On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
Clegg didn't have a choice.
What were the alternatives ?
1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.
2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.
3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.
After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.
They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
Unconvinced that would have been acceptable to the Tories. I think they'd have done better if they'd just followed through on at least one of their big promises (tuition fees, nuclear deterrent, constitutional reform).
After about two years I kept banging on that it was time for Clegg to ay that enough was enough. It was pretty clear after the AV fiasco that Cameron’s promises were pie-crust; made to be broken.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
Clegg didn't have a choice.
What were the alternatives ?
1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.
2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.
3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.
After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.
They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
Unconvinced that would have been acceptable to the Tories. I think they'd have done better if they'd just followed through on at least one of their big promises (tuition fees, nuclear deterrent, constitutional reform).
After about two years I kept banging on that it was time for Clegg to ay that enough was enough. It was pretty clear after the AV fiasco that Cameron’s promises were pie-crust; made to be broken.
Where are the broken Cameron promises on AV? The LibDems blew it, is what happened. They went for something that looked to be nakedly politically selfish - all about them getting more MPs. A wasted opportunity to impact something like Lords reform, where I suspect Cameron could have been more easily persuaded of supporting meaningful change.
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
@Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!
Well done Boris, reducing Adonis to sounding like a smart-arse metropolitan twat, rather than saying anything of note.
I'm more intrigued as to why Adonis was changing at Baker Street at 5.22 in the morning.
Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?
Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.
Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
Which bit do you see as going back and lying?
They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.
PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.
The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
Thestay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
Yep - that is one solution. It would destroy the UK's economy, make us an international pariah and kill off the Conservative party for a generation, but it is doable.
Buccaneering Boris's first trip[ to the US after becoming PM in such circumstances would be an interesting one. He may discover that the Irish American lobby is pretty powerful.
Trump backed Brexit originally, Boris could even win a general election on it in autumn 2019 or spring 2020
@Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!
Well done Boris, reducing Adonis to sounding like a smart-arse metropolitan twat, rather than saying anything of note.
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
Clegg didn't have a choice.
What were the alternatives ?
1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.
2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.
3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.
After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.
They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
With hindsight that was probably their best option.
But I think the LibDems expected that the bad things of the coalition would stick to the Conservatives while they could continue to play as the outsiders and pick up the NOTA vote.
I remember Mark Senior predicting big gain for the LibDems from the Conservatives at the 2011 local elections as an example.
Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?
Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.
Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
Which bit do you see as going back and lying?
They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.
PS - they are sudden descent.
The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.
The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
Thestay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively Parliament.
We anyway
Yep - that is one solution. It would destroy the UK's economy, make us an international pariah and kill off the Conservative party for a generation, but it is doable.
Buccaneering Boris's first trip[ to the US after becoming PM in such circumstances would be an interesting one. He may discover that the Irish American lobby is pretty powerful.
Trump backed Brexit originally, Boris could even win a general election on it in autumn 2019 or spring 2020
Read up on the strength of the Irish American lobby - and its importance, especially in getting legislation such as free trade agreements through Congress. I agree that even Boris could beat Corbyn in a GE, but under the circumstances you describe that would be the last election the Tories win for a very long time.
The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
You know all this about everyone in Hartlepool do you Roger?
Amazing.
Perhaps everything could be decided by you on our behalf. Off you go. Listen to the arguments for us and tell us what the answer is. From your home somewhere in another country where you won't be affected by the consequences for us here.
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
Clegg didn't have a choice.
What were the alternatives ?
1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.
2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.
3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.
After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.
They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
Unconvinced that would have been acceptable to the Tories. I think they'd have done better if they'd just followed through on at least one of their big promises (tuition fees, nuclear deterrent, constitutional reform).
The tuition fees betrayal was political madness by the LibDems.
That they allowed it at the same time as Osborne was shovelling money at triple lock pensions highlighted their broken promise.
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
In terms of numbers, the loss of MPs in 2015 was far greater, no argument. The loss of vote share was equally dramatic.
However, in 1970, there was virtually no Liberal local Government base in terms of Councillors (possibly 100 Councillors at most). The Party was moribund in most of the country in a way it wasn't in 2015.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime
You'll be mentioning next all those stolen millions the LibDems kept from convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
I think that you always mention this whenever the LibDems are the subject. For the sake of balance I think I need to mention Asil Nadir.
I mention it because I know it annoys some LibDems.
There are other LibDems, OKC for example, who say that the stolen donation should have been returned.
And you can mention Asil Nadir all you want - the other parties are no better - as it brings to mind the delightful memory of that pompous prat Michael Mates having his ministerial career ended.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
OOPS!!! 1970.
They you go again, flaunting your time travel at us.....
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
In terms of numbers, the loss of MPs in 2015 was far greater, no argument. The loss of vote share was equally dramatic.
However, in 1970, there was virtually no Liberal local Government base in terms of Councillors (possibly 100 Councillors at most). The Party was moribund in most of the country in a way it wasn't in 2015.
The vote share in 1970 wasn’t that different to 1966. 2,100,000 odd as against 2,300,000. And while there were fewer Councillors the general trend was up.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
Its curious that the 'sick man of Europe' has been for decades a net contributor of funds, a net recipient of migrants and a net consumer of goods within the EU.
But good to have it confirmed that foreigners don't like this country.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
I was an ‘activist’ in 19780 and my recollection is that 2015 was worse. Much, much worse. And I wasn’t an ‘activist' by then.
OOPS!!! 1970.
They you go again, flaunting your time travel at us.....
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
IIRC in Auf Wiedersehn Pet the gang return home at the end because the German government has brought in tax changes which make working there no longer worthwhile.
The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
Its curious that the 'sick man of Europe' has been for decades a net contributor of funds, a net recipient of migrants and a net consumer of goods within the EU.
But good to have it confirmed that foreigners don't like this country.
Check the anti-French posts on here every so often!
Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?
Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.
Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
Which bit do you see as going back and lying?
They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.
PS - they are sudden descent.
The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.
The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
Thestay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively Parliament.
We anyway
Yep - that is one solution. It would destroy the UK's economy, make us an international pariah and kill off the Conservative party for a generation, but it is doable.
Buccaneering Boris's first trip[ to the US after becoming PM in such circumstances would be an interesting one. He may discover that the Irish American lobby is pretty powerful.
Trump backed Brexit originally, Boris could even win a general election on it in autumn 2019 or spring 2020
Read up on the strength of the Irish American lobby - and its importance, especially in getting legislation such as free trade agreements through Congress. I agree that even Boris could beat Corbyn in a GE, but under the circumstances you describe that would be the last election the Tories win for a very long time.
Perhaps, especially if someone like Umunna succeeded a defeated Corbyn. Though the Tories would have been in for 14 or 15 years if they then lost in 2024 or 2025 so no surprise if they entered opposition for a significant period
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.
We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
Its curious that the 'sick man of Europe' has been for decades a net contributor of funds, a net recipient of migrants and a net consumer of goods within the EU.
But good to have it confirmed that foreigners don't like this country.
Check the anti-French posts on here every so often!
Has England been at war with France longer than with any other country?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
Spain has 800 000 Romanians, the second largest diaspora after Italy. Young FOM is quite large scale on top of retirees. There are lots of Portuguese in France, Greeks and East Europeans in Germany etc.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
This time round the warmer weather is very easy to find. It is at the arctic.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
King Cole, mocking the French is an ancient English tradition.
Mr. Jessop, hope it can go ahead. Might be very picturesque.
Mr. Evershed, do you mean have we warred with France for more years than any other country, or have we had another nation as a war enemy for more years?
Might have had more war with Scotland. Depends how you categorise things, perhaps. Lots of Anglo-Scottish war was border raids. Would we count the incursion of King... David, I think, during the Stephen-Matilda English civil war as an Anglo-Scottish war?
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
First of all, congratulations on your anniversary and best wishes for a continued happy future.
Secondly, has your sister-in-law not insured the event?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
That is a fairer assessment SO.I am getting used to the hyperbole from Cyclefree.
Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime
You'll be mentioning next all those stolen millions the LibDems kept from convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
I think that you always mention this whenever the LibDems are the subject. For the sake of balance I think I need to mention Asil Nadir.
I mention it because I know it annoys some LibDems.
There are other LibDems, OKC for example, who say that the stolen donation should have been returned.
And you can mention Asil Nadir all you want - the other parties are no better - as it brings to mind the delightful memory of that pompous prat Michael Mates having his ministerial career ended.
Since money is fungible, political parties can't tell whether cash received from a donor was provided from the money earned legitimately or the money earned illegitimately.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
With the new GDPR data protection, will parties still be able to use call centres?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Other EU countries enforce it.
Do other countries have the particular strand of ultra-left thinking within their judiciary though that means you can't get rid of anyone to anywhere ?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
There’s a simiar, almost certainly apochryphal one about the cricketer Kevin Pietersen which is too good not to remember. However, I’m not sure that, in consideration of OGH I ought to repeat it here!
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
First of all, congratulations on your anniversary and best wishes for a continued happy future.
Secondly, has your sister-in-law not insured the event?
Thanks, and on the second point: no idea.
We're developing a track record on this. Mrs J booked a hotel in the Peak District for my fortieth in 2013. It was late March, and on the morning there was a heavy dump of snow. We were just talking about cancelling, when the venue phoned up to say they were closed as few of their staff could get in, and that we could have a full refund.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Other EU countries enforce it.
Do other countries have the particular strand of ultra-left thinking within their judiciary though that means you can't get rid of anyone to anywhere ?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
To the extent that it got us to vote to leave that may well be true.
Mr. Eagles, you could argue the strategy's flaw wasn't the basic approach but announcing it. Declaring your intentions makes it easier to defend against them. Hannibal didn't tell Flaminius he was going to ambush him. Caesar didn't give Pompey advanced notice he'd attack him at Pharsalus.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Other EU countries enforce it.
Maybe Oban is right then, perhaps it is time for a clear-out of the judiciary.
Isn’t it ironic/pleasing/frustrating that Lord Salisbury’s strategy of using Ulster to keep all of Ireland in the Union has now been inverted and redeployed by the EU, who intend to use Ulster to keep all of the U.K. in the EU?
I wonder if Lord Rennard regrets the silly decapitation strategy of 2005.
If they had focussed on more winnable seats they might have ended up with 80-100 MPs in 2005.
I wasn't familiar with his capacity for expressing regret.
What does he have to regret?
There was a report, conducted by an eminent QC, that cleared him.
Behaving in a fashion that required a report to be instigated and in a way that caused many trees to be felled to provide paper for the dead tree press.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
Agreed. As I said in my post. But there are also costs and the costs and benefits have not been equally or fairly shared, a point which is being overlooked.
Since the Brexit vote, a number of countries have suggested that maybe there ought to be changes to the FoM rules. We shall see what happens.
I would also point out that I am pretty much the only one on here who thinks that letting in Poles and others from Eastern Europe was a good thing, for moral reasons as much as anything else. Britain acted far more in the spirit of Europe than did France and Germany so it rather sticks in the craw when they criticise us for not being good Europeans on this point.
Nonetheless those who benefited from this immigration were reluctant to ensure that they paid the costs and are now wondering why they are being outvoted by those who did not see quite as many benefits from this as they did.
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
This time round the warmer weather is very easy to find. It is at the arctic.
Except they haven't 'found' it at all. They have just modelled it. There have been no direct measurements of the warmer temperatures at the North Pole as the article linked to yesterday made clear.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
Thoiught there was an official, or otherwise reliable report that said that hadn’t happened.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
Thoiught there was an official, or otherwise reliable report that said that hadn’t happened.
Yup.
EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE.
Research blames 2008 recession for lower real salaries rather than rise in foreign workers, adding they paid more into UK economy than they took out
Hmm. Just checked the weather. It's below zero until a few hours on Friday, when it will rise to 0. Forecast high 1 degree on Saturday.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Weather != climate.
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
This time round the warmer weather is very easy to find. It is at the arctic.
Except they haven't 'found' it at all. They have just modelled it. There have been no direct measurements of the warmer temperatures at the North Pole as the article linked to yesterday made clear.
The Guardian article has actual temperature readings from north Greenland substantiating the warm weather.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
Agreed. As I said in my post. But there are also costs and the costs and benefits have not been equally or fairly shared, a point which is being overlooked.
Since the Brexit vote, a number of countries have suggested that maybe there ought to be changes to the FoM rules. We shall see what happens.
I would also point out that I am pretty much the only one on here who thinks that letting in Poles and others from Eastern Europe was a good thing, for moral reasons as much as anything else. Britain acted far more in the spirit of Europe than did France and Germany so it rather sticks in the craw when they criticise us for not being good Europeans on this point.
Nonetheless those who benefited from this immigration were reluctant to ensure that they paid the costs and are now wondering why they are being outvoted by those who did not see quite as many benefits from this as they did.
It wasn't just wealthy metropolitans that benefited from EU citizens coming here to pay taxes and do jobs that were not fillable otherwise. Polish plumbers and Bulgarian electricians do work in social and council housing, as well as in Hampstead and Richmond.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
I do not tend to ignore it. I have seen little evidence to suggest that such downward pressure exists to any great extent. And it is not me who says that migrants come here to rely on state benefits. I agree with you that such claims are indeed bogus.
Mr. Eagles, I find it hard to believe that supply of labour doesn't have *any* impact on wages. After the Black Death, wages for those at the lower end of society rose as there were too many fields and not enough workers to tend to them. Supply of labour fell sharply, wages rose quickly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
Agreed. As I said in my post. But there are also costs and the costs and benefits have not been equally or fairly shared, a point which is being overlooked.
Since the Brexit vote, a number of countries have suggested that maybe there ought to be changes to the FoM rules. We shall see what happens.
I would also point out that I am pretty much the only one on here who thinks that letting in Poles and others from Eastern Europe was a good thing, for moral reasons as much as anything else. Britain acted far more in the spirit of Europe than did France and Germany so it rather sticks in the craw when they criticise us for not being good Europeans on this point.
Nonetheless those who benefited from this immigration were reluctant to ensure that they paid the costs and are now wondering why they are being outvoted by those who did not see quite as many benefits from this as they did.
It wasn't just wealthy metropolitans that benefited from EU citizens coming here to pay taxes and do jobs that were not fillable otherwise. Polish plumbers and Bulgarian electricians do work in social and council housing, as well as in Hampstead and Richmond.
Quite rightr Every cheap Polish plumber has hundereds of customers benefiting. It is like tariffs, either protection ism is good for protecting the indigineous, or a free market benefits the consumer.
Yet again the Government offers nothing but cowardice in the face of the SNP’s extra-constitutional tricks. The Presiding Office has said that this bill is outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but the SNP still intend to introduce and vote on it.
The Attorney General should stop this through the courts.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
Agreed. As I said in my post. But there are also costs and the costs and benefits have not been equally or fairly shared, a point which is being overlooked.
Since the Brexit vote, a number of countries have suggested that maybe there ought to be changes to the FoM rules. We shall see what happens.
I would also point out that I am pretty much the only one on here who thinks that letting in Poles and others from Eastern Europe was a good thing, for moral reasons as much as anything else. Britain acted far more in the spirit of Europe than did France and Germany so it rather sticks in the craw when they criticise us for not being good Europeans on this point...
No, I don't think that's true. I agree with you, and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
There’s a simiar, almost certainly apochryphal one about the cricketer Kevin Pietersen which is too good not to remember. However, I’m not sure that, in consideration of OGH I ought to repeat it here!
I hope the one about the Hartlepool monkey hanging is true
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
SNIP prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
You move to France and you have to buy medical insurance - at least that was the case when I was going to move there.
Incidentally - we were also told that if you wanted to work you would generally need to set up your own business as the French will employ their own, even if less qualified for role.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
Thoiught there was an official, or otherwise reliable report that said that hadn’t happened.
Yup.
EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE.
Research blames 2008 recession for lower real salaries rather than rise in foreign workers, adding they paid more into UK economy than they took out
Comments
When I was an LD activist in the 80s and 90s, I followed the ideas of Lord Rennard and the ALDC by-election machine. Rennard himself, at that time, was seen in the Party as a guru and I heard him speak many times at Conference to gatherings which were never less than packed and he was always surrounded by his local acolytes.
The Party that he and a few other activists created out of the rubble of the 1970 election defeat (in some ways worse than 2015) was based on community politics pioneered ibn Liverpool, Richmond and a few other places and however derogatory and dismissive Conservative and Labour activists were then and are now, at the time and for a generation Rennard ran rings round the other parties in terms of by-election and local by-election tactics and strategy.
I know he was privately admired by both the Conservative and Labour parties and they came to adopt many of his methods as a response to their success.
In a time before social media and even widespread use of call centres (first time I recall the LDs using them was Eastbourne) it was all about the leaflet through the door and the face-to-face contact getting into communities via local issues and concerns.
Thousands of LD Councillors were elected thanks to Rennard and his methods and the local campaigning bases built up in the long Thatcher/Major years achieved the great breakthrough of 1997 when they were able, in key areas, to capitalise on the Conservative collapse such as in Sutton, Kingston and elsewhere.
Even after then, seats like Romsey in 1999 showed how the by-election machine was still ahead of anything the Conservatives could muster and under Kennedy I'd argue Rennard became the most influential and powerful figure in the Party.
Unfortunately, and there's no getting away from this, there was a much darker aspect to Rennard and while I never saw or heard anything about this in my time as an activist, it's undeniable that people in the Party were treated appallingly by Rennard and then equally badly by the Party who, for whatever reason, failed them.
The Party Rennard helped create and the Party I worked hard for and supported died in the flames of 2015 having been consumed by the experience of Government.
The Liberal Democrat Party which has emerged from the ashes of 2015 is a different Party to my eye and it's one with which I'm not entirely comfortable but I wish it well especially given the current state of the two main parties.
EDIT: Very early Mornington Crescent.....
But I think the LibDems expected that the bad things of the coalition would stick to the Conservatives while they could continue to play as the outsiders and pick up the NOTA vote.
I remember Mark Senior predicting big gain for the LibDems from the Conservatives at the 2011 local elections as an example.
Amazing.
Perhaps everything could be decided by you on our behalf. Off you go. Listen to the arguments for us and tell us what the answer is. From your home somewhere in another country where you won't be affected by the consequences for us here.
That they allowed it at the same time as Osborne was shovelling money at triple lock pensions highlighted their broken promise.
However, in 1970, there was virtually no Liberal local Government base in terms of Councillors (possibly 100 Councillors at most). The Party was moribund in most of the country in a way it wasn't in 2015.
(PS. You wait a year and then '3 Billboards' 'Shape of Water' and 'Lady bird' all arrive together!)
There are other LibDems, OKC for example, who say that the stolen donation should have been returned.
And you can mention Asil Nadir all you want - the other parties are no better - as it brings to mind the delightful memory of that pompous prat Michael Mates having his ministerial career ended.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/968775024017625088
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
But good to have it confirmed that foreigners don't like this country.
Where's that global warming and Mediterranean climate I was promised?!
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
It's my brother's 50th birthday party on Saturday, and his wife has a marquee booked at a castle. The questions are whether we'll be able to get up to Derbyshire on Saturday, and whether the whole thing will be cancelled.
Hopefully everything will be okay ...
(It's also the tenth anniversary of Mrs J and my engagement. Although as she proposed on February 29th, I suppose it's the two-and-a-half anniversary)
Has England been at war with France longer than with any other country?
Mr. Jessop, hope it can go ahead. Might be very picturesque.
Mr. Evershed, do you mean have we warred with France for more years than any other country, or have we had another nation as a war enemy for more years?
Might have had more war with Scotland. Depends how you categorise things, perhaps. Lots of Anglo-Scottish war was border raids. Would we count the incursion of King... David, I think, during the Stephen-Matilda English civil war as an Anglo-Scottish war?
Secondly, has your sister-in-law not insured the event?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/968754529796788225
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
by every single one of his Twitter followers...
We're developing a track record on this. Mrs J booked a hotel in the Peak District for my fortieth in 2013. It was late March, and on the morning there was a heavy dump of snow. We were just talking about cancelling, when the venue phoned up to say they were closed as few of their staff could get in, and that we could have a full refund.
If they had focussed on more winnable seats they might have ended up with 80-100 MPs in 2005.
My son & daughter-in-law went to Mahe for their honeymoon. Said it was wonderful, and so were the surroundings.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/666954840313085952
There was a report, conducted by an eminent QC, that cleared him.
Dozens of military dogs have been put down over the past year, it has emerged.
New figures released by the Ministry of Defence show 38 military working dogs were euthanised between March and December.
Of these six were put down due to their dangerous temperament, with a further six destroyed because of "failing to maintain standards".
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/dozens-of-military-dogs-put-down-over-the-past-year-a3777421.html
Alas, not even F1 to distract me today. I may end up doing some work.
Since the Brexit vote, a number of countries have suggested that maybe there ought to be changes to the FoM rules. We shall see what happens.
I would also point out that I am pretty much the only one on here who thinks that letting in Poles and others from Eastern Europe was a good thing, for moral reasons as much as anything else. Britain acted far more in the spirit of Europe than did France and Germany so it rather sticks in the craw when they criticise us for not being good Europeans on this point.
Nonetheless those who benefited from this immigration were reluctant to ensure that they paid the costs and are now wondering why they are being outvoted by those who did not see quite as many benefits from this as they did.
I always thought Scots had no time for racism as they were too busy engaging in sectarianism.
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/968774541655838720
EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE.
Research blames 2008 recession for lower real salaries rather than rise in foreign workers, adding they paid more into UK economy than they took out
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises
Temporary anomaly possibly, but based on objective measurements.
The Attorney General should stop this through the courts.
I agree with you, and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/968761141571850240
I guess the £30 I spent in the Cambridge shop on Monday didn't help.
Incidentally - we were also told that if you wanted to work you would generally need to set up your own business as the French will employ their own, even if less qualified for role.