Lifted from Yorkshire Live, in lieu of the lack of a share button, on likely declaration time:
(My comment: GE timings may not quite apply here as 4 constituencies returned in a normal Kirklees GE count.)
"Results due in the early hours of tomorrow morning: Once the polling stations close at 10pm, all the votes will be transported to Huddersfield to be counted.
We'll be there overnight bringing you all the updates. The result is expected in the early hours of the morning - but could be as late at 5am if the numbers are close.
So by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we should know who Batley and Spen's new MP is."
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
A truly disgraceful account of the traumatic effect of the Home Office's "Settled Status" process, post-Brexit, on one vulnerable old lady here, who's contributed a huge amount to the country over almost 60 years :
Listen to one of his objections to the necessity of getting residency in the UK
‘Oh no, I had to scan her face from side to side like an inmate in a concentration camp’
Yes. He had to take a photo of his Mum JUST LIKE THE NAZIS DID AT AUSCHWITZ
Then, along with literally trillions of other house-bound EU citizens she was stripped and led naked to a pretend underground disco while John Redwood MARCHED UP AND DOWN IN LEATHER TROUSERS SHOUTING ‘SCHNELL! SCHNELL!!’ only in Welsh
The onus would be on Brexiters is to prove why an 80-year old woman, who's contributed a vast amount to society over 60 year, should have to go through any process remotely like that, not on him as her advocate to demonstrate why his allusions are proportionate.
It's quite simply morally wrong, and both the Home Office and arguably other entire parts of the Brexit process itself are at fault.
If the requirement is what I think it is - the requirement is there because it's the easiest way of identifying that you match the paperwork you've provided.
Which is something that is very simple to do if you are young, rather more difficult if you are older and vulnerable.
My response to his complaint would really be that he's had 5 years to sort this out for his mum why did he leave it to the very last day at which point all the other options were no longer available because he had left it to the last possible second.
That won't do. The bureaucracy is quite capable of assessing her place and longevity in society before needing to challenge her on any front at all. The reason it can't operate like that, of course, is political.
Everybody has to fill in forms all the time. We just had to do the census....i presume this guy also did that for his mother as well.
He has 5 years to sort this out, he chose not to (or as I suspect from his twitter he is looking to make a scene). And his language of "scanning faces", FFS, he had to take a photo is what he had to do.
A census has a completely different cause ; the government bureaucracy wants to keep a tab on what is changing. This is a political issue of a bureaucracy not being empowered to review details that haven't changed in many, many years, and particularly with elderly people, which it can check much more easily.
I think you are confusing what the check here is for as I think there are two separate checks / stages involved:-
1) the paperwork itself 2) confirming that the person presenting the paperwork is the person the paperwork relates to. And given that this is being done via a machine rather than in person software needs to do some work and that software differs from supplier to supplier (as I've said before some use videos with you saying XYZ, others use photos).
I wouldn't regard these as separate issues. They're subsets of a bureaucratic and political issue - both because of its own culture, and because of the politics surrounding Brexit, the bureaucracy isn't empowered to make a sensible assessment of someone's place in society before wasting resources on ridiculous nonsense like this.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
That argument is wearing thin with the evidence.
This was never an economic decision. It was a political one pumped by people on the Far Right.
The EU gave protection to the rights of ordinary people, and set some limits on the power of potentially corrupt and even criminal political leaders. That is why these political leaders wanted to "take back control". Ordinary people have been the losers, and are now having to pay the price.
Politicians whom the public can sack are, in general, less corrupt and criminal than politicians whom the public cannot.
But with our pathetic voting system, we can't actually sack them. They have a blue rosette, and that is enough to see them through.
Until even traditional Conservative voters turn against them. That happened in C&A, and I would very much like to see it happen again today.
The average Con voter will continue to vote Boris even if he kidnapped their dog and set fire to their wife.
All the while tut-tutting that Keir is a bit dull.
Meanwhile, Philip will argue that a flammable spouse is the best use of economic resources and that canine theft was fully baked into the Brexit manifesto.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
In what ways are we better off? Can you name any?
1: We control our own money, so we're about £10 billion per annum better off. 2: We control our own laws, so we pass whichever laws our Parliament decides at our elections. 3: We control our own borders, not something I ever cared about but since we don't have a free market in housing and NIMBYs are still doing all they can to halt construction it seems in hindsight I was wrong to support free movement. 4: The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.
A few massive benefits.
“ £10 billion per annum better off.”. That’s a long way short of £340M a day 😮. And that’s even before the £££ extra in extra costs on business Brexit has introduced that also needs to be subtracted from the £10B. And also the other bits of the £10B not saved because we didn’t opt out, security, policing, science etc.
“ The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.”. Whaaaaaaaaaaat? That needs explaining.
NHS funding in real terms: 2016 £137.4 bn 2021 £159bn [excluding Covid expenditure]
Difference = £21.6bn = £416mn per week.
Funding the NHS instead of the EU ✅
I don’t recall the EU suppressing our funding of the NHS, do you?
Actually; as a result of repressed GDP growth since Brexit; we have less money for the NHS 😫
I do recall the EU suppressing our funding by taking about £10billion per annum net (about £350mn per week gross) out of our country.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
That argument is wearing thin with the evidence.
This was never an economic decision. It was a political one pumped by people on the Far Right.
The EU gave protection to the rights of ordinary people, and set some limits on the power of potentially corrupt and even criminal political leaders. That is why these political leaders wanted to "take back control". Ordinary people have been the losers, and are now having to pay the price.
Politicians whom the public can sack are, in general, less corrupt and criminal than politicians whom the public cannot.
But with our pathetic voting system, we can't actually sack them. They have a blue rosette, and that is enough to see them through.
Until even traditional Conservative voters turn against them. That happened in C&A, and I would very much like to see it happen again today.
The average Con voter will continue to vote Boris even if he kidnapped their dog and set fire to their wife.
All the while tut-tutting that Keir is a bit dull.
Meanwhile, Philip will argue that a flammable spouse is the best use of economic resources and that canine theft was fully baked into the Brexit manifesto.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
In what ways are we better off? Can you name any?
1: We control our own money, so we're about £10 billion per annum better off. 2: We control our own laws, so we pass whichever laws our Parliament decides at our elections. 3: We control our own borders, not something I ever cared about but since we don't have a free market in housing and NIMBYs are still doing all they can to halt construction it seems in hindsight I was wrong to support free movement. 4: The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.
A few massive benefits.
“ £10 billion per annum better off.”. That’s a long way short of £340M a day 😮. And that’s even before the £££ extra in extra costs on business Brexit has introduced that also needs to be subtracted from the £10B. And also the other bits of the £10B not saved because we didn’t opt out, security, policing, science etc.
“ The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.”. Whaaaaaaaaaaat? That needs explaining.
NHS funding in real terms: 2016 £137.4 bn 2021 £159bn [excluding Covid expenditure]
Difference = £21.6bn = £416mn per week.
Funding the NHS instead of the EU ✅
I don’t recall the EU suppressing our funding of the NHS, do you?
Actually; as a result of repressed GDP growth since Brexit; we have less money for the NHS 😫
I do recall the EU suppressing our funding by taking about £10billion per annum net (about £350mn per week gross) out of our country.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
I have to say what I find remarkable is that today's obvious good news of Nissan's investment in the UK, creating near 10,000 new jobs in the factory and supply chains, results in warnings from remainers that the EU may take a dim view of it and commence action against HMG
It is unbelievable that there is a section of people in our country who want it to fail outside the EU, in order, they assume, that the UK would change its mind and rejoin
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
Lifted from Yorkshire Live, in lieu of the lack of a share button, on likely declaration time:
(My comment: GE timings may not quite apply here as 4 constituencies returned in a normal Kirklees GE count.)
"Results due in the early hours of tomorrow morning: Once the polling stations close at 10pm, all the votes will be transported to Huddersfield to be counted.
We'll be there overnight bringing you all the updates. The result is expected in the early hours of the morning - but could be as late at 5am if the numbers are close.
So by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we should know who Batley and Spen's new MP is."
I believe it will go as a constituency post the boundary changes, so B & S's last MP
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
You said "My figures predate the pandemic" hence before the bill I linked which got rid of freedom of movement and introduced the new system.....how typically lib dem of you
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
That argument is wearing thin with the evidence.
This was never an economic decision. It was a political one pumped by people on the Far Right.
The EU gave protection to the rights of ordinary people, and set some limits on the power of potentially corrupt and even criminal political leaders. That is why these political leaders wanted to "take back control". Ordinary people have been the losers, and are now having to pay the price.
Politicians whom the public can sack are, in general, less corrupt and criminal than politicians whom the public cannot.
But with our pathetic voting system, we can't actually sack them. They have a blue rosette, and that is enough to see them through.
Until even traditional Conservative voters turn against them. That happened in C&A, and I would very much like to see it happen again today.
The average Con voter will continue to vote Boris even if he kidnapped their dog and set fire to their wife.
All the while tut-tutting that Keir is a bit dull.
Meanwhile, Philip will argue that a flammable spouse is the best use of economic resources and that canine theft was fully baked into the Brexit manifesto.
Whereas you are totally neutral on the pros and cons of the EU.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
What the nutters on the Far Right never got is exactly what you say. Countries like France and Germany don't kow tow to Brussels. Never have and never will. When it suits them they do their own thing. We never really understood how membership of the club works when you're one of the most powerful members.
I'm afraid that's because the politicians concerned, who drove this Far Right agenda, were as incompetent and misguided as those like von der Leyen, Jacques Delors and Jean-Claude Junckers.
So what you (and I see Rochdale and Clipp agreeing) is that we should agree to do something (as members) but then completely disregard our commitments, go back on our word, and do what we want anyway even if we're committed to do the opposite. Like the French and Germans do.
Its a smart idea, realpolitik, but its funny whenever a Brexiteer suggests that then suddenly Rochdale et al find it an atrocious idea.
Why is it OK for an EU memberstate like France to disregard its international commitments, while an independent nation like Britain doing as it pleases is the end of the frigging world to some people?
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
That argument is wearing thin with the evidence.
This was never an economic decision. It was a political one pumped by people on the Far Right.
The EU gave protection to the rights of ordinary people, and set some limits on the power of potentially corrupt and even criminal political leaders. That is why these political leaders wanted to "take back control". Ordinary people have been the losers, and are now having to pay the price.
Politicians whom the public can sack are, in general, less corrupt and criminal than politicians whom the public cannot.
But with our pathetic voting system, we can't actually sack them. They have a blue rosette, and that is enough to see them through.
Until even traditional Conservative voters turn against them. That happened in C&A, and I would very much like to see it happen again today.
The average Con voter will continue to vote Boris even if he kidnapped their dog and set fire to their wife.
All the while tut-tutting that Keir is a bit dull.
Meanwhile, Philip will argue that a flammable spouse is the best use of economic resources and that canine theft was fully baked into the Brexit manifesto.
Whereas you are totally neutral on the pros and cons of the EU.
How dare they! It is one of the basic tenets of western democracy that taxpayers are entitled to know how and where their money is being spent.
Really when you are competing against other countries and are trying to encourage other companies to come to the UK based on similar offerings.
The last thing you want to do in those circumstances is tell everyone what you are offering - for one reason it would allow other countries to offer more and see a company currently happy with £50m say insisting they get the £100m Nissan just got given.
Under the TCA the UK granting authorities are obliged (as the EU already does) to publish full details of the subsidy on a public website. This is so any injured parties can challenge it (in UK courts as the first step).
So not today then - the information needs to be published within 6 months (more than enough time to get a few more deals out the door before the figures are revealed, and hopefully saving us a few quid).
Indeed. It is very important to Nissan that the subsidy deal doesn't get successfully challenged. The EU has powerful sanctions (as does the UK going the other way, but that doesn't help Nissan). The key thing to stick within the rules, which shouldn't be difficult as they allow plenty of leeway anyway.
Can you even start to imagine if the EU attempted to interfere with the UK investment in Nissan and try to sanction HMG
I can easily imagine. In fact, I think it is virtually certain to happen with UK subsidy at some point.
How dare they! It is one of the basic tenets of western democracy that taxpayers are entitled to know how and where their money is being spent.
Really when you are competing against other countries and are trying to encourage other companies to come to the UK based on similar offerings.
The last thing you want to do in those circumstances is tell everyone what you are offering - for one reason it would allow other countries to offer more and see a company currently happy with £50m say insisting they get the £100m Nissan just got given.
Under the TCA the UK granting authorities are obliged (as the EU already does) to publish full details of the subsidy on a public website. This is so any injured parties can challenge it (in UK courts as the first step).
So not today then - the information needs to be published within 6 months (more than enough time to get a few more deals out the door before the figures are revealed, and hopefully saving us a few quid).
Indeed. It is very important to Nissan that the subsidy deal doesn't get successfully challenged. The EU has powerful sanctions (as does the UK going the other way, but that doesn't help Nissan). The key thing to stick within the rules, which shouldn't be difficult as they allow plenty of leeway anyway.
Can you even start to imagine if the EU attempted to interfere with the UK investment in Nissan and try to sanction HMG
I can easily imagine. In fact, I think it is virtually certain to happen with UK subsidy at some point.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
In what ways are we better off? Can you name any?
1: We control our own money, so we're about £10 billion per annum better off. 2: We control our own laws, so we pass whichever laws our Parliament decides at our elections. 3: We control our own borders, not something I ever cared about but since we don't have a free market in housing and NIMBYs are still doing all they can to halt construction it seems in hindsight I was wrong to support free movement. 4: The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.
A few massive benefits.
“ £10 billion per annum better off.”. That’s a long way short of £340M a day 😮. And that’s even before the £££ extra in extra costs on business Brexit has introduced that also needs to be subtracted from the £10B. And also the other bits of the £10B not saved because we didn’t opt out, security, policing, science etc.
“ The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.”. Whaaaaaaaaaaat? That needs explaining.
NHS funding in real terms: 2016 £137.4 bn 2021 £159bn [excluding Covid expenditure]
Difference = £21.6bn = £416mn per week.
Funding the NHS instead of the EU ✅
I don’t recall the EU suppressing our funding of the NHS, do you?
Actually; as a result of repressed GDP growth since Brexit; we have less money for the NHS 😫
I do recall the EU suppressing our funding by taking about £10billion per annum net (about £350mn per week gross) out of our country.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
You’ve tried your “2010-2019” trick before.
Please attempt it on a stupider board.
You're the one so stupid you're making claims not substantiated by numbers.
A decade is a reasonable timeframe to look at. If our GDP had actually been suppressed then that would show up within that decade, but it doesn't. So our GDP wasn't really suppressed was it. Brexit isn't even a blip in that decade, it is completely immaterial we grew faster than the EU despite your so-called suppression.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same happens this decade.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
You said "My figures predate the pandemic" hence before the bill I linked which got rid of freedom of movement and introduced the new system.....how typically lib dem of you
You claimed that your wages were stagnant until Brexit because there are now fewer immigrants.
I pointed out that immigrants had stayed constant.
You said, bollocks, recruiters are calling me every week.
I said, yes because we now have a pandemic which “swamps all”.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
You said "My figures predate the pandemic" hence before the bill I linked which got rid of freedom of movement and introduced the new system.....how typically lib dem of you
You claimed that your wages were stagnant until Brexit because there were fewer immigrants.
I pointed out that immigrants had stayed constant.
You said, bollocks, recruiters are calling me every week.
I said, yes because we now have a pandemic which “swamps all”.
I said this year they are finally raising...what did we do this year as linked...oh we got rid of fom
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
In what ways are we better off? Can you name any?
1: We control our own money, so we're about £10 billion per annum better off. 2: We control our own laws, so we pass whichever laws our Parliament decides at our elections. 3: We control our own borders, not something I ever cared about but since we don't have a free market in housing and NIMBYs are still doing all they can to halt construction it seems in hindsight I was wrong to support free movement. 4: The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.
A few massive benefits.
“ £10 billion per annum better off.”. That’s a long way short of £340M a day 😮. And that’s even before the £££ extra in extra costs on business Brexit has introduced that also needs to be subtracted from the £10B. And also the other bits of the £10B not saved because we didn’t opt out, security, policing, science etc.
“ The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.”. Whaaaaaaaaaaat? That needs explaining.
NHS funding in real terms: 2016 £137.4 bn 2021 £159bn [excluding Covid expenditure]
Difference = £21.6bn = £416mn per week.
Funding the NHS instead of the EU ✅
I don’t recall the EU suppressing our funding of the NHS, do you?
Actually; as a result of repressed GDP growth since Brexit; we have less money for the NHS 😫
I do recall the EU suppressing our funding by taking about £10billion per annum net (about £350mn per week gross) out of our country.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
You’ve tried your “2010-2019” trick before.
Please attempt it on a stupider board.
You're the one so stupid you're making claims not substantiated by numbers.
A decade is a reasonable timeframe to look at. If our GDP had actually been suppressed then that would show up within that decade, but it doesn't. So our GDP wasn't really suppressed was it. Brexit isn't even a blip in that decade, it is completely immaterial we grew faster than the EU despite your so-called suppression.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same happens this decade.
Please do some reading on Brexit impact on economic growth.
This Nissan thing - does anyone know what happened to the previous (existing?) battery factory? I know the 24 and 30 kWh packs were made in Sunderland, I think the 40 and 62 kWh packs are imported.
Great that China are building a new battery factory for the plant I'm just wondering if the "new battery factory" spin is hiding the existing factory which presumably shuts down
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
You said "My figures predate the pandemic" hence before the bill I linked which got rid of freedom of movement and introduced the new system.....how typically lib dem of you
You claimed that your wages were stagnant until Brexit because there were fewer immigrants.
I pointed out that immigrants had stayed constant.
You said, bollocks, recruiters are calling me every week.
I said, yes because we now have a pandemic which “swamps all”.
I said this year they are finally raising...what did we do this year as linked...oh we got rid of fom
Some people are so petrified of inflation they actually consider raising wages to be a bad thing.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
By special interest whingers you mean two of the four nations, and most of the economically active population.
Still, it is refreshingly honest of you to confess you don’t give a fuck about the union, farming, fishing or “the arts”.
Total bollocks a lot of the economically active people are now getting payrises due to the fact companies have to compete for our labour rather than have a huge pool of people they can drag in for less. The fact that people that are senior in businesses don't like this is purely icing on our cake.
Till Brexit my job was paying much the same as it did in 2004 even if you applied to new companies. If pay had kept pace with inflation I would have been earning 41% more.In the last year the posted remuneration in job adverts are already showing a 7% uplift in pay offered
As I note above, net immigration has stayed constant, so you talk much bollocks.
Constant numbers dont mean anything, immigration has changed now you have to be coming for a job which pays over I think 27k. Also if immigration has stayed the same how do you square that with the likes of Rochdale pioneers whinging that lorry driver pay is rising....think its you talking bollocks and I get emails from recruiters all the time and I can see the pay offers rising so I don't really care if you think its bollocks because I can see the reality
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
You said "My figures predate the pandemic" hence before the bill I linked which got rid of freedom of movement and introduced the new system.....how typically lib dem of you
You claimed that your wages were stagnant until Brexit because there were fewer immigrants.
I pointed out that immigrants had stayed constant.
You said, bollocks, recruiters are calling me every week.
I said, yes because we now have a pandemic which “swamps all”.
I said this year they are finally raising...what did we do this year as linked...oh we got rid of fom
Some people are so petrified of inflation they actually consider raising wages to be a bad thing.
Yes and always seems to be the lefties who on other occasions like to bang on about how people are underpaid
How dare they! It is one of the basic tenets of western democracy that taxpayers are entitled to know how and where their money is being spent.
Really when you are competing against other countries and are trying to encourage other companies to come to the UK based on similar offerings.
The last thing you want to do in those circumstances is tell everyone what you are offering - for one reason it would allow other countries to offer more and see a company currently happy with £50m say insisting they get the £100m Nissan just got given.
Under the TCA the UK granting authorities are obliged (as the EU already does) to publish full details of the subsidy on a public website. This is so any injured parties can challenge it (in UK courts as the first step).
So not today then - the information needs to be published within 6 months (more than enough time to get a few more deals out the door before the figures are revealed, and hopefully saving us a few quid).
Indeed. It is very important to Nissan that the subsidy deal doesn't get successfully challenged. The EU has powerful sanctions (as does the UK going the other way, but that doesn't help Nissan). The key thing to stick within the rules, which shouldn't be difficult as they allow plenty of leeway anyway.
Can you even start to imagine if the EU attempted to interfere with the UK investment in Nissan and try to sanction HMG
I can easily imagine. In fact, I think it is virtually certain to happen with UK subsidy at some point.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
Except we're massively better off out.
We've taken our money with us and our law making is our own. There is no real downside, besides special interest whingers.
In what ways are we better off? Can you name any?
1: We control our own money, so we're about £10 billion per annum better off. 2: We control our own laws, so we pass whichever laws our Parliament decides at our elections. 3: We control our own borders, not something I ever cared about but since we don't have a free market in housing and NIMBYs are still doing all they can to halt construction it seems in hindsight I was wrong to support free movement. 4: The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.
A few massive benefits.
“ £10 billion per annum better off.”. That’s a long way short of £340M a day 😮. And that’s even before the £££ extra in extra costs on business Brexit has introduced that also needs to be subtracted from the £10B. And also the other bits of the £10B not saved because we didn’t opt out, security, policing, science etc.
“ The NHS has gained over £400mn a week in real terms. More than meeting that £350mn promised.”. Whaaaaaaaaaaat? That needs explaining.
NHS funding in real terms: 2016 £137.4 bn 2021 £159bn [excluding Covid expenditure]
Difference = £21.6bn = £416mn per week.
Funding the NHS instead of the EU ✅
I don’t recall the EU suppressing our funding of the NHS, do you?
Actually; as a result of repressed GDP growth since Brexit; we have less money for the NHS 😫
I do recall the EU suppressing our funding by taking about £10billion per annum net (about £350mn per week gross) out of our country.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
You’ve tried your “2010-2019” trick before.
Please attempt it on a stupider board.
You're the one so stupid you're making claims not substantiated by numbers.
A decade is a reasonable timeframe to look at. If our GDP had actually been suppressed then that would show up within that decade, but it doesn't. So our GDP wasn't really suppressed was it. Brexit isn't even a blip in that decade, it is completely immaterial we grew faster than the EU despite your so-called suppression.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same happens this decade.
Please do some reading on Brexit impact on economic growth.
Clue. Brexit didn’t “happen” until 2015 earliest.
There has been no Brexit impact on economic growth.
The Brexit referendum process began in 2013 and people were claiming then that "uncertainty" would suppress growth.
If GDP growth had really been suppressed since 2015 then that would show up overall in the decade's figures, especially since it was contrasting the UK with the Eurozone. By reversing some of the gains we'd had in the first years if necessary. But it didn't happen, because you're full of s**t. The figures aren't on your side.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
What the nutters on the Far Right never got is exactly what you say. Countries like France and Germany don't kow tow to Brussels. Never have and never will. When it suits them they do their own thing. We never really understood how membership of the club works when you're one of the most powerful members.
I'm afraid that's because the politicians concerned, who drove this Far Right agenda, were as incompetent and misguided as those like von der Leyen, Jacques Delors and Jean-Claude Junckers.
So what you (and I see Rochdale and Clipp agreeing) is that we should agree to do something (as members) but then completely disregard our commitments, go back on our word, and do what we want anyway even if we're committed to do the opposite. Like the French and Germans do.
Its a smart idea, realpolitik, but its funny whenever a Brexiteer suggests that then suddenly Rochdale et al find it an atrocious idea.
Why is it OK for an EU memberstate like France to disregard its international commitments, while an independent nation like Britain doing as it pleases is the end of the frigging world to some people?
Within the EU rules there apparently is a grace period where members can get away with bending the rules to suit their own purposes. If they then keep going they get a slap on the wrist from the court. That's internal to the EU within the existing agreements. We could - and should - have done the same to give out state subsidy as others did.
That is wholly different to signing an external agreement and then saying "we didn't realise it meant that, we won't do it". Not that my opinion on this matters, it is the opinion of global potential trade partners and allies. They may well be hypocritical in the eyes of the Wizard of Wazza but his opinion or mine doesn't matter.
It is what it is. Other countries expect us to uphold treaties months after we sign them. That may or may not be two-faced but it is still their opinion. Perhaps the best approach would be to sulk, try and blame the EU who internally do the same thing, then say "we don't need the rest of the world" when they shun us.
Lifted from Yorkshire Live, in lieu of the lack of a share button, on likely declaration time:
(My comment: GE timings may not quite apply here as 4 constituencies returned in a normal Kirklees GE count.)
"Results due in the early hours of tomorrow morning: Once the polling stations close at 10pm, all the votes will be transported to Huddersfield to be counted.
We'll be there overnight bringing you all the updates. The result is expected in the early hours of the morning - but could be as late at 5am if the numbers are close.
So by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we should know who Batley and Spen's new MP is."
I believe it will go as a constituency post the boundary changes, so B & S's last MP
I'm not sure whether the new constituency will be regarded as the direct successor to Batley & Spen, but the proposal is pretty close geographically to the current constituency, so my instinct would be to say yes, and retaining the name would also be appropriate.
Iirc, the constituency loses Heckmondwike ward to Dewsbury, thus losing a couple more miles of the lower Spen, but remains otherwise unchanged. Heckmondwike is probably the most Red Wall part of B&S and is ultra marginal in this contest, so it's removal would have favoured three Tories in the past, but is much more neutral now.
Lifted from Yorkshire Live, in lieu of the lack of a share button, on likely declaration time:
(My comment: GE timings may not quite apply here as 4 constituencies returned in a normal Kirklees GE count.)
"Results due in the early hours of tomorrow morning: Once the polling stations close at 10pm, all the votes will be transported to Huddersfield to be counted.
We'll be there overnight bringing you all the updates. The result is expected in the early hours of the morning - but could be as late at 5am if the numbers are close.
So by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we should know who Batley and Spen's new MP is."
I believe it will go as a constituency post the boundary changes, so B & S's last MP
I'm not sure whether the new constituency will be regarded as the direct successor to Batley & Spen, but the proposal is pretty close geographically to the current constituency, so my instinct would be to say yes, and retaining the name would also be appropriate.
Iirc, the constituency loses Heckmondwike ward to Dewsbury, thus losing a couple more miles of the lower Spen, but remains otherwise unchanged. Heckmondwike is probably the most Red Wall part of B&S and is ultra marginal in this contest, so it's removal would have favoured three Tories in the past, but is much more neutral now.
That's true, but that's why the flaws need to be properly acknowledged and addressed, not dealt with in a defensive manner, otherwise they aren't resolved and gives and gave ammunition to opponents. I've been on both sides of the issue.
It's also why being in the room, having a seat at the table, making the rules, is better than running away and hoping nobody hurts you, like we did.
What the nutters on the Far Right never got is exactly what you say. Countries like France and Germany don't kow tow to Brussels. Never have and never will. When it suits them they do their own thing. We never really understood how membership of the club works when you're one of the most powerful members.
I'm afraid that's because the politicians concerned, who drove this Far Right agenda, were as incompetent and misguided as those like von der Leyen, Jacques Delors and Jean-Claude Junckers.
So what you (and I see Rochdale and Clipp agreeing) is that we should agree to do something (as members) but then completely disregard our commitments, go back on our word, and do what we want anyway even if we're committed to do the opposite. Like the French and Germans do.
Its a smart idea, realpolitik, but its funny whenever a Brexiteer suggests that then suddenly Rochdale et al find it an atrocious idea.
Why is it OK for an EU memberstate like France to disregard its international commitments, while an independent nation like Britain doing as it pleases is the end of the frigging world to some people?
Within the EU rules there apparently is a grace period where members can get away with bending the rules to suit their own purposes. If they then keep going they get a slap on the wrist from the court. That's internal to the EU within the existing agreements. We could - and should - have done the same to give out state subsidy as others did.
That is wholly different to signing an external agreement and then saying "we didn't realise it meant that, we won't do it". Not that my opinion on this matters, it is the opinion of global potential trade partners and allies. They may well be hypocritical in the eyes of the Wizard of Wazza but his opinion or mine doesn't matter.
It is what it is. Other countries expect us to uphold treaties months after we sign them. That may or may not be two-faced but it is still their opinion. Perhaps the best approach would be to sulk, try and blame the EU who internally do the same thing, then say "we don't need the rest of the world" when they shun us.
Nonsense. There is no codified grace period, if there is I'd like you to cite where the grace period is in a Treaty, chapter and verse. Instead its literally just countries getting away with what they can.
Which is exactly the same as signing an external agreement and then saying "we didn't realise it meant that, we won't do it."
Which independent countries do all the freaking time, which is why our potential global trade partners don't give a damn. Because they do the same. The French and Germans do it within the EU. The EU does it internationally. The Americans do it. The Aussies do it. The Chinese, the Japanese. There probably isn't a country in the world that doesn't do it - because they can and that's the way the world works.
If an agreement we signed no longer suits our interests because the situation has changed then if the consequences are worth it, we should do whatever we please. Our "partners" will be doing the same.
The "shunning" is all in your head. You've imagined it, it isn't happening.
This Nissan thing - does anyone know what happened to the previous (existing?) battery factory? I know the 24 and 30 kWh packs were made in Sunderland, I think the 40 and 62 kWh packs are imported.
Great that China are building a new battery factory for the plant I'm just wondering if the "new battery factory" spin is hiding the existing factory which presumably shuts down
It's still there and operational - unless my cousin has been lying about his work for the last few years. It only does 24 and 30kWh packs as it's never had capacity to do any more than that.
I believe the new factory is significantly (factors bigger) than the current one.
This Nissan thing - does anyone know what happened to the previous (existing?) battery factory? I know the 24 and 30 kWh packs were made in Sunderland, I think the 40 and 62 kWh packs are imported.
Great that China are building a new battery factory for the plant I'm just wondering if the "new battery factory" spin is hiding the existing factory which presumably shuts down
It's still there and operational - unless my cousin has been lying about his work for the last few years. It only does 24 and 30kWh packs as it's never had capacity to do any more than that.
I believe the new factory is significantly (factors bigger) than the current one.
I hope it all works out! Nissan's batteries aren't just old chemistry at the moment they are passive which means they overheat. Combine that with a decade old car and it's not wonder the Leaf feels like a relic.
I assume the new Envision packs will have active heating / cooling and latest cell chemistry and that Nissan will come up with something more modern to put them in. Definitely not building the Ariya here so it will need to be something new.
As Nissan's plant doesn't have an EV specific line they need to use a relatively conventional layout (motor / inverter stack in the engine bay) - I think a Qashqai EV would be a big hit on UK roads.
Although less applause for Brexiteers, who could have predicted this, I mean we held all the cards right, but it is nothing to worry about, not like the banking and financial services is the largest contributor to the Exchequer, oh wait.
Chancellor confirms that UK has given up trying to secure greater access to EU markets for financial services firms.
City of London has been largely cut off since Brexit completed at end of last year.
Sunak says deal on equivalence “has not happened”.
Boris is incredibly *lucky* that the overwhelming global catastrophe of Covid has obscured all these Brexit bad news stories. What does it matter if we lack ‘financial equivalence’ for The City when the entire future of global cities is in question?!
It doesn’t. By the time the plague-fog has cleared we will be in a different world. Brexit will be an intriguing footnote. An imformative context. Perhaps a useful appendix.
London will have to sink or swim as a great independent self governing city, as she has always done. I wouldn’t bet against her, even now
I thought it was really interesting that the UK has 100 unicorns now - more than double that of other key European nations
How dare they! It is one of the basic tenets of western democracy that taxpayers are entitled to know how and where their money is being spent.
Really when you are competing against other countries and are trying to encourage other companies to come to the UK based on similar offerings.
The last thing you want to do in those circumstances is tell everyone what you are offering - for one reason it would allow other countries to offer more and see a company currently happy with £50m say insisting they get the £100m Nissan just got given.
Under the TCA the UK granting authorities are obliged (as the EU already does) to publish full details of the subsidy on a public website. This is so any injured parties can challenge it (in UK courts as the first step).
So not today then - the information needs to be published within 6 months (more than enough time to get a few more deals out the door before the figures are revealed, and hopefully saving us a few quid).
Indeed. It is very important to Nissan that the subsidy deal doesn't get successfully challenged. The EU has powerful sanctions (as does the UK going the other way, but that doesn't help Nissan). The key thing to stick within the rules, which shouldn't be difficult as they allow plenty of leeway anyway.
Can you even start to imagine if the EU attempted to interfere with the UK investment in Nissan and try to sanction HMG
I can easily imagine. In fact, I think it is virtually certain to happen with UK subsidy at some point.
Off topic but the only negative about the Euros is that we have to listen ad infinitum to that turgid piece of sh1t known as "Three Lions on a Shirt", with its whingey, nasally sung tone. Even its chorus of "It's Coming Home" sounds like it's being sung by people who don't have any conviction in what they are saying.
No, if we are going to go with a song we should go with this one which, especially in post-Brexit spirit, encapsulates our buccaneering can-do attitude (obviously the original, not the remake with the "let's not offend anyone" video).
Comments
(My comment: GE timings may not quite apply here as 4 constituencies returned in a normal Kirklees GE count.)
"Results due in the early hours of tomorrow morning:
Once the polling stations close at 10pm, all the votes will be transported to Huddersfield to be counted.
We'll be there overnight bringing you all the updates. The result is expected in the early hours of the morning - but could be as late at 5am if the numbers are close.
So by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we should know who Batley and Spen's new MP is."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-immigration-bill-to-end-free-movement-introduced-to-parliament#:~:text=The bill will begin its,operate from 1 January 2021.
colour me surprised
All the while tut-tutting that Keir is a bit dull.
Meanwhile, Philip will argue that a flammable spouse is the best use of economic resources and that canine theft was fully baked into the Brexit manifesto.
And GDP growth grew faster in the UK 2010-2019 than it did in the Eurozone "despite Brexit" so no GDP repression whatsoever.
Please attempt it on a stupider board.
It is unbelievable that there is a section of people in our country who want it to fail outside the EU, in order, they assume, that the UK would change its mind and rejoin
The overall impact on immigration seems to have been to swap Europeans with non-Europeans.
The pandemic swamps all, though, at least temporarily.
Its a smart idea, realpolitik, but its funny whenever a Brexiteer suggests that then suddenly Rochdale et al find it an atrocious idea.
Why is it OK for an EU memberstate like France to disregard its international commitments, while an independent nation like Britain doing as it pleases is the end of the frigging world to some people?
Beware what you wish for
A decade is a reasonable timeframe to look at. If our GDP had actually been suppressed then that would show up within that decade, but it doesn't. So our GDP wasn't really suppressed was it. Brexit isn't even a blip in that decade, it is completely immaterial we grew faster than the EU despite your so-called suppression.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same happens this decade.
I pointed out that immigrants had stayed constant.
You said, bollocks, recruiters are calling me every week.
I said, yes because we now have a pandemic which “swamps all”.
Clue. Brexit didn’t “happen” until 2015 earliest.
Great that China are building a new battery factory for the plant I'm just wondering if the "new battery factory" spin is hiding the existing factory which presumably shuts down
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electric-cars/news/macron-demands-carmakers-turn-to-made-in-france-for-e8bn-virus-aid/
Or...
EU approves €2.9 billion state aid for a second Pan-European research and innovation project along the entire battery value chain
https://www.innoenergy.com/news-events/eu-approves-29-billion-state-aid-for-a-second-pan-european-research-and-innovation-project-along-the-entire-battery-value-chain/
The Brexit referendum process began in 2013 and people were claiming then that "uncertainty" would suppress growth.
If GDP growth had really been suppressed since 2015 then that would show up overall in the decade's figures, especially since it was contrasting the UK with the Eurozone. By reversing some of the gains we'd had in the first years if necessary. But it didn't happen, because you're full of s**t. The figures aren't on your side.
That is wholly different to signing an external agreement and then saying "we didn't realise it meant that, we won't do it". Not that my opinion on this matters, it is the opinion of global potential trade partners and allies. They may well be hypocritical in the eyes of the Wizard of Wazza but his opinion or mine doesn't matter.
It is what it is. Other countries expect us to uphold treaties months after we sign them. That may or may not be two-faced but it is still their opinion. Perhaps the best approach would be to sulk, try and blame the EU who internally do the same thing, then say "we don't need the rest of the world" when they shun us.
https://twitter.com/p_historians/status/1410526564941324291
Iirc, the constituency loses Heckmondwike ward to Dewsbury, thus losing a couple more miles of the lower Spen, but remains otherwise unchanged. Heckmondwike is probably the most Red Wall part of B&S and is ultra marginal in this contest, so it's removal would have favoured three Tories in the past, but is much more neutral now.
Which is exactly the same as signing an external agreement and then saying "we didn't realise it meant that, we won't do it."
Which independent countries do all the freaking time, which is why our potential global trade partners don't give a damn. Because they do the same. The French and Germans do it within the EU. The EU does it internationally. The Americans do it. The Aussies do it. The Chinese, the Japanese. There probably isn't a country in the world that doesn't do it - because they can and that's the way the world works.
If an agreement we signed no longer suits our interests because the situation has changed then if the consequences are worth it, we should do whatever we please. Our "partners" will be doing the same.
The "shunning" is all in your head. You've imagined it, it isn't happening.
I believe the new factory is significantly (factors bigger) than the current one.
Impressive from Cav.
I assume the new Envision packs will have active heating / cooling and latest cell chemistry and that Nissan will come up with something more modern to put them in. Definitely not building the Ariya here so it will need to be something new.
As Nissan's plant doesn't have an EV specific line they need to use a relatively conventional layout (motor / inverter stack in the engine bay) - I think a Qashqai EV would be a big hit on UK roads.
https://twitter.com/PaulWilliamsLAB/status/1410550609820925953
"Happy to be out in the sun this morning campaigning for
@kimleadbeater
in #BatleyAndSpenByelection #labour"
No, if we are going to go with a song we should go with this one which, especially in post-Brexit spirit, encapsulates our buccaneering can-do attitude (obviously the original, not the remake with the "let's not offend anyone" video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6nPu-1auE
Covered.