So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
Would renters pay this tax as well as home owners ?
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
EU: £60bn SO: Done EU £65bn SO: Done EU: £70bn SO: Done EU: £80bn SO: Done EU: £100bn SO: Done
So you think the UK is too weak and feeble to pick a figure and stick to it? Haggling is a mutual activity. If one party names a price and refuses to budge then that will be the only price on offer.
Without calibration against the reasonable expectations of the parties, you can't tell anything from that dialogue.
Today is beginning to look like the Remoaners' worst nightmare. The people are meant to be marching on Downing Street calling for May's head on a spike, only to be told that the hard brexiteers have already toppled her, in reaction to this deal whereas the general view seems to be meh, whatever, roll on Christmas.
You never get a complete set of facts from a newspaper
But it appears that she says she arrive before the immigration rules but can't provide (or hasn't to date been able to provide) documentary evidence that she arrived in 68, just that she was in a children's home in the 70s.
Bureaucracies being what they are they need to be consistent (otherwise it's unfair to people who don't have access to the Guardian). So if she provides the evidence and she can stay. The doesn't and she is - by definition - deemed an illegal immigrant.
I'm sure that the Hone Iffice could have been more sympathetic as to how they applied the rules, but their job is to apply the rules.
That's a chilling post, Charles.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
What utter rubbish. Race has nothing to do with it, and your implication that her origin makes her 'helpless' is pretty revolting.
Let's give up the rule of law when we have hard cases. That definitely won't have any unintended consequences.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
You've previously said that we should have immediately agreed to £60bn.
Absolutely. A lot more than £3bn of damage has been done by not doing so.
Do Windows laptops still get the blue screen of death?
And Apple machines never crash?
Nope, I tell you what I really love about Apple.
Large excel and word files don't buckle under the strain and crash like they did when we used windows machines.
Really? Because the largest excel and word files are tiny compared to run of the mill sized photos and music. The bible is 4 mb, which is about a 4 minute mp3 (and the mp3 is 10x that before compression).
I regularly use excel files that has multiple tabs that use rows 1,048,576 and XFD columns.
They take up a lot of space.
Is it not more about computational memory that disk space exactly?
I thought that too, but the work Windows laptop was highly specced and the files still froze/crash regularly.
I think Windows really don't do the multi-tasking very well.
Yes. It was to do with Excel for Windows being a single-threaded 32bit application until very recently, at a time when PCs were 64-bit with multiple processors. The underlying UNIX -based Mac architecture with 64-bit Excel handles things like large spreadsheets much better.
Outlook on Mac though, that’s a complete sh!t show compared to the Windows version.
Anyway, enough talking shop for one morning, work to do!
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it. Neither the Tory nor Labour parties will of course reverse Brexit
@mrjamesob: We’re paying tens of billions of pounds to leave the world’s largest free trade area while surrendering all of our ability to define its rights & regulations. All so that we can hopefully start negotiating an inferior arrangement with the world’s largest free trade area.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
Do Windows laptops still get the blue screen of death?
And Apple machines never crash?
Nope, I tell you what I really love about Apple.
Large excel and word files don't buckle under the strain and crash like they did when we used windows machines.
Really? Because the largest excel and word files are tiny compared to run of the mill sized photos and music. The bible is 4 mb, which is about a 4 minute mp3 (and the mp3 is 10x that before compression).
I regularly use excel files that has multiple tabs that use rows 1,048,576 and XFD columns.
They take up a lot of space.
Is it not more about computational memory that disk space exactly?
I thought that too, but the work Windows laptop was highly specced and the files still froze/crash regularly.
I think Windows really don't do the multi-tasking very well.
I doubt it's much to do with multi-tasking. What you're doing is rather power-user'ish, and small differences in hardware will make a big difference. The more memory you have, the less that will need to be swapped out onto disk. If you are swapping out, then disk speed will matter more than space. On-chip cache might matter if you're doing calculations on the data. There's loads more factors like that.
I see no reason for there to be a problem running datasets of that sort of size on a good PC running vanilla Windows 10 - perhaps at less cost than the Apple machine.
I'd look more at the specs of the PC you were running it on, and what other stuff you had running at the same time, than automatically blaming Windows.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
Thats a fecking crazy idea. Id have to pay more than 5 figures a year to the fecking govt. No thank you. I'd have to sell too. Its an unworkable tax, loads of large houses would either remain empty or be knocked down .. bonkers
It works well in the US. Large houses would fall in price until they found a buyer. You Replace council tax, stamp duty, etc
Be that as it may to go from where we are to there suddenly ( without other taxes dropping?) would be a huge shock to the whole economy as everything has to find a new price equilibrium. Who would buy a house at all until you knew what the new value would stabilise at?
There would have to be complex exceptions otherwise you’ll get “Jeremy Corbyn’s heartless tax throws 90 year old frail widow onto the streets because it’s not her fault she moved to the family home she shared with her war hero husband (sadly departed), in 1965 when it was only worth two groats. Oh and her disabled cat Tibbles will starve too” stories. And joking darkly aside many will be true, and I’m sure the Jezziah’s halo will slip.
The money that you taken in tax would not be spent elsewhere in the economy. There would be a significant economic shock probably resulting in a reduced tax take elsewhere.
A better idea is to limit this type of taxation to very wealthy people.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
Without calibration against the reasonable expectations of the parties, you can't tell anything from that dialogue.
Today is beginning to look like the Remoaners' worst nightmare. The people are meant to be marching on Downing Street calling for May's head on a spike, only to be told that the hard brexiteers have already toppled her, in reaction to this deal whereas the general view seems to be meh, whatever, roll on Christmas.
My view is that this is all very good news. It should have been done months ago and we still have the Irish border problem to solve, but we are moving further away from No Deal - and that is the main thing.
The Times say we might be getting a charging decision on Ben Stokes as earlier as today.
Given that he was seen leaving the country yesterday, is it fair to assume that if he’s charged with anything it will be something so minor that he’ll be able to plead by post rather than be required in court?
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
That will be resolved in the FTA talks
Of course. And we get to the trade talks if there is sufficient progress. Let’s hope there is.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
They demanded a huge exit bill for trade talks precisely to ensure Britain is not seen to prosper from Brexit
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
You've previously said that we should have immediately agreed to £60bn.
Absolutely. A lot more than £3bn of damage has been done by not doing so.
Really, what damage is that ?
The UK has finally had a good year on the vital issue of rebalancing the economy into something sustainable. The last thing we needed was the continuation of the Osbrowne high consumption and high property prices model.
Not to mention that if you give the EU an open door they'll take everything you offer and then take a load more.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
Thats a fecking crazy idea. Id have to pay more than 5 figures a year to the fecking govt. No thank you. I'd have to sell too. Its an unworkable tax, loads of large houses would either remain empty or be knocked down .. bonkers
It works well in the US. Large houses would fall in price until they found a buyer. You Replace council tax, stamp duty, etc
Be that as it may to go from where we are to there suddenly ( without other taxes dropping?) would be a huge shock to the whole economy as everything has to find a new price equilibrium. Who would buy a house at all until you knew what the new value would stabilise at?
There would have to be complex exceptions otherwise you’ll get “Jeremy Corbyn’s heartless tax throws 90 year old frail widow onto the streets because it’s not her fault she moved to the family home she shared with her war hero husband (sadly departed), in 1965 when it was only worth two groats. Oh and her disabled cat Tibbles will starve too” stories. And joking darkly aside many will be true, and I’m sure the Jezziah’s halo will slip.
You'd do it on last transfer with an inflationary increase (and possibly a 10 year phase in for houses that haven't been transferred recently).
Say you buy a 500K house. No longer paying stamp duty (not sure what that is but say 10k), so in theory you can pay 510k.
Annual liability of 5k is a reduction in value of about 50k so prices should stabilise at about 460k.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
That will be resolved in the FTA talks
Of course. And we get to the trade talks if there is sufficient progress. Let’s hope there is.
Agreed though the resignation of the Irish Deputy PM and Varadkar's need to focus on keeping his government together may mean he will let things move on soon enough as he has other things to focus on
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
And how well do you think those trade talks are going to go for us given that we've capitulated on every aspect of the negotiations so far?
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
I read a report from one of these think tank people that the sequencing will be changed from separation terms - future arrangements outline - transition arrangements, so the transition arrangements will be discussed and firmed before the future arrangements. The "transition" arrangements, which are really extension arrangements, have become critical as businesses and individuals need to have confidence that they won't need to trigger their no deal contingencies (some have already done so). This would mean the separation terms and transition will be agreed before any substantial discussion of future arrangements. In theory nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but going back on interim agreements would be so destructive, no-one is going to do it. My guess is that Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement will have the sketchiest outline of future arrangements. Essentially it will commit both sides to having an arrangement and will note some discussion points. This will be agreed in the Autumn of next year and substantive negotiations can start then, carrying on past the exit date.
The Times say we might be getting a charging decision on Ben Stokes as earlier as today.
Given that he was seen leaving the country yesterday, is it fair to assume that if he’s charged with anything it will be something so minor that he’ll be able to plead by post rather than be required in court?
The Times say we might be getting a charging decision on Ben Stokes as earlier as today.
Given that he was seen leaving the country yesterday, is it fair to assume that if he’s charged with anything it will be something so minor that he’ll be able to plead by post rather than be required in court?
Nah, he would be expected to enter a plea at the first case management hearing.
The Times say that would likely be in the new year, but it could be this year as well.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
They demanded a huge exit bill for trade talks precisely to ensure Britain is not seen to prosper from Brexit
Which is silly to anyone with the capability of comparing numbers. Even a 70bn bill would be small fry compared to government finances or the ongoing membership fee.
What the media perpetually fail to mention is the only money we are agreeing to is money we agreed to pay as the cost of EU membership. If we stayed an EU member we would have to pay this money and to continue to acquire similar liabilities of an increasing amount over time. Thanks to Brexit we will no longer be doing that after the exit date.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
You've previously said that we should have immediately agreed to £60bn.
Absolutely. A lot more than £3bn of damage has been done by not doing so.
Really, what damage is that ?
The UK has finally had a good year on the vital issue of rebalancing the economy into something sustainable. The last thing we needed was the continuation of the Osbrowne high consumption and high property prices model.
Not to mention that if you give the EU an open door they'll take everything you offer and then take a load more.
Our slowing growth rate has cost the government billions in tax take. Part of that is down to Brexit uncertainty. An earlier agreement would have mitigated that. We have given the EU what they wanted. If we’d done it earlier it would have been better for us. But at least we’re getting there now.
Do Windows laptops still get the blue screen of death?
And Apple machines never crash?
Nope, I tell you what I really love about Apple.
Large excel and word files don't buckle under the strain and crash like they did when we used windows machines.
Really? Because the largest excel and word files are tiny compared to run of the mill sized photos and music. The bible is 4 mb, which is about a 4 minute mp3 (and the mp3 is 10x that before compression).
I regularly use excel files that has multiple tabs that use rows 1,048,576 and XFD columns.
They take up a lot of space.
Is it not more about computational memory that disk space exactly?
I thought that too, but the work Windows laptop was highly specced and the files still froze/crash regularly.
I think Windows really don't do the multi-tasking very well.
Yes. It was to do with Excel for Windows being a single-threaded 32bit application until very recently, at a time when PCs were 64-bit with multiple processors. The underlying UNIX -based Mac architecture with 64-bit Excel handles things like large spreadsheets much better.
Outlook on Mac though, that’s a complete sh!t show compared to the Windows version.
Anyway, enough talking shop for one morning, work to do!
Are you sure? I thought it was the other way around: Windows Excel supported multicore (and hence multithreading) since around Excel 2007 and Mac Excel did not until very recently?
EU: £60bn SO: Done EU £65bn SO: Done EU: £70bn SO: Done EU: £80bn SO: Done EU: £100bn SO: Done
So you think the UK is too weak and feeble to pick a figure and stick to it? Haggling is a mutual activity. If one party names a price and refuses to budge then that will be the only price on offer.
I doubt that the UK has negotiated well - anything involving British politicians and the British Foreign Office rarely ends well.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
What utter rubbish. Race has nothing to do with it, and your implication that her origin makes her 'helpless' is pretty revolting.
Let's give up the rule of law when we have hard cases. That definitely won't have any unintended consequences.
Did I say that we should give up the rule of law? The rule of law can only work if people can participate in it, otherwise it has no credibility.
If someone is being deported and they cannot afford the£240 to prove they have a right to remain, as indicated in the article, then they meet the definition of helplessness, it doesn't have anything to do with race.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Several of my friends make a very good living representing the non white, poor and non EU citizens that we try to expel. In this case she is not a citizen because she never asked to be. She does not have indefinite leave to remain because she never asked for it. She is a Jamaican citizen. Her arrival here may well have been perfectly legal at the time she came (I don't know) but she has had no right to be here for the last 40 odd years. But if she has been the rules have the flexibility to recognise this. And these rules have been applied in high profile cases involving white Australians as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/australian-family-fighting-deportation-granted-visa-to-remain-in-uk
This family would have been deported had he not got a job meeting his visa requirements.
Someone down thread asked how Leavers would react. Here is this Leaver's take:
- I think any amount between 45 and 65 bn seems reasonable. - I don't really care about the status of Northern Ireland in the customs union - I completely oppose any role for the ECJ as a court of appeal in the UK justice system, though could accept some face-saving measure for the ECJ (and an equivalent British court) in saying whether obligations have been met by each side
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
You've previously said that we should have immediately agreed to £60bn.
Absolutely. A lot more than £3bn of damage has been done by not doing so.
Really, what damage is that ?
The UK has finally had a good year on the vital issue of rebalancing the economy into something sustainable. The last thing we needed was the continuation of the Osbrowne high consumption and high property prices model.
Not to mention that if you give the EU an open door they'll take everything you offer and then take a load more.
Our slowing growth rate has cost the government billions in tax take. Part of that is down to Brexit uncertainty. An earlier agreement would have mitigated that. We have given the EU what they wanted. If we’d done it earlier it would have been better for us. But at least we’re getting there now.
What slowing growth - its been the same mediocre level that has become standard.
In 2016q1 for example GDP fell on a per capita basis.
As to tax take in the last four quarters the government has borrowed £41bn, in the four before that it borrowed £65bn:
You never get a complete set of facts from a newspaper
But it appears that she says she arrive before the immigration rules but can't provide (or hasn't to date been able to provide) documentary evidence that she arrived in 68, just that she was in a children's home in the 70s.
Bureaucracies being what they are they need to be consistent (otherwise it's unfair to people who don't have access to the Guardian). So if she provides the evidence and she can stay. The doesn't and she is - by definition - deemed an illegal immigrant.
I'm sure that the Hone Iffice could have been more sympathetic as to how they applied the rules, but their job is to apply the rules.
That's a chilling post, Charles.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Agreed. But what is odd is why can't she prove it? E.g. Paying NICs for 34 years?
Do Windows laptops still get the blue screen of death?
And Apple machines never crash?
Nope, I tell you what I really love about Apple.
Large excel and word files don't buckle under the strain and crash like they did when we used windows machines.
Really? Because the largest excel and word files are tiny compared to run of the mill sized photos and music. The bible is 4 mb, which is about a 4 minute mp3 (and the mp3 is 10x that before compression).
I regularly use excel files that has multiple tabs that use rows 1,048,576 and XFD columns.
They take up a lot of space.
Is it not more about computational memory that disk space exactly?
I thought that too, but the work Windows laptop was highly specced and the files still froze/crash regularly.
I think Windows really don't do the multi-tasking very well.
Yes. It was to do with Excel for Windows being a single-threaded 32bit application until very recently, at a time when PCs were 64-bit with multiple processors. The underlying UNIX -based Mac architecture with 64-bit Excel handles things like large spreadsheets much better.
Outlook on Mac though, that’s a complete sh!t show compared to the Windows version.
Anyway, enough talking shop for one morning, work to do!
Are you sure? I thought it was the other way around: Windows Excel supported multicore (and hence multithreading) since around Excel 2007 and Mac Excel did not until very recently?
Early 64-bit Win versions of Excel (2010?) were seriously buggy. As in so buggy they couldn’t add up properly. Which is a big problem for spreadsheets.
Anyways, as you say we’re well off topic now. Work to do - fixing a dead computer!
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
If that's the case, why doesn't the EU call our bluff. Just say, "we don't want a trade deal and you're a third nation from March 2019?"
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
And how well do you think those trade talks are going to go for us given that we've capitulated on every aspect of the negotiations so far?
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
The deal will end free movement, that is the only acceptable trade deal, any trade deal leaving free movement in place e.g. staying in the single market, would be completely unacceptable and disrespect the Leave vote
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
Would renters pay this tax as well as home owners ?
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
Property owners. I'd imagine some would try to push it on to renters but i doubt they would succeed
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Several of my friends make a very good living representing the non white, poor and non EU citizens that we try to expel. In this case she is not a citizen because she never asked to be. She does not have indefinite leave to remain because she never asked for it. She is a Jamaican citizen. Her arrival here may well have been perfectly legal at the time she came (I don't know) but she has had no right to be here for the last 40 odd years. But if she has been the rules have the flexibility to recognise this. And these rules have been applied in high profile cases involving white Australians as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/australian-family-fighting-deportation-granted-visa-to-remain-in-uk
This family would have been deported had he not got a job meeting his visa requirements.
With very few exceptions, there is only ever a public outcry when the people about to be deported are white. It is an example of how white people use influence. Of course, I would do exactly the same if I was in their position.
The fact that there are lawyers who get rich fighting immigration cases has no bearing on the actual issue, which is the access of the poorest in society to legal representation and the resources necessary to even gather the evidence and submit an application.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
They demanded a huge exit bill for trade talks precisely to ensure Britain is not seen to prosper from Brexit
Which is silly to anyone with the capability of comparing numbers. Even a 70bn bill would be small fry compared to government finances or the ongoing membership fee.
What the media perpetually fail to mention is the only money we are agreeing to is money we agreed to pay as the cost of EU membership. If we stayed an EU member we would have to pay this money and to continue to acquire similar liabilities of an increasing amount over time. Thanks to Brexit we will no longer be doing that after the exit date.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
And how well do you think those trade talks are going to go for us given that we've capitulated on every aspect of the negotiations so far?
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
The deal will end free movement, that is the only acceptable trade deal, any trade deal leaving free movement in place e.g. staying in the single market, would be completely unacceptable and disrespect the Leave vote
The question on the ballot paper was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU.
The EEA wasn't mentioned. Nor was Freedom of Movement. Campaigns are just that, they constrain nothing. However, the Conservative manifesto is an element in how the deal must be made, because they were elected on the back of it. However, if they don't make it to the end of the talks, all bets are off except 'not being a member of the EU'. At least without another referendum.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
Would renters pay this tax as well as home owners ?
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
Property owners. I'd imagine some would try to push it on to renters but i doubt they would succeed
In which case far too few people will be paying this tax in areas such as Inner London.
No we won't a FTA is what most people want and particularly British manufacturing exporters
Well, if it so important to them, why don't we ask them to pay for it?
They will be in part through their corporation taxea
Those don't cover this new bill. If UK business think that paying 50 bn to have a chat is a good idea, why don't they offer to cover the bill? Oh that's right, if that was the case they would very quickly point out that they would be just fine under WTO rules...
You never get a complete set of facts from a newspaper
But it appears that she says she arrive before the immigration rules but can't provide (or hasn't to date been able to provide) documentary evidence that she arrived in 68, just that she was in a children's home in the 70s.
Bureaucracies being what they are they need to be consistent (otherwise it's unfair to people who don't have access to the Guardian). So if she provides the evidence and she can stay. The doesn't and she is - by definition - deemed an illegal immigrant.
I'm sure that the Hone Iffice could have been more sympathetic as to how they applied the rules, but their job is to apply the rules.
That's a chilling post, Charles.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Agreed. But what is odd is why can't she prove it? E.g. Paying NICs for 34 years?
She may be illiterate for all we know. Clearly she needed help from the very outset. For the most vulnerable the state should be providing this, not detaining her in an immigration removal centre.
Incidentally did all those people who were tweeting about that EU agency being moved from London have any tweets about those new pharma research inward investments ?
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
If that's the case, why doesn't the EU call our bluff. Just say, "we don't want a trade deal and you're a third nation from March 2019?"
Why do that when the UK prefers the option of becoming a vassal?
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
And how well do you think those trade talks are going to go for us given that we've capitulated on every aspect of the negotiations so far?
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
The deal will end free movement, that is the only acceptable trade deal, any trade deal leaving free movement in place e.g. staying in the single market, would be completely unacceptable and disrespect the Leave vote
The question on the ballot paper was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU.
The EEA wasn't mentioned. Nor was Freedom of Movement. Campaigns are just that, they constrain nothing. However, the Conservative manifesto is an element in how the deal must be made, because they were elected on the back of it. However, if they don't make it to the end of the talks, all bets are off except 'not being a member of the EU'. At least without another referendum.
Incidentally did all those people who were tweeting about that EU agency being moved from London have any tweets about those new pharma research inward investments ?
I did, I posted it on PB and asked Charles if he was behind it.
I would give it to twitter for reducing the political classes and everybody else, but esp the POTUS, to complete abject infantile wankerdom and probably facilitating ww3.
No offence to any local enthusiasts.
For some the journey to complete abject infantile wankerdom was miniscule.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
If that's the case, why doesn't the EU call our bluff. Just say, "we don't want a trade deal and you're a third nation from March 2019?"
Why do that when the UK prefers the option of becoming a vassal?
If it wanted to be a vassal it would have opted to remain the CU and SM off the bat. We didn't. We aren't all represented by the SNP negotiating position, or that of Anna Soubry.
You never get a complete set of facts from a newspaper
But it appears that she says she arrive before the immigration rules but can't provide (or hasn't to date been able to provide) documentary evidence that she arrived in 68, just that she was in a children's home in the 70s.
Bureaucracies being what they are they need to be consistent (otherwise it's unfair to people who don't have access to the Guardian). So if she provides the evidence and she can stay. The doesn't and she is - by definition - deemed an illegal immigrant.
I'm sure that the Hone Iffice could have been more sympathetic as to how they applied the rules, but their job is to apply the rules.
That's a chilling post, Charles.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Oh please. As a brown person, this is tosh. People with money can afford lawyers and people without can't. Even then, lawyers only get you so far. Race has nothing to do with it, and many ethnic minorities have more money than white people.
Incidentally did all those people who were tweeting about that EU agency being moved from London have any tweets about those new pharma research inward investments ?
Yes they were mentioned, as was the other pharma investment that was cancelled due to Brexit.
Incidentally did all those people who were tweeting about that EU agency being moved from London have any tweets about those new pharma research inward investments ?
I did, I posted it on PB and asked Charles if he was behind it.
You obviously missed the edict that all Brexit good news has to be posted 20 times minimum on all UK outlets. Expect a visit from the Thought rozzers.
If it wanted to be a vassal it would have opted to remain the CU and SM off the bat. We didn't. We aren't all represented by the SNP negotiating position, or that of Anna Soubry.
It's a question of preference, not desire. 'We' desire something that doesn't exist, but we'll have to settle for something that does.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Will the government cave on the Irish border issue, too? Let’s hope so. It’s such a shame all this wasn’t sorted months ago. The Tory loons have caused huge damage.
You've previously said that we should have immediately agreed to £60bn.
Absolutely. A lot more than £3bn of damage has been done by not doing so.
Really, what damage is that ?
The UK has finally had a good year on the vital issue of rebalancing the economy into something sustainable. The last thing we needed was the continuation of the Osbrowne high consumption and high property prices model.
Not to mention that if you give the EU an open door they'll take everything you offer and then take a load more.
Our slowing growth rate has cost the government billions in tax take. Part of that is down to Brexit uncertainty. An earlier agreement would have mitigated that. We have given the EU what they wanted. If we’d done it earlier it would have been better for us. But at least we’re getting there now.
What slowing growth - its been the same mediocre level that has become standard.
In 2016q1 for example GDP fell on a per capita basis.
As to tax take in the last four quarters the government has borrowed £41bn, in the four before that it borrowed £65bn:
We also have manufacturing order books at near 30 year highs and tourism receipts at record levels.
With growth at the EU average the tax take would have been higher. If you don’t believe agreeing a deal over money with the EU a lot earlier in the year on essentially the same basis would have been beneficial, so be it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I would give it to twitter for reducing the political classes and everybody else, but esp the POTUS, to complete abject infantile wankerdom and probably facilitating ww3.
No offence to any local enthusiasts.
For some the journey to complete abject infantile wankerdom was miniscule.
That struck a cord. The journey may have been miniscule or even non existent, but prior to Twitter their impact was also miniscule. Not any more.
Incidentally did all those people who were tweeting about that EU agency being moved from London have any tweets about those new pharma research inward investments ?
Yes they were mentioned, as was the other pharma investment that was cancelled due to Brexit.
It’s going to be a bit like a tide going out, IMHO. ‘Things' are going to be washed in, but overall they’ll be cancelled out by the greater number being washed out.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
Yep - but hopefully the UK is now moving into grown-up mood as the Cabinet’s bone idle, pig ignorant Brexiteers are sidelined.
You never get a complete set of facts from a newspaper
I'm sure that the Hone Iffice could have been more sympathetic as to how they applied the rules, but their job is to apply the rules.
That's a chilling post, Charles.
A respectable country doesn't treat its own citizens like this.
Surely the point is we have to have rules equally applied to decide whether someone is a citizen ( or has other rights to stay)?
The point is that she is not and never has been a citizen. But she does have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Or even citizenship in due course.
'Rules are rules'. Its pretty much the same story whenever this comes up, most recently when discussing EU migrants. However, the plight of non EU migrants are far, far worse.
Deferring to the supremacy of rules is fine until you yourself on the wrong side of the rules. But the fact of the matter is people who are white and respectable always have ways and means of getting around a rule based system, through money and influence. This is as true for immigration, as it is for anything else.
It is white privilege and it is the same story over and over again. The most basic test of a civilised society is surely that these helpless people have legal representation and a fair crack of the whip at proving their case under the laws as they stand. However, if someone has lived here for fifty years, raised a family here, then to my mind there is no concievable reason why they shouldn't be regarded as citizens.
Oh please. As a brown person, this is tosh. People with money can afford lawyers and people without can't. Even then, lawyers only get you so far. Race has nothing to do with it, and many ethnic minorities have more money than white people.
That is true, but the underlying issue is whether the people who cannot afford lawyers (which will also encompass a lot of white people) are entitled to legal representation and advocacy as a basic right. I say they should be, and there should be an affordability test for the fees. It doesn't bother us, because it doesn't affect us.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
It should replace Council Tax, with the local authority resources used to manage and collect council tax redeployed to the new tax. Local authorities should be allowed to vary a local element, as they do with setting Council Tax rates now, deducting this from the amounts collected and passing the balance to central government, as has operated for years with business rates. Indeed if might be possible to make a similar levy on commercial property and replace business rates as well. Stamp Duty should definitely be replaced and there is a case for excluding the primary home from IHT altogether, simplying the current arrangements. It would be sensible to introduce the tax at a modest level and, over time, increase it with balancing reductions in income tax (at some stage it would be sensible to merge NI and IT as well, saving a lot of administration)
The solution for people who are capital rich but income poor is to offer the option of rolling up the tax liability to be paid when the property is sold (which for many such people would be upon death, and therefore simply a different type of IHT).
So - this capitulation that is being reported today (especially the Boris comments that are being ridiculed about the £100bn measure), is roughly as follows:
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
So - this capitulation that is being reported today (especially the Boris comments that are being ridiculed about the £100bn measure), is roughly as follows:
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
A while back the government was telling journos they had legal advice that they didn't owe anything.
So - this capitulation that is being reported today (especially the Boris comments that are being ridiculed about the £100bn measure), is roughly as follows:
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
The actual commitment is to pay for a range of liabilities that, theoretically, could amount to 100bn, but in all likelihood will come out somewhere near 60bn, and could be lower. But no-one knows the final bill for sure, and won't for many years. Inevitably the government is spinning a lower figure and the EU a higher one.
So - this capitulation that is being reported today (especially the Boris comments that are being ridiculed about the £100bn measure), is roughly as follows:
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
Yep, this could have been sorted months ago. Willy-waving Brexiteers in the Cabinet prevented it.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
Would renters pay this tax as well as home owners ?
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
Property owners. I'd imagine some would try to push it on to renters but i doubt they would succeed
In which case far too few people will be paying this tax in areas such as Inner London.
? Every house has an owner who will be liable for the tax
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could still veto it. And I think that this is a real possibility if the EU strategy is to try to force another vote in the UK. Certainly I have heard some German commentators openly push this line. Pull the govt to the edge, humiliate them, run down the clock some more, then still don't agree, make it their fault, more young voters added to ER - and we'll turn the result over out of fear. And then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
Yep - but hopefully the UK is now moving into grown-up mood as the Cabinet’s bone idle, pig ignorant Brexiteers are sidelined.
Tell us what you really think of people that disagree with you.
I would give it to twitter for reducing the political classes and everybody else, but esp the POTUS, to complete abject infantile wankerdom and probably facilitating ww3.
No offence to any local enthusiasts.
For some the journey to complete abject infantile wankerdom was miniscule.
That struck a cord. The journey may have been miniscule or even non existent, but prior to Twitter their impact was also miniscule. Not any more.
Indeed. It intrigues me that afaik Twitter is still a loss making business. Perhaps they should start charging some of their more high profile users; I can certainly think of one abject infantile wanker who would be distraught if access was denied.
So - this capitulation that is being reported today (especially the Boris comments that are being ridiculed about the £100bn measure), is roughly as follows:
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
Yep, this could have been sorted months ago. Willy-waving Brexiteers in the Cabinet prevented it.
If we had agreed this off the bat, they would have pushed harder elsewhere. It's the difference between the final price of a haggle being £20 and making £20 your first offer.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
Yep - but hopefully the UK is now moving into grown-up mood as the Cabinet’s bone idle, pig ignorant Brexiteers are sidelined.
YouGov: "How well or badly do you the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union? Last polling was 20% well, 61% badly (Remainers 11% well 77% badly, Leavers 33% well, 66% badly).
Presumably in the next polling the position of Remainers and Leavers will be reversed. Your "grown up" mode amounts to a full on capitulation to the Commission that gives them everything they could have hoped for and more.
So, in theory, a simple 1% annual tax on the value of all homes would eliminate the deficit. A 25% one-off charge on all homeowners would pay off the entire national debt.
You don’t seem to like anyone who owns a home?
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
If you would have to sell your house isn't that quite a good clue that everyone else would? Either that or your house price:income ratio is exceptionally high, which is unlikely assuming you have a job (because the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
Would renters pay this tax as well as home owners ?
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
Property owners. I'd imagine some would try to push it on to renters but i doubt they would succeed
In which case far too few people will be paying this tax in areas such as Inner London.
? Every house has an owner who will be liable for the tax
The tax is likely to impact upon rental levels. But then, if it replaces council tax as I suggested downthread, tenants are relived of paying for this tax. And, if property values fall as is very likely, the demand for rental property should reduce as more people are able to buy, and as property becomes less attractive as an investment (certainly if left empty). So underlying rentals should fall, supplemented by an offsetting addition to reflect the new tax.
If the 1% tax replaced council tax it wouldn’t change much for most and would act as a useful check on house price inflation
It would also eliminate stamp duty and make houses cheaper. I've been a fan for a while (even though it would force me to sell my house)
e the average is skewed, for all levels of house price, by people who don't). What effect do you think this would have on house prices, mortgagees and the economy in general?
My mortgage is high in absolute terms but low as a percentage of asset value (I've traded the property market well over the last 20 years).
House prices will fall. Mortgages will reduce (it will be deducted from salary before looking at affordability) but the ratio will move in the right direction
The key for me is replacing other taxes - I've posted over the years but (from memory) you could reduce council tax by 50%, eliminate stamp duty, cut employer NICs, and have around gbp25bn to reduce the deficit.
It should replace Council Tax, with the local authority resources used to manage and collect council tax redeployed to the new tax. Local authorities should be allowed to vary a local element, as they do with setting Council Tax rates now, deducting this from the amounts collected and passing the balance to central government, as has operated for years with business rates. Indeed if might be possible to make a similar levy on commercial property and replace business rates as well. Stamp Duty should definitely be replaced and there is a case for excluding the primary home from IHT altogether, simplying the current arrangements. It would be sensible to introduce the tax at a modest level and, over time, increase it with balancing reductions in income tax (at some stage it would be sensible to merge NI and IT as well, saving a lot of administration)
The solution for people who are capital rich but income poor is to offer the option of rolling up the tax liability to be paid when the property is sold (which for many such people would be upon death, and therefore simply a different type of IHT).
More detailed explanation of what I was aiming at. Thanks
On council tax I think central mandated obligations should be funded from this, but local council responsibilities should be CT funded (otherwise they just become delivery agencies rather than democratic bodies with a purpose and authority)
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
And how well do you think those trade talks are going to go for us given that we've capitulated on every aspect of the negotiations so far?
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
The deal will end free movement, that is the only acceptable trade deal, any trade deal leaving free movement in place e.g. staying in the single market, would be completely unacceptable and disrespect the Leave vote
The question on the ballot paper was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU.
The EEA wasn't mentioned. Nor was Freedom of Movement. Campaigns are just that, they constrain nothing. However, the Conservative manifesto is an element in how the deal must be made, because they were elected on the back of it. However, if they don't make it to the end of the talks, all bets are off except 'not being a member of the EU'. At least without another referendum.
No we are moving onto trade talks by the end of the year, despite endless diehard Remainer whinging we were crashing out without a deal
Not necessarily. The Irish could stillAnd then we will never be asked again, and no other country will ever dare to ask.
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
Yep - but hopefully the UK is now moving into grown-up mood as the Cabinet’s bone idle, pig ignorant Brexiteers are sidelined.
Tell us what you really think of people that disagree with you.
I have no problem with people who do not share my views. I have big problems with bone idle chancers like Davis, Johnson and Fox being involved in shaping this country’s future. I am glad they seem to have been sidelined, so that people whose views I do not share, but are grown-up and are prepared to put the work in, can get on with things.
Exit costs to ensure we accept our legal obligations and obtain a trade deal but end free movement and provide flexibilty for us to trade with whoever we want - 50 billion
So 50 billion in the kitty over the 10 years and our reputation for doing a fair deal retained
No. The Irish issue will be resolved in the FTA talks.
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it
I hope that's right, but I still rather fear that the politics of Ever Closer Union and the fear in the future of a prosperous Britain outside it drives the commission more than the economic realities of the nation states.
The nation states have much more of a mercantilist interest in driving a hard bargain than the Commission. Negotiating through the Commission just allows them to keep their hands clean.
So France has an interest in there being no SPS recognition? Germany has an interest in having a 10% tariff on Cars or no mutual recognition of manufacturing standards? Businesses across the EU don't want access to the UK money market? The mercantilist aspect of the EU is entirely internal - Germany makes goods, the rest borrow money and send it to Germany. That will always remain unaffected. We of course, do the same, until there's a hard deal and import substitution begins.
Threatening an undesired end state that is even worse for you than it is for the other side, not just economically, has not been effective so far and there's no sign that it will in the future.
(Edit)
YouGov: "How well or badly do you the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union? Last polling was 20% well, 61% badly (Remainers 11% well 77% badly, Leavers 33% well, 66% badly).
Presumably in the next polling the position of Remainers and Leavers will be reversed. Your "grown up" mode amounts to a full on capitulation to the Commission that gives them everything they could have hoped for and more.
Comments
For low paid people in areas of high house prices it would be hugely negative.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/42163148
Today is beginning to look like the Remoaners' worst nightmare. The people are meant to be marching on Downing Street calling for May's head on a spike, only to be told that the hard brexiteers have already toppled her, in reaction to this deal whereas the general view seems to be meh, whatever, roll on Christmas.
Let's give up the rule of law when we have hard cases. That definitely won't have any unintended consequences.
Outlook on Mac though, that’s a complete sh!t show compared to the Windows version.
Anyway, enough talking shop for one morning, work to do!
As plod had all the facts two months ago why do they need so long to make a decision ?
The EU wants a trade deal, the UK is easily the biggest destination for EU exports and no deal would damage the EU economy, they just want to ensure the UK pays a hefty bill for it. Neither the Tory nor Labour parties will of course reverse Brexit
I see no reason for there to be a problem running datasets of that sort of size on a good PC running vanilla Windows 10 - perhaps at less cost than the Apple machine.
I'd look more at the specs of the PC you were running it on, and what other stuff you had running at the same time, than automatically blaming Windows.
A better idea is to limit this type of taxation to very wealthy people.
The UK has finally had a good year on the vital issue of rebalancing the economy into something sustainable. The last thing we needed was the continuation of the Osbrowne high consumption and high property prices model.
Not to mention that if you give the EU an open door they'll take everything you offer and then take a load more.
Say you buy a 500K house. No longer paying stamp duty (not sure what that is but say 10k), so in theory you can pay 510k.
Annual liability of 5k is a reduction in value of about 50k so prices should stabilise at about 460k.
2) The witnesses only came forward a month ago.
My own sense is that the CPS took their time working out if the response of Ben Stokes was proportional.
The problem with leaving the EU is not the exit bill - which is trivial compared to annual GDP, it's the economic damage the crap trade deal we are going to get will cause.
The Times say that would likely be in the new year, but it could be this year as well.
What the media perpetually fail to mention is the only money we are agreeing to is money we agreed to pay as the cost of EU membership. If we stayed an EU member we would have to pay this money and to continue to acquire similar liabilities of an increasing amount over time. Thanks to Brexit we will no longer be doing that after the exit date.
https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304933-excel-for-mac/suggestions/9472407-will-excel-for-mac-2016-utilize-multiple-cores-on
But this might be getting a little off-topic ...
But, can any of the decent Labour leaning posters on here really be happy with the way their party is going?
Latest in a long line of exhibits
https://order-order.com/2017/11/29/tulip-siddiq-threatens-pregnant-channel-4-news-producer/
God help us if they get into power
If someone is being deported and they cannot afford the£240 to prove they have a right to remain, as indicated in the article, then they meet the definition of helplessness, it doesn't have anything to do with race.
This family would have been deported had he not got a job meeting his visa requirements.
- I think any amount between 45 and 65 bn seems reasonable.
- I don't really care about the status of Northern Ireland in the customs union
- I completely oppose any role for the ECJ as a court of appeal in the UK justice system, though could accept some face-saving measure for the ECJ (and an equivalent British court) in saying whether obligations have been met by each side
In 2016q1 for example GDP fell on a per capita basis.
As to tax take in the last four quarters the government has borrowed £41bn, in the four before that it borrowed £65bn:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf
We also have manufacturing order books at near 30 year highs and tourism receipts at record levels.
Some more digging says it’s actually a memory issue. Excel uses its own memory manager and has a 2GB hard limit irrespective of what’s actually in the computer.
http://www.plumsolutions.com.au/articles/improving-excel-memory-and-file-performance
Early 64-bit Win versions of Excel (2010?) were seriously buggy. As in so buggy they couldn’t add up properly. Which is a big problem for spreadsheets.
Anyways, as you say we’re well off topic now. Work to do - fixing a dead computer!
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/935241330388885507
The fact that there are lawyers who get rich fighting immigration cases has no bearing on the actual issue, which is the access of the poorest in society to legal representation and the resources necessary to even gather the evidence and submit an application.
(I knew it was the CPS)
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/934419480377208833
Great line in Desperate Housewives; 'You seem surprised, yet somehow your face does not move'.....
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU.
The EEA wasn't mentioned. Nor was Freedom of Movement. Campaigns are just that, they constrain nothing. However, the Conservative manifesto is an element in how the deal must be made, because they were elected on the back of it. However, if they don't make it to the end of the talks, all bets are off except 'not being a member of the EU'. At least without another referendum.
I suspect given the high profile nature of this they'll be alright.
Incident happened end of September, they came forward in around 4 weeks, 3 weeks after the police asked them to come forward, they'll be fine I think.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42164478
Sadly.
The solution for people who are capital rich but income poor is to offer the option of rolling up the tax liability to be paid when the property is sold (which for many such people would be upon death, and therefore simply a different type of IHT).
Two years contribution at about £10 bn P.a. (Current Liability, would have had to pay as a member)
Pension Liabilities (Would have had to pay as a member).
A share of the RAL based on our current 12% total contribution £580bn *12% = 70bn. (We would have paid this as members).
So that alone adds up to £90bn plus pensions, and the number gross is reported as £89bn
So if we pay £45bn NETT, that's a capitulation? I'm not quite seeing it
Success equals performance minus anticipation.
It intrigues me that afaik Twitter is still a loss making business. Perhaps they should start charging some of their more high profile users; I can certainly think of one abject infantile wanker who would be distraught if access was denied.
.......... and camping.
YouGov: "How well or badly do you the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union?
Last polling was 20% well, 61% badly (Remainers 11% well 77% badly, Leavers 33% well, 66% badly).
Presumably in the next polling the position of Remainers and Leavers will be reversed. Your "grown up" mode amounts to a full on capitulation to the Commission that gives them everything they could have hoped for and more.
On council tax I think central mandated obligations should be funded from this, but local council responsibilities should be CT funded (otherwise they just become delivery agencies rather than democratic bodies with a purpose and authority)
Exit costs to ensure we accept our legal obligations and obtain a trade deal but end free movement and provide flexibilty for us to trade with whoever we want - 50 billion
So 50 billion in the kitty over the 10 years and our reputation for doing a fair deal retained
YouGov: "How well or badly do you the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union?
Last polling was 20% well, 61% badly (Remainers 11% well 77% badly, Leavers 33% well, 66% badly).
Presumably in the next polling the position of Remainers and Leavers will be reversed. Your "grown up" mode amounts to a full on capitulation to the Commission that gives them everything they could have hoped for and more.