The boy George is trying to out do Brown as the worst Chancellor.
He's given us HS2, a massively over priced Hinkley Point power deal, and austerity cuts that could well have influenced the outcome at Grenfell. Plus he played a key role in the Foxtrot Up Remain campaign. Coupled with editorials that helped Corbyn over the line in marginal seats in London, and his continued spoiled child sniping that drives the meme against May, and it's hard to tell the difference.
Certainly agree with you on HS2. According to the Times I see the Chinese are being mooted to run the line - it's almost if someone is deliberately trying to wind up the project's opponents.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
Not impossible, but I think the most likely scenario is that she remains until 2019, delivers Brexit, and then stands down. Of course, events might intervene to make that impossible.
We also shouldn't forget that the problems within Labour haven't gone away, so events might not intervene on only side of the equation..
You Tories have gone a but funny. All the weaknesses that caused May to crash during the election campaign are still there. The next embarrassing event is perhaps hours/days away.
I can only conclude that you lot are in a kind of shock and there is some comfort in pretending the whole sorry election didn't happen.
Seriously, you need to wake up and get rid before she breaks something that matters.
The left wing remainers don't care about the poor. If they did they would be outraged at the exploitation of European workers by farmers and other employers. Instead they bang on about the prices for the consumers as i all they care about is the free market.
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
I don't think that's right, and I couldn't find it in the article you linked. The same rules apply whether you're a UK citizen or a non-UK EU citizen. The wrinkle is that you can get around the UK's evil wankery by *living elsewhere in the EU with the foreign spouse first*. However, UK citizens can do this too, at least at the moment.
The then prime minister added: “At the moment, if a British citizen wants to bring, say, a South American partner to the UK, then we ask for proof that they meet an income threshold and can speak English. But EU law means we cannot apply these tests to EU migrants. Their partners can just come straight into our country without any proper controls at all.”
As a general rule you shouldn't believe things the Prime Minister says, because she's full of shit. However, in this case I think what she's saying is technically correct and matches what I'm saying. The people they can't apply these tests to are people *migrating from the EU*.
This includes UK citizens migrating from the EU, and quite a few UK citizens with non-EU spouses have been moving to an EU country for a while precisely to get through this loophole.
The Prime Minister was Cameron. I think you should read the whole article as it's clear different immigration rules apply to U.K. and EU citizens.
I don't think that's right, and I couldn't find it in the article you linked. The same rules apply whether you're a UK citizen or a non-UK EU citizen. The wrinkle is that you can get around the UK's evil wankery by *living elsewhere in the EU with the foreign spouse first*. However, UK citizens can do this too, at least at the moment.
The then prime minister added: “At the moment, if a British citizen wants to bring, say, a South American partner to the UK, then we ask for proof that they meet an income threshold and can speak English. But EU law means we cannot apply these tests to EU migrants. Their partners can just come straight into our country without any proper controls at all.”
As a general rule you shouldn't believe things the Prime Minister says, because she's full of shit. However, in this case I think what she's saying is technically correct and matches what I'm saying. The people they can't apply these tests to are people *migrating from the EU*.
This includes UK citizens migrating from the EU, and quite a few UK citizens with non-EU spouses have been moving to an EU country for a while precisely to get through this loophole.
The Prime Minister was Cameron. I think you should read the whole article as it's clear different immigration rules apply to U.K. and EU citizens.
I read it again, that's not at all clear. It doesn't say anything at all about UK citizens migrating from elsewhere in the EU. They have the same rights as any other EU citizen.
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
I think that it is fear of looking doubly foolish and self-indulgent, together with fear of handing the Premiership to Boris by default which is keeping her there. Understandable, but the bullet will have to be bitten IMO.
@davidtorrance: Struck me at today's #FMQs that Sturgeon finds herself fire-fighting on 6 different fronts: #Brexit, #indyref2, domestic record 1/3
@davidtorrance: From the left (Corbyn), the right (Davidson) and, unusually, internal criticism. One or two of those might be manageable, not all six 2/3
@davidtorrance: Hereafter incidents like tail docking vote will highlight weakness/contradictions that have always been there, but now much more visibly 3/3
Indeed...
@IrvineWelsh: 'Nicky Sturgeon Puppy surgeon' has a 'Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher' ring to it. Own goals don't come any bigger or unnecessary.
@davidtorrance: Struck me at today's #FMQs that Sturgeon finds herself fire-fighting on 6 different fronts: #Brexit, #indyref2, domestic record 1/3
@davidtorrance: From the left (Corbyn), the right (Davidson) and, unusually, internal criticism. One or two of those might be manageable, not all six 2/3
@davidtorrance: Hereafter incidents like tail docking vote will highlight weakness/contradictions that have always been there, but now much more visibly 3/3
Indeed...
@IrvineWelsh: 'Nicky Sturgeon Puppy surgeon' has a 'Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher' ring to it. Own goals don't come any bigger or unnecessary.
Mr. Meeks, leaving aside it should be 'batshit insane', I can't quite recall such behaviour from myself...
I think celebrating/commemorating 23 June is daft. We had a vote. It had a result. It should be respected. Banging on about it seems silly to me. (Obviously, I'd be annoyed if we'd voted to remain and EU-philes had tried to make it Europe Day or somesuch nonsense).
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
Why? I agree it's not likely, but what if the Tories are ahead in the polls (5-7%?) by, say, summer 2021? Why should May stand down in those circumstances? That is not a preposterous scenario, is it?
Scottish ministers have appealed to Europe for help in heading off a looming crisis in farm subsidy payments for the second year running.
Discussions have taken place with the European Commission to set up “contingency plans” in case Scottish farmers once again missed out on their payouts. An extension to the end-of-the-month deadline for processing payments is vital if the Scottish government is to avoid being hit with millions of pounds in fines.
The escalating row over delayed farm payments is likely to overshadow a visit by Nicola Sturgeon to the Royal Highland Show at Ingliston today.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
Perfectly possible.
If May does last to 2022 I would expect her to at least face a challenge in that time (although it might not get to an actual vote of no confidence).
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
Not impossible, but I think the most likely scenario is that she remains until 2019, delivers Brexit, and then stands down. Of course, events might intervene to make that impossible.
We also shouldn't forget that the problems within Labour haven't gone away, so events might not intervene on only side of the equation..
You Tories have gone a but funny. All the weaknesses that caused May to crash during the election campaign are still there. The next embarrassing event is perhaps hours/days away.
I can only conclude that you lot are in a kind of shock and there is some comfort in pretending the whole sorry election didn't happen.
Seriously, you need to wake up and get rid before she breaks something that matters.
Yes it's like driving home at night , entering your driveway , and there in the headlights is a poor myxomatosis rabbit not moving blocking your way. What should you do ?
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
Why? I agree it's not likely, but what if the Tories are ahead in the polls (5-7%?) by, say, summer 2021? Why should May stand down in those circumstances? That is not a preposterous scenario, is it?
No, I was with you to the point that she might end up leading the tories into another election, if only by default. It was winning it I had a problem with.
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
Agree with everything apart from staying on until the election, she just is an awful campaigner.
I think May mistakenly took the Lynton Crosby advice as follows:
1. As the Conservatives are ahead, limit your exposure to the media to avoid reversals 2. As your personal ratings are far ahead of Corbyn, fight a presidential election 3. In view of 2 keep the Conservative party and other ministers out of the limelight
Next general election (if she fights one) she will adopt a different campaign strategy.
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
Agree with everything apart from staying on until the election, she just is an awful campaigner.
I think May mistakenly took the Lynton Crosby advice as follows:
1. As the Conservatives are ahead, limit your exposure to the media to avoid reversals 2. As your personal ratings are far ahead of Corbyn, fight a presidential election 3. In view of 2 keep the Conservative party and other ministers out of the limelight
Next general election (if she fights one) she will adopt a different campaign strategy.
All of these things are peripheral.
The central problem was that the Tories were threatening their [elderly] voters at the same time Jezza was promising motherhood and apple pie to younger voters.
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
Why? I agree it's not likely, but what if the Tories are ahead in the polls (5-7%?) by, say, summer 2021? Why should May stand down in those circumstances? That is not a preposterous scenario, is it?
No, I was with you to the point that she might end up leading the tories into another election, if only by default. It was winning it I had a problem with.
OK, fair enough, but if we ever do get there I am fairly confident that she will have rather better mantras than those that served her so well this time!
You are already in a de facto leadership election. By hesitating you're only stretching it out.
To an extent, yes. Certainly Mrs May's days are numbered.
You know, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. The Queens Speech will definitely be carried by at least 13 votes and probably by 20 or so (various absences among the opposition parties - the Tories will be 10 lined whip!).
After that, little happens in Parliament; the Tory muppets all bugga off and chill-out for the long summer break. So she survives until the autumn....then party conference... and odds on are that she copes sufficiently (some remorse, mea culpa...but I have learned the lessons etc).
And without an obvious credible and more electable successor, on she jolly well goes, quite conceivably, depending on the economy, the vicissitudes of the polls, local elections etc etc. beyond Brexit 2019.
Loads and loads of ifs and pitfalls, I grant you, but it is by no means unimaginable that Mrs May could be leading the party into the 2022 election. And who knows, even win it!
That was reasonably credible until the last sentence but at that point we went through the looking glass.
Why? I agree it's not likely, but what if the Tories are ahead in the polls (5-7%?) by, say, summer 2021? Why should May stand down in those circumstances? That is not a preposterous scenario, is it?
A minority government, currently without even a C&S agreement with the 10 DUP members making it through 5 years of withdrawing from the EU and the economic aftermath - yes preposterous is a good description.
Sky have a motley crew of euro politicians debating citizens rights and reciprocal arrangements. One of them playing the 'not an official negotiation' card. They want back in their comfy box of control, heads of state negotiating makes them all giddy and seasick.
The then prime minister added: “At the moment, if a British citizen wants to bring, say, a South American partner to the UK, then we ask for proof that they meet an income threshold and can speak English. But EU law means we cannot apply these tests to EU migrants. Their partners can just come straight into our country without any proper controls at all.”
As a general rule you shouldn't believe things the Prime Minister says, because she's full of shit. However, in this case I think what she's saying is technically correct and matches what I'm saying. The people they can't apply these tests to are people *migrating from the EU*.
This includes UK citizens migrating from the EU, and quite a few UK citizens with non-EU spouses have been moving to an EU country for a while precisely to get through this loophole.
The Prime Minister was Cameron. I think you should read the whole article as it's clear different immigration rules apply to U.K. and EU citizens.
I read it again, that's not at all clear. It doesn't say anything at all about UK citizens migrating from elsewhere in the EU. They have the same rights as any other EU citizen.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
Mr. Glenn, that works both ways. All three parties committed to a referendum on Lisbon. The reds and yellows reneged on it. That treaty threw away many vetoes and created Article 50. A referendum on it would've axed it, keeping more power for the UK and letting off steam.
Instead, the likes of Clegg (who abstained on the referendum for Lisbon vote on the basis, I believe, that we should have an In/Out referendum instead) reneged on their promise to the British people, throw more power into the endlessly hungry maw of Brussels, *and* created the means by which we might leave the EU.
I read it again, that's not at all clear. It doesn't say anything at all about UK citizens migrating from elsewhere in the EU. They have the same rights as any other EU citizen.
I would say that quietly around Mr Sandpit and myself, and wear a tin hat
A major clash over the unrestricted right of EU citizens living in Britain to continue to bring spouses and other immediate family to live with them in the UK after Brexit is expected after the publication of the official negotiation guidelines.
The EU’s guidelines state that any reciprocal deal on the rights of EU citizens in the UK must also cover “their family members who accompany them or join them at any point in time before or after the withdrawal date”.
But this is likely to be challenged by Theresa May, who as home secretary, sharply restricted the ability of UK citizens to bring non-European spouses into Britain in 2012 by requiring them to meet a minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year before their spouse could join them.
On topic, sorry to be late to the party but I disagree with the central contention: the problem is not the trend; it's the numbers. In fact, the trend is small cause for comfort for the Tories.
The trend is a consequence of specific events. The inference of the claim in the leader is that it will continue but without continued events to prompt that movement, it won't. Those events did occur during the election, for reasons we're all familiar with (not mentioned, but just as important as May's personal style were Corbyn's positive campaign - and the failure of CCHQ to adequately counter it - and the disastrous Tory manifesto). With the campaign over, for the trend to continue then more minds need to be won over that have not yet been; Corbyn must make further converts or May suffer further defections. That's not impossible but if it does happen, it'll be for different reasons than the switching between April and June 8. In other words, the trend doesn't matter other than to the extent that it affects the actions of politicians and media.
By contrast, the numbers do matter. The fact that Corbyn is ahead is a dire state of a affairs for someone crowned with huge backing from her party less than a year ago, even if a part of that was her dodging the indivudually- or mutually-suicidal campaigns of her opponents (something which looked wise at the time but which in retrospect gave a foretaste of her aversion to campaigning more generally). The facts now are that May is a defensive figure leading a government whose position is brittle and unstable. She cannot regain her prior position, partly because of events since and partly because she is now encumbered by her government's minority status. You cannot preside imperiously and effortlessly if you're grubbing for every vote several times a week.
However, the trend does still tell us something - about Corbyn. For all that his rating has improved markedly since April, a lot of that approval will be on probation. After all, if May's rating could collapse, so could his - particularly given how many held negative opinions of him only recently. We are out of the campaigning period and back to politics as normal (to the extent that since 2013 at least, there is a 'normal'). And buoyed by a renewed confidence, Corbyn will double down on his style and approach to politics, and on the personnel on whom he relies: an approach and personnel which failed him horribly before the election. Similarly, Labour critics have understandably gone quiet, having given him the ownership of the result in anticipation of a disaster. They respect that outcome more than they ever respected his mandate - and memory of it will stifle future criticism: "he delivered when it mattered, despite you" will be a constant retort to future critics. Against a similarly defensive Tory leader and unpopular manifesto, he'd do it again.
But that is for the future. For now, it is May under pressure and rightly so.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
The claim you were making upthread was that the *current* situation gave rights to non-UK EU citizens with foreign spouses that UK citizens didn't have. This isn't right. It's about residence: UK citizens in this situation often move to another EU country then back, precisely because the current situation doesn't discriminate based on citizenship with the EU.
Obviously how this works after Brexit potentially gets quite complicated.
F1: hmm, first practice has just finished, Red Bull topping the time sheet. Wouldn't read too much into that, at this stage.
Edited extra bit: Perez 4th, Ocon 7th.
I put a tiny sum on Perez each way for the win at 201. If his odds shorten a lot (doubt they will, but I'll check) might be hedgeable.
This is a great opportunity to randomly remind you that I had a stonkingly good set of betting tips on the last race. Just saying. Again. In case you;d forgotten. Really good.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
The claim you were making upthread was that the *current* situation gave rights to non-UK EU citizens with foreign spouses that UK citizens didn't have. This isn't right. .
. In a major speech on Europe in 2014, David Cameron said ministers had to “deal with the extraordinary situation” whereby it was easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain, than it was for a British citizen to do the same.
Also In TM's defence she has had more black swan events to deal with in less than a year that Cameron had in 6 years (at least until his fateful last few months).
May's finished and from her non verbal communication knows full well herself that she's finished. But that doesn't make her useless. It's precisely because she's finished that she's deal to absorb as much of the Brexit radiation as possible before a new leader takes over. So I read her declining ratings differently to a PM who was a long term prospect. The ratings matter less I think because the fact she's finished is in her price.
This is a big one for me. My situation (UK citizen, met and married non-EU citizen while living abroad) doesn't seem to exist in the minds of the civil servants. Worse than that, the income requirements only apply to working in the UK, income from abroad can't be taken into account and two years' proof of (UK) income is required.
It would be a thousand times easier to move back to the UK with my wife if I were a non-UK EU citizen, which is a completely bonkers situation. I shall be writing to the negotiating department and the home office to make the case for changing the rules.
Is it just me, or does Nick Clegg sound a little, well, bitter?
History will judge Nick Clegg well for his actions in 2010. But I suspected the game might be up when I saw the Labour posters up in Totley, a real loss to parliament.
The then prime minister added: “At the moment, if a British citizen wants to bring, say, a South American partner to the UK, then we ask for proof that they meet an income threshold and can speak English. But EU law means we cannot apply these tests to EU migrants. Their partners can just come straight into our country without any proper controls at all.”
However, in this case I think what she's saying is technically correct and matches what I'm saying. The people they can't apply these tests to are people *migrating from the EU*.
This includes UK citizens migrating from the EU, and quite a few UK citizens with non-EU spouses have been moving to an EU country for a while precisely to get through this loophole.
The Prime Minister was Cameron. I think you should read the whole article as it's clear different immigration rules apply to U.K. and EU citizens.
.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
Why would a Uk citizen with a Brazilian spouse want to live in the UK rather than Brazil?
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
That said the reason I was wrong about #EUref then wrong about #GE15 and #GE17 was I didn't take enough notice of leader ratings and shifts in leader ratings. So in terms of the trajectory of politics Mike is right to hype these numbers. The is after all a government in it's seventh year in the middle of partially self inflicted tumult. If it wasn't for the Brexit effect and the weakness of the Labour leader ratings we'd expect it to be 20 points behind. If after 7 years of abnormal leader ratings we return to " normal " is that a LotO should be in contention with a long serving incumbent then normal politics may return.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Surely the prior question going forward is whether EU citizens have an unrestricted right to come here, let alone bring their non EU spouse? That is still to be resolved (albeit the answer is pretty clearly no) so adding this to the discussion now seems, well, unhelpful.
I do agree with George that if there is any messing about on this by seeking to add future rights to the protections granted to those already here we should simply grant them those rights unilaterally on our terms (ie the extent of their rights should the matter give rise to dispute will be determined by UK courts, not the CJE). This would mean that the right to bring a dependent spouse would be subject to the same rules as it is for a UK citizen.
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
The most troubling (and I suspect the correct) answer is that she genuinely thought that it strengthened our hand in negotiations, hence the whole charade over the last year of touting a pre-A50 deal as a way of anchoring negotiations. She's a liability to the country.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
The claim you were making upthread was that the *current* situation gave rights to non-UK EU citizens with foreign spouses that UK citizens didn't have. This isn't right. It's about residence: UK citizens in this situation often move to another EU country then back, precisely because the current situation doesn't discriminate based on citizenship with the EU.
Obviously how this works after Brexit potentially gets quite complicated.
Since 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules have contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person who is: a British Citizen; or present and settled in the UK; or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection.
So a Frenchman working in the US marries a US citizen, he is neither a British Citizen, and neither present nor settled in the UK, and isnt a refugee. He can enter the UK by virtue of being an EEA citizen, his partner can enter because the Frenchman will be able to freely obtain a Family Permit (https://www.gov.uk/family-permit) which requires no minimum income.
A UK Citizen working in the US marries a US citizen, he is British, he therefore has to meet the financial requirement.
Subsitute "Dubai" or "Philippines" in place of "US" as appropriate for experiences closer to those of members of this forum!
Nor have Labour's problems gone away. Indeed arguably they've got worse as all the bat shit crazy and totalitarian forces have just been massively vindicated by the election result. Who knows what they'll be emboldened to do ?
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
That was a very interesting tidbit. Is Osborne right that an opposition motion of a unilateral guarantee could carry?
If so - would she have to resign?
That's basically the HoC overruling her on Brexit strategy- which is her main focus.Boris could vote for the guarantee - spin his leadership ambitions as noble concern for worried European families...
Nor have Labour's problems gone away. Indeed arguably they've got worse as all the bat shit crazy and totalitarian forces have just been massively vindicated by the election result. Who knows what they'll be emboldened to do ?
Who knows. When the Tories are busy implementing one of the most bat shit crazy policies from Michael Foot's manifesto, anything is possible.
The great poser to the europhobes remains the same:
What level of economic misery would you be prepared to tolerate to leave the EU?
Of course, none of them ever answer this question.
Answering pure hypotheticals is always difficult.
However, if the Treasury is correct, and the choice is between GDP growth of 29% over 13 years outside the EU, and GDP growth of 36% inside the EU, then I'd choose the former.
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
And Osborne should know. He would have been there.
The Prime Minister was Cameron. I think you should read the whole article as it's clear different immigration rules apply to U.K. and EU citizens.
.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
Why would a Uk citizen with a Brazilian spouse want to live in the UK rather than Brazil?
One of my best friends is in exactly that situation. He's a Yorkshireman who project manages the building of FPSOs in Rio and she is from Copacabana beach.
One of his fellow workers have made the opposite choice. So you're only looking at one side of the coin. Why does anyone (or any couple) decide to go one way or the other? Maybe a thousand reasons. Or maybe just escaping the in-laws.
The great poser to the europhobes remains the same:
What level of economic misery would you be prepared to tolerate to leave the EU?
Of course, none of them ever answer this question.
Makes little difference to me in my current circumstances. Crash out, snuggle out, it's all good
How so?
I'm in the JAM jar whatever we do, the overall effect on the economy will make very little difference at the margins and boundaries where it will just continue to be fairly unpleasant to grotesque. As such, I've given up giving a crap what happens to the middle classes. I simply don't care how we leave, I'll make do and mend whatever the outcome. We voted for this, bring it on and let the dice fall as they may. Or, in a less controversial vein, we should stop crapping ourselves about what might happen and start planning how to make a success of what does.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
The claim you were making upthread was that the *current* situation gave rights to non-UK EU citizens with foreign spouses that UK citizens didn't have. This isn't right. .
. In a major speech on Europe in 2014, David Cameron said ministers had to “deal with the extraordinary situation” whereby it was easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain, than it was for a British citizen to do the same.
It's entirely within the power of British politicians to give British citizens the same rights as those of EU citizens. If they have decided that the British public would rather see loving families split apart, or exiled from the UK, rather than allow foreign spouses into the country then that is our problem and not the EU's.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There was plenty of anti-LD sniping from the Conservative backbenches during the Coalition years as well and the speed the Party turned on Cameron suggests the Coalition had destroyed much of the residual loyalty Cameron might have expected.
As far as the LDs were concerned, it was from the start a one-off one-term arrangements specifically to deal with the circumstances that were evident in 2010. The convergence of the Orange Bookers and Cameronian Liberal Conservatism proved brief - the two parties are now in widely different places - but was enough to form the Coalition.
In 2015, there was no prospect of Coalition 2.0 - neither Cameron nor Clegg could have sold it to their parties. The very real prospect of a Labour-SNP Government as it seemed frightened enough English voters into the Conservative camp but this was combined with the sense that IF Cameron embodied the ethos of the Coalition, voting for him would ensure its continuation in spirit even if the LDs weren't actually involved.
The continuing Cameron majority Government would govern in the spirit and ethos of the Coalition (so it seemed). As might have been expected, the Conservatives moved rapidly to try to undo some of the LD measures for which they had been compelled to support as part of the Coalition Agreement but along came the EU Referendum and that Conservative Party was torn down to be replaced by something else which in turn failed to survive its first encounter with the voters.
A sensible Labour Party moving to retire Corbyn with honours in 2020 and replacing him with a Dan Jarvis or similar telegenic personality would win the next election with a 1997-style landslide. It is currently a huge help to the Conservatives that no such party exists.
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
The most troubling (and I suspect the correct) answer is that she genuinely thought that it strengthened our hand in negotiations, hence the whole charade over the last year of touting a pre-A50 deal as a way of anchoring negotiations. She's a liability to the country.
I suspect it was, as ever with May, much more about positive headlines in the right wing Brexit press.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Comments
I can only conclude that you lot are in a kind of shock and there is some comfort in pretending the whole sorry election didn't happen.
Seriously, you need to wake up and get rid before she breaks something that matters.
I think celebrating/commemorating 23 June is daft. We had a vote. It had a result. It should be respected. Banging on about it seems silly to me. (Obviously, I'd be annoyed if we'd voted to remain and EU-philes had tried to make it Europe Day or somesuch nonsense).
https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/878197297930096641
Scottish ministers have appealed to Europe for help in heading off a looming crisis in farm subsidy payments for the second year running.
Discussions have taken place with the European Commission to set up “contingency plans” in case Scottish farmers once again missed out on their payouts. An extension to the end-of-the-month deadline for processing payments is vital if the Scottish government is to avoid being hit with millions of pounds in fines.
The escalating row over delayed farm payments is likely to overshadow a visit by Nicola Sturgeon to the Royal Highland Show at Ingliston today.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/farmers-face-missing-out-on-eu-subsidy-cash-for-second-year-909md2rd8
If May does last to 2022 I would expect her to at least face a challenge in that time (although it might not get to an actual vote of no confidence).
Boris won't fancy waiting.
I think May mistakenly took the Lynton Crosby advice as follows:
1. As the Conservatives are ahead, limit your exposure to the media to avoid reversals
2. As your personal ratings are far ahead of Corbyn, fight a presidential election
3. In view of 2 keep the Conservative party and other ministers out of the limelight
Next general election (if she fights one) she will adopt a different campaign strategy.
Edited extra bit: Perez 4th, Ocon 7th.
I put a tiny sum on Perez each way for the win at 201. If his odds shorten a lot (doubt they will, but I'll check) might be hedgeable.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/878195910672396288
The central problem was that the Tories were threatening their [elderly] voters at the same time Jezza was promising motherhood and apple pie to younger voters.
I had her down as almost 70 during the campaign.
Clegg did not name names to avoid libel.
Clegg is good but has a weak spot which is his fanaticism about the EU.
Maybe Theresa sticks around until 2019/2020 and then Ruth takes over for 2022?
Jezza Vs Ruth would be an "interesting" election...
One of them playing the 'not an official negotiation' card. They want back in their comfy box of control, heads of state negotiating makes them all giddy and seasick.
https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/878196886083186688
Too many tweets...
Definitely an attribute though.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
https://twitter.com/JonDonnis/status/878195634255179776
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/878195861754306560
Instead, the likes of Clegg (who abstained on the referendum for Lisbon vote on the basis, I believe, that we should have an In/Out referendum instead) reneged on their promise to the British people, throw more power into the endlessly hungry maw of Brussels, *and* created the means by which we might leave the EU.
Her excuse about missing the debate because she was thinking about Brexit probably contained a lot of truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/may-expected-to-challenge-right-of-eu-citizens-to-bring-family-to-britain-non-european-spouses-brexit
A major clash over the unrestricted right of EU citizens living in Britain to continue to bring spouses and other immediate family to live with them in the UK after Brexit is expected after the publication of the official negotiation guidelines.
The EU’s guidelines state that any reciprocal deal on the rights of EU citizens in the UK must also cover “their family members who accompany them or join them at any point in time before or after the withdrawal date”.
But this is likely to be challenged by Theresa May, who as home secretary, sharply restricted the ability of UK citizens to bring non-European spouses into Britain in 2012 by requiring them to meet a minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year before their spouse could join them.
The trend is a consequence of specific events. The inference of the claim in the leader is that it will continue but without continued events to prompt that movement, it won't. Those events did occur during the election, for reasons we're all familiar with (not mentioned, but just as important as May's personal style were Corbyn's positive campaign - and the failure of CCHQ to adequately counter it - and the disastrous Tory manifesto). With the campaign over, for the trend to continue then more minds need to be won over that have not yet been; Corbyn must make further converts or May suffer further defections. That's not impossible but if it does happen, it'll be for different reasons than the switching between April and June 8. In other words, the trend doesn't matter other than to the extent that it affects the actions of politicians and media.
By contrast, the numbers do matter. The fact that Corbyn is ahead is a dire state of a affairs for someone crowned with huge backing from her party less than a year ago, even if a part of that was her dodging the indivudually- or mutually-suicidal campaigns of her opponents (something which looked wise at the time but which in retrospect gave a foretaste of her aversion to campaigning more generally). The facts now are that May is a defensive figure leading a government whose position is brittle and unstable. She cannot regain her prior position, partly because of events since and partly because she is now encumbered by her government's minority status. You cannot preside imperiously and effortlessly if you're grubbing for every vote several times a week.
However, the trend does still tell us something - about Corbyn. For all that his rating has improved markedly since April, a lot of that approval will be on probation. After all, if May's rating could collapse, so could his - particularly given how many held negative opinions of him only recently. We are out of the campaigning period and back to politics as normal (to the extent that since 2013 at least, there is a 'normal'). And buoyed by a renewed confidence, Corbyn will double down on his style and approach to politics, and on the personnel on whom he relies: an approach and personnel which failed him horribly before the election. Similarly, Labour critics have understandably gone quiet, having given him the ownership of the result in anticipation of a disaster. They respect that outcome more than they ever respected his mandate - and memory of it will stifle future criticism: "he delivered when it mattered, despite you" will be a constant retort to future critics. Against a similarly defensive Tory leader and unpopular manifesto, he'd do it again.
But that is for the future. For now, it is May under pressure and rightly so.
Obviously how this works after Brexit potentially gets quite complicated.
What level of economic misery would you be prepared to tolerate to leave the EU?
Of course, none of them ever answer this question.
It would be a thousand times easier to move back to the UK with my wife if I were a non-UK EU citizen, which is a completely bonkers situation. I shall be writing to the negotiating department and the home office to make the case for changing the rules.
I do wonder about the sanity and humanity of the close-minded bumpkins on here.
LOUISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There won't be any "misery".
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
I do agree with George that if there is any messing about on this by seeking to add future rights to the protections granted to those already here we should simply grant them those rights unilaterally on our terms (ie the extent of their rights should the matter give rise to dispute will be determined by UK courts, not the CJE). This would mean that the right to bring a dependent spouse would be subject to the same rules as it is for a UK citizen.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525708/Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement.pdf
Since 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules have contained a financial requirement to be
met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to
remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person who is:
a British Citizen; or
present and settled in the UK; or
in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection.
So a Frenchman working in the US marries a US citizen, he is neither a British Citizen, and neither present nor settled in the UK, and isnt a refugee. He can enter the UK by virtue of being an EEA citizen, his partner can enter because the Frenchman will be able to freely obtain a Family Permit (https://www.gov.uk/family-permit) which requires no minimum income.
A UK Citizen working in the US marries a US citizen, he is British, he therefore has to meet the financial requirement.
Subsitute "Dubai" or "Philippines" in place of "US" as appropriate for experiences closer to those of members of this forum!
Is Osborne right that an opposition motion of a unilateral guarantee could carry?
If so - would she have to resign?
That's basically the HoC overruling her on Brexit strategy- which is her main focus.Boris could vote for the guarantee - spin his leadership ambitions as noble concern for worried European families...
However, if the Treasury is correct, and the choice is between GDP growth of 29% over 13 years outside the EU, and GDP growth of 36% inside the EU, then I'd choose the former.
One of his fellow workers have made the opposite choice. So you're only looking at one side of the coin. Why does anyone (or any couple) decide to go one way or the other? Maybe a thousand reasons. Or maybe just escaping the in-laws.
Or maybe he just can't live away from Yorkshire.
[incidentally, this is what he builds. His job is a mind-blowing feat of engineering].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading
Or, in a less controversial vein, we should stop crapping ourselves about what might happen and start planning how to make a success of what does.
Tick. Tock.
As far as the LDs were concerned, it was from the start a one-off one-term arrangements specifically to deal with the circumstances that were evident in 2010. The convergence of the Orange Bookers and Cameronian Liberal Conservatism proved brief - the two parties are now in widely different places - but was enough to form the Coalition.
In 2015, there was no prospect of Coalition 2.0 - neither Cameron nor Clegg could have sold it to their parties. The very real prospect of a Labour-SNP Government as it seemed frightened enough English voters into the Conservative camp but this was combined with the sense that IF Cameron embodied the ethos of the Coalition, voting for him would ensure its continuation in spirit even if the LDs weren't actually involved.
The continuing Cameron majority Government would govern in the spirit and ethos of the Coalition (so it seemed). As might have been expected, the Conservatives moved rapidly to try to undo some of the LD measures for which they had been compelled to support as part of the Coalition Agreement but along came the EU Referendum and that Conservative Party was torn down to be replaced by something else which in turn failed to survive its first encounter with the voters.
A sensible Labour Party moving to retire Corbyn with honours in 2020 and replacing him with a Dan Jarvis or similar telegenic personality would win the next election with a 1997-style landslide. It is currently a huge help to the Conservatives that no such party exists.
Blimey.
The business with Obama, and the 'Little England' nonsense, were rather obvious mistakes.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.