestone, and the panel should be encouraged to have a discussion rather than grope for a cheap applause line.
Comments
Civilians may have to be drafted in for the court martial of one of army’s top generals because of a shortage of high-ranking officers who can sit on the panel hearing his case.
Major General Nick Welch, 57, is the most senior officer to face a court martial since 1815, when a lieutenant general was convicted of abandoning his siege guns in the Napoleonic wars.
The two-star general, who was second in command of British and US troops in Afghanistan but left the forces in 2019, is alleged to have illegally claimed an allowance to send one of his children to a private school which is less than ten miles from his Dorset home.
Army regulations allow up to £23,480 a year towards school fees so families can move around without disrupting their children’s education.
In a case management hearing at Bulford military court in Wiltshire, lawyers revealed the difficulties they were having trying to find a six or seven-person panel senior enough to hear the case.
Court martial protocol insists the president of the panel is at least two ranks higher than the defendant, requiring a full general for this case. There are only four full generals currently serving, including the head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.
The court heard that a “pool of possible” candidates to sit on the panel had been drawn from across the armed forces but issues were raised about their relationships with key witnesses.
As a result, they may resort to drafting in civilians, a highly unusual step.
Sarah Jones, QC, defending Maj Gen Welch, compared the case to a celebrity trial and argued that simply because a board member may know of a person it doesn’t follow that they would be incapable of impartially judging them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/civilians-may-be-called-up-to-court-martial-of-major-general-nick-welch-2w839r3ps
He's a bit contrarian but he also made an interesting point. If you had no deal, both sides could see how much damage it was doing and from this year zero point a trade deal could only be a win win! Maybe in the long run relations would benefit from that.
They can hardly call a court to try themselves.
The so called Tory Party is about to undo all of that.
From 1 January, claims of asylum from a person who has travelled through or has a connection to a safe third country, including people coming from EU member states, will be treated as inadmissible.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/10/uk-to-deny-asylum-to-refugees-passing-through-safe-third-country
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/10/cambridge-university-urged-to-re-invite-rightwing-academic-jordan-peterson
As I said above, justifying going No Deal is one thing, and I have some sympathy for the picture painted in the article pasted above if that is indeed the case, but being able to justify not preparing for it is quite another. However it happened, rightly or wrongly, for the last 30 years we have been wound very firmly into the EU web. Unpicking those threads was always possible but it was never easy. But the process has, wrongly, been sold as being straighforward since before the referendum. The resulting failure in expecation management, and lack of preparation by everyone in this country, from individuals through businesses to the government, is as a result of Brexiteers underselling how difficult this would be.
Johnson has made a career of telling us how bad the EU is. Brexiteer demonisation of the EU is commonplace. Surely he/they knew, as a result, that this was a possible outome? So why didn't he say so months or years ago rather than expressly saying it was a one in a million chance which, to the casual obsever, means no chance?
As a result we are in a position where the actual and factual fallout from the 2016 decision (nothing in practical terms has changed since 2016) will come as a shock to many many people. Expectation management at its worst.
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1337115674443984898?s=20
Edit: Sorry, I see you mentioned this earlier with the fact your company does events overseas. That will be more onerous, indeed.
‘We’re building a wall. The British are gonna pay for it.’
Oh no, you can't.
Who is building a wall?
As however it was never very likely, all they have really done is end up with an even more outsize clusterfuck than they needed to, which will have very serious consequences for at least one, probably four, EU member states.
I expect Drakeford to announce this next week
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/welsh-government-planning-second-firebreak-lockdown-28-december-wales/
NI, Scotland and finally England to follow...
I actually think part of this is because of the sterling work of Liz Truss, the speed and depth of our non-EU deals has surprised a lot of people. That's where a lot of the fear comes from, lots expected the UK to get bogged down in minutiae of trade deals, especially when their ones take between 5 and 8 years on average. They didn't expect the UK to be making friends and formal allies as quickly as this. It means our companies have got huge developed markets to export to even in a no deal scenario they didn't think we'd have.
It shows the true weakness of their position and makes me much more sanguine about No Deal.
At the end of the day 55% of our trade will be totally unaffected by this and the remaining 45% just falls back on WTO rules - which are extensive.
God knows how they're going to react when we start doing other nimble and effective stuff.
NHS England to choose 'selected' number of pharmacies to deliver at least 1,000 COVID-19 vaccines per week
"Pharmacies designated as COVID-19 vaccination sites by NHS England will need to administer “at least 1,000 vaccines each week” if they are to become part of the national vaccine delivery programme."
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/nhs-england-to-choose-selected-number-of-pharmacies-to-deliver-at-least-1000-covid-19-vaccines-per-week/20208608.article?firstPass=false
But now they've tried every trick if Britain is as I expect a success story then that may end up making it more rather than less likely for others to follow.
Though ultimately besides a few non-EZ members I think most people, success or failure, regard it as British eccentricity either way.
Coffee drinking? I ask you.
The truth is better, albeit still not good.
The wall around our little tribal village has served its purpose, it's kept a lot of the wolves (and worse) away.
You only just made the decision to relocate your camp beyond that wall.
You will now have to learn to find and love the benefits of doing so.
See here.
An ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Birmingham city council after it considered deporting an 11-year-old girl following the death of her mother.
The girl, who was born in the UK, was considered for deportation to the country where her surviving relatives lived, despite being looked after by family friends who had applied to the council for help and financial support as foster parents.
After the child’s mother died from a terminal illness, the council refused an application made by the woman caring for the child for allowances and the support of a social worker, saying it was a “private arrangement”.
The local government and social care ombudsman found in the woman’s favour following an appeal against the decision, saying the council had been at fault for not granting the application, causing “injustice” to the child.
It also found that by not recognising the family friends as official foster carers, the girl missed out on additional support and legal protection given to looked-after children, including legal advice and representation to ensure she could stay in the UK.
Though the girl was born in the UK, she was not a British citizen and had leave to remain in the country until December 2018. Her father, whom she had not seen since she was a baby, had been refused permission to enter the UK and had declined to care for the girl when asked by her terminally ill mother.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/10/birmingham-council-considered-deporting-11-year-old-mother-died
Historians will gawp at the stupidity of the repeated "save xmas" nonsense, started by No 10 weeks ago and fed to favoured journos, which has led to this point.
Borderline criminal political comms.
If they want their Union to last they need regional geopolitical stability and us on their side in a friendly relationship - gambling everything on trying to ideologically pwn a departing member state might make the other existing member states realise just how crud the EU institutions are and disintegration from within.
Just as they were used against the slave traders back in the day.
So it should be more centralised for Pfizer (Over 50) and widely distributed for Oxford (Under 50).
Just needs a bit of common sense..
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1210/1183700-brexit-no-deal-ireland/