There should be some kind of recognition for what the politicians have wrought in Italy. to get anti-vax to this level among the people who saw the effects of COVID is a work of considerable... something.
What kind of recognition? Something like stoning in a public square.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
Euthanasia?
Can't see your typical Daily Mail reader being that happy with Euthanasia being triggered when someone can no longer pay for the home help.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
Euthanasia?
Can't see your typical Daily Mail reader being that happy with Euthanasia being triggered when someone can no longer pay for the home help.
Solves another problem.no.more Daily Mail readers.. end of vile newspaper.
Good afternoon. There's a must-read article by Dominic Lawson in today's Sunday Times, about how the decision not to close the borders was based on advice from the WHO that was almost entirely political and not based on medical evidence.
So why did it take us nearly 12 months?
Are our borders closed now? Perhaps in theory in the case of people from certain countries. But I read the other day that there are 150,000 people who have recently arrived in this country and are supposed to be in quarentine, but whose whereabouts are entirely unknown to the government.
When are they going to sack that dreadful Patel woman?
The reason for not closing the border is immigration. The belief is hardwired into the system that immigration is vital to the operation of the economy and society and it must not be stopped.
Yes, and it's actually slightly jarring seeing the nominally left-wing criticising Priti Patel for not being tough enough on immigration.
Immigration and quarantine are not mutually exclusive though.
The important thing is that we don't allow potentially infectious people to enter the country, it really shouldn't be rocket science!
i was watching Big Plane TV live from Heathrow earlier
people might be surprised at how many of these birds are currently flying
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
Is that Dubai? It sound exactly like their style....
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
This is an incredible result. France has 43,000 new cases and 210 deaths and on a depressing trajectory, with some frightening numbers in south america.
This is an incredible result. France has 43,000 new cases and 210 deaths and on a depressing trajectory, with some frightening numbers in south america.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
Surely it is mostly a vaccine bounce?
I think lots of Americans are still very happy about the idea of not having a complete arse in charge as well. Not waking up to some new Twitter meltdown or insult to one of their institutions or allies.
You think that's the case? Wisely, Biden has someone else doing his social media - regarding gaffes in person, I don't think there's any less danger than there was before.
There should be some kind of recognition for what the politicians have wrought in Italy. to get anti-vax to this level among the people who saw the effects of COVID is a work of considerable... something.
What kind of recognition? Something like stoning in a public square.
Too late, most of those in charge seem to be stoned already.
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
Surely it is mostly a vaccine bounce?
I think lots of Americans are still very happy about the idea of not having a complete arse in charge as well. Not waking up to some new Twitter meltdown or insult to one of their institutions or allies.
You think that's the case? Wisely, Biden has someone else doing his social media - regarding gaffes in person, I don't think there's any less danger than there was before.
What was the quote from Biden to the Republicans in Congress? - "I won't embarrass you" ?
There should be some kind of recognition for what the politicians have wrought in Italy. to get anti-vax to this level among the people who saw the effects of COVID is a work of considerable... something.
What kind of recognition? Something like stoning in a public square.
Too late, most of those in charge seem to be stoned already.
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
Apparently there has been some progress since that BBC report - the London number for staff is now 84%, up from 79%
That occurred over a period off about a month.
Sure, but still not unique to Italian nurses.
Of course, some may be pregnant or have other valid reasons. I have two male 40 something Asian colleagues who have turned down vaccination. Crazy, but legal to be crazy still.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
I think there's a case for incentivising care by families.
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
Apparently there has been some progress since that BBC report - the London number for staff is now 84%, up from 79%
That occurred over a period off about a month.
Sure, but still not unique to Italian nurses.
Of course, some may be pregnant or have other valid reasons. I have two male 40 something Asian colleagues who have turned down vaccination. Crazy, but legal to be crazy still.
The scale of th issue in Italy and France seems to be quite different. I'm quite sure that there will be some refuseniks in every single country on Earth - but the difference between 84% take-up and strike action......
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
Just bloody implement the Dilnot report and stop dicking around FFS.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
I think there's a case for incentivising care by families.
At the moment there is. The potential inheritance pays for the nursing home until £26 000 is left.
My MiL is in a nice nursing home on the Isle of Wight, paid for by the sale of her bungalow. Her money runs out in about 9 months. She is well looked after, and personally, I do not have a problem with how it works. In effect it is paid for via her lifetime of savings.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
I think there's a case for incentivising care by families.
Not actually possible for a lot (possibly, even most) families nowadays. It's 40 years since Norman Tebbit told people to get on their bike to find work and it's incredibly rare for a family not to have at least one (if not all children) hundreds of miles away from where the parents live.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
Just bloody implement the Dilnot report and stop dicking around FFS.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
I think this is a genuine case for a Royal Commission with clout. It would be amusing if both trading arrangements with EU and social care ended up along the lines pushed by Theresa May, the world's worst sales person...
Just bloody implement the Dilnot report and stop dicking around FFS.
Yes, we could do worse. Would be a definite improvement.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
Going by the age of US Presidents, William may well be dead by the time Archie runs for POTUS.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Surely there is no reason for Harry to become a US citizen.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Surely there is no reason for Harry to become a US citizen.
Yeah, not sure what advantage there is for him. It's not like they're going to kick him out or anything.
Vaccination centre in Greater Manchester will be closed for a week as not enough supply to give out first doses, and as it only opened in February it is not time to start on second doses yet.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Yep, I know of two Brits living out in the sandpit who have renounced US dual-citizenship. Uncle Sam keeps coming for you, no matter where in the world you end up, and handing back your American passport is quite the bureaucratic process.
Lowest number of cases reported since 2nd September. Nice to have the day before the next stage of reopening.
Interesting to compare with Ireland, who have been in a similar lockdown to the UK since Christmas.
They reported 303 cases today, equivalent to about 4,000 UK cases, and their 7-day rate (per 100k) was 63.4 when last given on Friday. The 7-day rate in the UK was 29.9 on the 6th.
That difference must be the vaccination effect. I think there's a good chance this reopening will not lead to an increase in transmission.
Lowest number of cases reported since 2nd September. Nice to have the day before the next stage of reopening.
Interesting to compare with Ireland, who have been in a similar lockdown to the UK since Christmas.
They reported 303 cases today, equivalent to about 4,000 UK cases, and their 7-day rate (per 100k) was 63.4 when last given on Friday. The 7-day rate in the UK was 29.9 on the 6th.
That difference must be the vaccination effect. I think there's a good chance this reopening will not lead to an increase in transmission.
Good afternoon. There's a must-read article by Dominic Lawson in today's Sunday Times, about how the decision not to close the borders was based on advice from the WHO that was almost entirely political and not based on medical evidence.
World Health Organisation is rapidly becoming one of those triplets - like the Holy Roman Empire - that is the opposite of what it purports to be.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Yes, Harry’s wealth is good another reason why he may not want to naturalise given the rules on worldwide income. Presumably he has a green card.
Good afternoon. There's a must-read article by Dominic Lawson in today's Sunday Times, about how the decision not to close the borders was based on advice from the WHO that was almost entirely political and not based on medical evidence.
World Health Organisation is rapidly becoming one of those triplets - like the Holy Roman Empire - that is the opposite of what it purports to be.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can swear the American naturalization oath.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can be swear the American naturalization oath.
I’m not talking about Harry! My point is, it doesn’t affect their children’s citizenship status!
Good afternoon. There's a must-read article by Dominic Lawson in today's Sunday Times, about how the decision not to close the borders was based on advice from the WHO that was almost entirely political and not based on medical evidence.
World Health Organisation is rapidly becoming one of those triplets - like the Holy Roman Empire - that is the opposite of what it purports to be.
I just got a flyer from the 'Women's Equality Party'. They sound very reasonable. I don't think I'll vote for them mind you as I rather like all of my parts.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Yes, Harry’s wealth is good another reason why he may not want to naturalise given the rules on worldwide income. Presumably he has a green card.
He certainly is eligible to be sponsored for a Green Card by his wife as the spouse of an American citizen. Whether or not he entered on an actual immigrant visa (which means GC on arrival) or some other visa from which he has or is in the process of adjusting status to permanent resident we don't know. Hopefully he was never a member of the Nazi party between 1933 and 1945 or has ever oppressed the Haitian people as I recall those were questions I had to check "No" to in order to get my spousal immigrant visa.
However, not naturalizing does not absolve him of similar tax obligations as a US citizen, at least while he is a lawful permanent resident, and for several years after, should he ever decide to surrender that status and leave the US.
Statement from David Cameron: "As a former Prime Minister, I accept that communications with government need to be done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation."
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
When I hear that, I always wonder why we don’t do the same? Free money.
Statement from David Cameron: "As a former Prime Minister, I accept that communications with government need to be done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation."
Tweet from Chris MasonBBC
He was a former Prime Minister when he made the informal communications, so why didn't he realise it at the time?
I was a fan of his government, but that's a classic 'I'm stupid, not malicious' defence, always a desperate gamble.
Statement from David Cameron: "As a former Prime Minister, I accept that communications with government need to be done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation."
Tweet from Chris MasonBBC
No sh!t, Sherlock. So why did he have informal communications with serving ministers, on behalf of a company who was paying him to make representations to government?
Sounds like he’s trying to head off the formal investigation.
Good afternoon. There's a must-read article by Dominic Lawson in today's Sunday Times, about how the decision not to close the borders was based on advice from the WHO that was almost entirely political and not based on medical evidence.
World Health Organisation is rapidly becoming one of those triplets - like the Holy Roman Empire - that is the opposite of what it purports to be.
Lowest number of cases reported since 2nd September. Nice to have the day before the next stage of reopening.
Interesting to compare with Ireland, who have been in a similar lockdown to the UK since Christmas.
They reported 303 cases today, equivalent to about 4,000 UK cases, and their 7-day rate (per 100k) was 63.4 when last given on Friday. The 7-day rate in the UK was 29.9 on the 6th.
That difference must be the vaccination effect. I think there's a good chance this reopening will not lead to an increase in transmission.
The vaccination effect is clear - COVID is becoming a young(er) persons disease in this country
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can be swear the American naturalization oath.
I’m not talking about Harry! My point is, it doesn’t affect their children’s citizenship status!
Apologies! Yes, you are correct that a natural-born American citizen (which Harry and Meghan's children are) could legally inherit a foreign title. There was a constitutional amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights which would have prevented American citizens from holding a foreign title of nobility without the consent of Congress on pain of losing their American citizenship. This was never ratified by the states but was never subject to a time limit for ratification so could theoreticaly be revived (the other "missing" amendment from original Bill of Rights limiting the power of Congress to give itself payrises was successfully revived and ratified after two centuries a few years back). Sometimes there are calls to ratify the "Titles of Nobility amendment" due to a weird conspiracy theory that it would somehow make being a lawyer illegal, because in the US lawyers traditionally use the description of "esquire" which is supposedly a title of nobility.
How screwed up is your country, when you can’t get nurses to take vaccines?
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
Is that Dubai? It sound exactly like their style....
So costs around 5% of salary for a registered nurse.
Statement from David Cameron: "As a former Prime Minister, I accept that communications with government need to be done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation."
Tweet from Chris MasonBBC
Fair play to Dave, but I don't think there was any misinterpretation.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can be swear the American naturalization oath.
I’m not talking about Harry! My point is, it doesn’t affect their children’s citizenship status!
Apologies! Yes, you are correct that a natural-born American citizen (which Harry and Meghan's children are) could legally inherit a foreign title. There was a constitutional amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights which would have prevented American citizens from holding a foreign title of nobility without the consent of Congress on pain of losing their American citizenship. This was never ratified by the states but was never subject to a time limit for ratification so could theoreticaly be revived (the other "missing" amendment from original Bill of Rights limiting the power of Congress to give itself payrises was successfully revived and ratified after two centuries a few years back). Sometimes there are calls to ratify the "Titles of Nobility amendment" due to a weird conspiracy theory that it would somehow make being a lawyer illegal, because in the US lawyers traditionally use the description of "esquire" which is supposedly a title of nobility.
Well, I can hardly talk about misreading posts given I muddled up Victoria’s accession and death the other day!
Thanks for the further info, which is very interesting, but again, my point was that as natural born US citizens they would technically be eligible for the Presidency, if that is what her ex-Highness is thinking of.
Statement from David Cameron: "As a former Prime Minister, I accept that communications with government need to be done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation."
Tweet from Chris MasonBBC
He was a former Prime Minister when he made the informal communications, so why didn't he realise it at the time?
I was a fan of his government, but that's a classic 'I'm stupid, not malicious' defence, always a desperate gamble.
I presume all the “please provide all your communications with David Cameron from 2016-2021” have gone in to all Government Departments this week. In about 28 days we should see the next phase of the story.
Good news for Keir. Biden shows what is possible with a bit of optimism.
You cannot be serious. KS can't do optimism. He is just plain dull. He knows his limits.
Agreed. Starmer is counting on competence being the key battle ground (not necessarily a bad tactic). I do think part of Corbyn's "success" in 2017 was that they were quite positive and set the running in terms of what they'd do. Sure, the Tory manifesto helped them, but the Labour campaign was very positive.
And May's was the worst ever, promising to screw every Tory the Country.. and anyone who had a bit of dosh saved up.
Her mistake was failing to appreciate the lack of knowledge of the current system unless you directly encounter it. By drawing up a new system and making people aware that under the new system their glorious inheritance was not going to the children, people were appalled. Whether it was better or worse than the existing system wasnt important because by the time you find out about the new system granny is half way to the home and there's little else you can do about it.
May's issue was (as you say) that she announced it without spending a year before hand emphasising how unfair the current system is.
Care does need to be sorted out but there are zero votes to be gained from doing so (and a lot to be lost) so until someone finds a means of removing the politics from it nothing is going to be done.
The trouble is for every person who thinks the current system is unfair in favour of families with valuable houses to inherit, there is some-one else who thinks the current system is too loaded against families with valuable houses to inherit.
I believe this might be one occasion when one can point the finger of being the work of shadowy Jews without being part of a massive anti-Semitic conspiracy theory
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can be swear the American naturalization oath.
I’m not talking about Harry! My point is, it doesn’t affect their children’s citizenship status!
Apologies! Yes, you are correct that a natural-born American citizen (which Harry and Meghan's children are) could legally inherit a foreign title. There was a constitutional amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights which would have prevented American citizens from holding a foreign title of nobility without the consent of Congress on pain of losing their American citizenship. This was never ratified by the states but was never subject to a time limit for ratification so could theoreticaly be revived (the other "missing" amendment from original Bill of Rights limiting the power of Congress to give itself payrises was successfully revived and ratified after two centuries a few years back). Sometimes there are calls to ratify the "Titles of Nobility amendment" due to a weird conspiracy theory that it would somehow make being a lawyer illegal, because in the US lawyers traditionally use the description of "esquire" which is supposedly a title of nobility.
Well, I can hardly talk about misreading posts given I muddled up Victoria’s accession and death the other day!
Thanks for the further info, which is very interesting, but again, my point was that as natural born US citizens they would technically be eligible for the Presidency, if that is what her ex-Highness is thinking of.
I do think that the only chance that the Titles of Nobility Amendment has of being revived and ratified would be if one of Harry's descendents eventually decides to run for POTUS, but only if some calamity had put them into direct succession for the British Crown as well.
I strongly suspect Putin's "sabre rattling" in the Ukraine is primarily about testing the new Biden administration. There's also the events of the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh which saw Russia's client, Armenia, come unstuck.
What we are seeing is Putin reminding Azerbaijan, Turkey and the West that for all the advances in drone technology there's still a place for more traditional modes of warfare and any attempt to force Russia our of Crimea, for example, is going to be resisted.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
When I hear that, I always wonder why we don’t do the same? Free money.
a) it's extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic b) because they allow citizens to deduct foreign taxes from their US tax bill it doesn't raise that much money c) it gives expats a big incentive to renounce their citizenship.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Yep, I know of two Brits living out in the sandpit who have renounced US dual-citizenship. Uncle Sam keeps coming for you, no matter where in the world you end up, and handing back your American passport is quite the bureaucratic process.
Sounds like they did it wrong. The main thing is to prove that you don't owe the IRS any taxes first. Then renounce - which is a ten minute thing at the Embassy.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter if Markle is a US citizen.
Nope, @not_on_fire is correct. To naturalize as an American citizen by any qualification you have to a) renounce your "allegiance" to any foreign "prince or state" and b) renounce any title of nobility you may have. There are specific questions on the N-400 application form as to whether you possess a title of nobility and whether you are willing to renounce it.
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can be swear the American naturalization oath.
I’m not talking about Harry! My point is, it doesn’t affect their children’s citizenship status!
Apologies! Yes, you are correct that a natural-born American citizen (which Harry and Meghan's children are) could legally inherit a foreign title. There was a constitutional amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights which would have prevented American citizens from holding a foreign title of nobility without the consent of Congress on pain of losing their American citizenship. This was never ratified by the states but was never subject to a time limit for ratification so could theoreticaly be revived (the other "missing" amendment from original Bill of Rights limiting the power of Congress to give itself payrises was successfully revived and ratified after two centuries a few years back). Sometimes there are calls to ratify the "Titles of Nobility amendment" due to a weird conspiracy theory that it would somehow make being a lawyer illegal, because in the US lawyers traditionally use the description of "esquire" which is supposedly a title of nobility.
Well, I can hardly talk about misreading posts given I muddled up Victoria’s accession and death the other day!
Thanks for the further info, which is very interesting, but again, my point was that as natural born US citizens they would technically be eligible for the Presidency, if that is what her ex-Highness is thinking of.
I do think that the only chance that the Titles of Nobility Amendment has of being revived and ratified would be if one of Harry's descendents eventually decides to run for POTUS, but only if some calamity had put them into direct succession for the British Crown as well.
Surely the real reason no child of Harry and Meghan could be POTUS is that the post is becoming hereditary and a whole load of people called Bush, Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama have sharp elbows and first dibs.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
When I hear that, I always wonder why we don’t do the same? Free money.
a) it's extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic b) because they allow citizens to deduct foreign taxes from their US tax bill it doesn't raise that much money c) it gives expats a big incentive to renounce their citizenship.
The French did talk about doing something similar, and IIRC they weren't going to allow a foreign tax deduction!
I believe this might be one occasion when one can point the finger of being the work of shadowy Jews without being part of a massive anti-Semitic conspiracy theory
Even the Israelis are pointing fingers at the Israelis...
I strongly suspect Putin's "sabre rattling" in the Ukraine is primarily about testing the new Biden administration. There's also the events of the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh which saw Russia's client, Armenia, come unstuck.
What we are seeing is Putin reminding Azerbaijan, Turkey and the West that for all the advances in drone technology there's still a place for more traditional modes of warfare and any attempt to force Russia our of Crimea, for example, is going to be resisted.
They must be very confident about the efficacy of the vaccines they've administered to their troops. Wouldn't traditional models of warfare be quite good at spreading Covid?
I strongly suspect Putin's "sabre rattling" in the Ukraine is primarily about testing the new Biden administration. There's also the events of the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh which saw Russia's client, Armenia, come unstuck.
What we are seeing is Putin reminding Azerbaijan, Turkey and the West that for all the advances in drone technology there's still a place for more traditional modes of warfare and any attempt to force Russia our of Crimea, for example, is going to be resisted.
They must be very confident about the efficacy of the vaccines they've administered to their troops. Wouldn't traditional models of warfare be quite good at spreading Covid?
It’s the red army. Casualties on their own side have never been a worry.
You idiot, as of 13 minutes ago it’s ‘over Kiev a new dawn is breaking.’
Honestly, can’t you read plain Russian?
Balls. Sorry tovarish.
You have given it all away. Activate escape plan.
We shall reconvene in 24 hours at the coal mine we discussed in Keighley. If anyone asks, you are there as part of a Ukrainian delegation to get ideas from the expert deep Yorkshire miners on how to restart mining in the Donbass.
It’s early days. There will come a time when not being Trump and having his limitations isn’t enough.
In politics, one has to look ahead. For example, if one's child is ever to become President of the USA, it needs to be born there, AIUI. In these uncertain days of pandemic, a pregnant woman would need to think carefully about leaving the US in case she couldn't get back in time for the birth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be born there, it just has to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ McCain wasn’t born in America, for example.
What might have complicated matters in this case is of course if born in Britain the child would automatically be entitled to British citizenship through Harry.
It’s pretty hard to imagine Americans voting in the *nephew* of the King of England (as he will be once William is King) as their President.
True, and bluntly if s/he turns out like their parents I’m not sure they would make a good Head of State, but I was only considering the exact constitutional point as a theoretical exercise.
I believe a requirement of naturalising as a US citizen is to renounce any foreign titles and peerages. For this is reason I think it unlikely Harry will ever become a US citizen.
A relative was an American tax lawyer. He always advised his clients against becoming American citizens unless they were usre they wanted to live there forever, because the US taxes your worldwide income if you're a citizen unles you renounce your citizenship. And if you do that, it's pretty painful to visit or do business in the US again.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
When I hear that, I always wonder why we don’t do the same? Free money.
a) it's extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic b) because they allow citizens to deduct foreign taxes from their US tax bill it doesn't raise that much money c) it gives expats a big incentive to renounce their citizenship.
You idiot, as of 13 minutes ago it’s ‘over Kiev a new dawn is breaking.’
Honestly, can’t you read plain Russian?
Balls. Sorry tovarish.
You have given it all away. Activate escape plan.
We shall reconvene in 24 hours at the coal mine we discussed in Keighley. If anyone asks, you are there as part of a Ukrainian delegation to get ideas from the expert deep Yorkshire miners on how to restart mining in the Donbass.
My heart is drowned / In the slow sound / Languorous and long.
I strongly suspect Putin's "sabre rattling" in the Ukraine is primarily about testing the new Biden administration. There's also the events of the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh which saw Russia's client, Armenia, come unstuck.
What we are seeing is Putin reminding Azerbaijan, Turkey and the West that for all the advances in drone technology there's still a place for more traditional modes of warfare and any attempt to force Russia our of Crimea, for example, is going to be resisted.
They must be very confident about the efficacy of the vaccines they've administered to their troops. Wouldn't traditional models of warfare be quite good at spreading Covid?
It’s the red army. Casualties on their own side have never been a worry.
Do they have enough dissidents to form a mine clearing punishment brigade?
You idiot, as of 13 minutes ago it’s ‘over Kiev a new dawn is breaking.’
Honestly, can’t you read plain Russian?
Balls. Sorry tovarish.
You have given it all away. Activate escape plan.
We shall reconvene in 24 hours at the coal mine we discussed in Keighley. If anyone asks, you are there as part of a Ukrainian delegation to get ideas from the expert deep Yorkshire miners on how to restart mining in the Donbass.
Comments
What kind of recognition? Something like stoning in a public square.
people might be surprised at how many of these birds are currently flying
(Assuming this is a genuine problem, rather than a few militant trade unionists).
In my part of the world, they’ve come up with a more elegant solution. Vaccines for public-facing staff are not compulsory, but anyone not vaccinated needs to take a PCR test every week at their own expense.
James Maddison among Leicester players dropped for Covid-19 breach - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56710648
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56291564
from cases
from hospitalisations
That occurred over a period off about a month.
I think that really covers a lot of it.
Of course, some may be pregnant or have other valid reasons. I have two male 40 something Asian colleagues who have turned down vaccination. Crazy, but legal to be crazy still.
Impressive.
My MiL is in a nice nursing home on the Isle of Wight, paid for by the sale of her bungalow. Her money runs out in about 9 months. She is well looked after, and personally, I do not have a problem with how it works. In effect it is paid for via her lifetime of savings.
By the time everything was finalised an election blow the issue open again.
I would say my condolences...but truthfully, I’m far too happy to do that right now.
What a match...and what a result.
So I suppose we'll soon see how motivated Harry is.
Vaccination centre in Greater Manchester will be closed for a week as not enough supply to give out first doses, and as it only opened in February it is not time to start on second doses yet.
Told to me by someone who works there.
Interesting to compare with Ireland, who have been in a similar lockdown to the UK since Christmas.
They reported 303 cases today, equivalent to about 4,000 UK cases, and their 7-day rate (per 100k) was 63.4 when last given on Friday. The 7-day rate in the UK was 29.9 on the 6th.
That difference must be the vaccination effect. I think there's a good chance this reopening will not lead to an increase in transmission.
Been a while - a nice feeling
Renouncing the foreign allegiance is covered by the naturalization oath, and the US government does not care whether or not the foreign country regards the American naturalization oath as constituting a renunciation of citizenship under its laws (the UK does not, but some countries would), and so does not require naturalized citizens to go through any further steps to renounce their original citizenship under that country's laws. Note that the US oath talks about "allegiance" which is not necessarily the same as citizenship, although many countries would consider it to be the same.
I can attest to the above from experience, having naturalized as an American citizen. I understand that if you do have a title of nobility, the US does require you to do whatever is necessary to formally renounce your title and that you must provide evidence of having done so before you can swear the American naturalization oath.
Pretty retrograde stuff.
Round 1
Le Pen 26%
Macron 25%
Bertrand 19%
Melenchon 14%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1380994517524971523?s=20
Run-off
Macron 54%
Le Pen 46%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1381007870150508550?s=20
Le Pen 60%
Melenchon 40%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1380998902170726404?s=20
However, not naturalizing does not absolve him of similar tax obligations as a US citizen, at least while he is a lawful permanent resident, and for several years after, should he ever decide to surrender that status and leave the US.
Tweet from Chris MasonBBC
I was a fan of his government, but that's a classic 'I'm stupid, not malicious' defence, always a desperate gamble.
Sounds like he’s trying to head off the formal investigation.
What a state our politics has got itself into!
EDIT and CFR is still falling
Thanks for the further info, which is very interesting, but again, my point was that as natural born US citizens they would technically be eligible for the Presidency, if that is what her ex-Highness is thinking of.
there is some-one else who thinks the current system is too loaded against families with valuable houses to inherit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56708778
I believe this might be one occasion when one can point the finger of being the work of shadowy Jews without being part of a massive anti-Semitic conspiracy theory
I strongly suspect Putin's "sabre rattling" in the Ukraine is primarily about testing the new Biden administration. There's also the events of the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh which saw Russia's client, Armenia, come unstuck.
What we are seeing is Putin reminding Azerbaijan, Turkey and the West that for all the advances in drone technology there's still a place for more traditional modes of warfare and any attempt to force Russia our of Crimea, for example, is going to be resisted.
b) because they allow citizens to deduct foreign taxes from their US tax bill it doesn't raise that much money
c) it gives expats a big incentive to renounce their citizenship.
Is that the right code still?
Honestly, can’t you read plain Russian?
We shall reconvene in 24 hours at the coal mine we discussed in Keighley. If anyone asks, you are there as part of a Ukrainian delegation to get ideas from the expert deep Yorkshire miners on how to restart mining in the Donbass.