Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
I think it's possible that lost jobs and benefits, denied healthcare and people being trapped outside their home country is the entire problem and that, beyond that, ambiguity in some civil servants' paperwork really doesn't matter at all. We know that the Windrush generation's legal status needn't have led to actual, real-world suffering because it didn't for decades.
That's garbage. Of course the Guardian - which can of course never be accused of missing an opportunity to blame the Tories for all ills known to man - does its best to gloss over the dates in case like these, where the problems either happened under Labour, or under rules introduced by Labour:
Having gone to Jamaica for his 50th birthday [in 2010] – his first visit since arriving in Britain aged six – Robinson was told at the airport he could not return on his Jamaican passport. He lived in bedsits and hostels for 21 months, until a solicitor resolved the case. On his return in 2011, however, he was told he owed £4,500 for unpaid rent and council tax. Taken to court and evicted, Robinson has been sofa-surfing since.
and
Having moved from Jamaica 51 years ago, aged six, the benefits agency challenged O’Connor’s immigration status last summer after she lost her job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Several potential new employers withdrew offers upon realising she had no passport. She had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. After her story was publicised last month, the Home Office promised to waive her fees for a biometric card application.
and
Francis came from Jamaica with his two sisters when he was about seven, to join their parents. He worked on repairing Royal Navy ships but after being made redundant four years ago, no one will employ him because he does not have a passport or other proof of his right to live and work in the UK.
and many more.
Don't get me wrong - these and the other cases are awful, but the root cause goes back decades.
No it wasn't. All of these incidents and the scandalous treatment of long term UK residents came about because of the 2014 Immigration Act, introduced by Theresa May. That pernicious act should be repealed. Honourable politicians could campaign to do so.
The act was one of many that increasingly tied the noose tighter around those without documentation. The 2014 one added banking and housing to a list that had got longer and longer.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
In a weird sense I think the Lords trying to amend absolutely everything just dilutes any point they are trying to make and will make potential Tory traitors easier to win back. They won't like the Lords trying to overrule them on absolutely everything, without even giving it a second thought.
The Charter amendment is particularly stupid since we'd automatically stop being a party to it as soon as we abrogate from the Treaty of Lisbon.
Whatever support they may have had among certain MPs will begin to drain away if they keep this up.
Incidentally, as far as I can see Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott didn't vote against the measures in the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which made it impossible to get a job here if you don't have documentation proving your right to do so. It wasn't that he wasn't paying attention - he did vote for an amendment that would have removed a clause from the Bill excluding from refugee status those committing ‘acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism’.
Another example in that article also show how the problem existed under Labour:
Junior Green, 61... Despite having the letter, he said the problems began when he lost the passport containing the stamp. Attempts to get his new Jamaican passport stamped with the indefinite leave to remain were rebuffed by the Home Office in 2009 and 2014, he says, because he was unable to furnish them with proof of 10 years of continuous residence, even though he had the 1993 letter.
As I said, kudos to Amber for finally getting a grip on this. It's fair enough to criticise Theresa May for introducing the 2012 Act without addressing with the long-existing problems, but I really don't see how Amber Rudd can be blamed for it, nor do I see how Labour can claim the moral high ground.
I can't find the bit in that article about him being threatened with deportation, denied healthcare and unable to work
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
In a weird sense I think the Lords trying to amend absolutely everything just dilutes any point they are trying to make and will make potential Tory traitors easier to win back. They won't like the Lords trying to overrule them on absolutely everything, without even giving it a second thought.
The Charter amendment is particularly stupid since we'd automatically stop being a party to it as soon as we abrogate from the Treaty of Lisbon.
Whatever support they may have had among certain MPs will begin to drain away if they keep this up.
I think the Lords are overplaying their hand, but I’m not sure they care. They may think if they push hard enough they can collapse the whole thing.
The Government will win very few votes without the Tories there staying loyal, and the bulk of the crossbenchers siding with them, because I expect the Labour/LD peers to be as one on this.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
It's mainly because Robert uses an Android phone. The website isn't sufficiently dogfoooded on iOS.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
It's mainly because Robert uses an Android phone. The website isn't sufficiently dogfoooded on iOS.
I can't find the bit in that article about him being threatened with deportation, denied healthcare and unable to work
Since I've just posted several examples of people being unable to work as a result of the 2006 Act, and one of someone told they didn't have the right to remain here in 2009, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Another example in that article also show how the problem existed under Labour:
Junior Green, 61... Despite having the letter, he said the problems began when he lost the passport containing the stamp. Attempts to get his new Jamaican passport stamped with the indefinite leave to remain were rebuffed by the Home Office in 2009 and 2014, he says, because he was unable to furnish them with proof of 10 years of continuous residence, even though he had the 1993 letter.
As I said, kudos to Amber for finally getting a grip on this. It's fair enough to criticise Theresa May for introducing the 2012 Act without addressing with the long-existing problems, but I really don't see how Amber Rudd can be blamed for it, nor do I see how Labour can claim the moral high ground.
I can't find the bit in that article about him being threatened with deportation, denied healthcare and unable to work
2009 act ( think) removed the ability to work,without proof of status.
Another example in that article also show how the problem existed under Labour:
Junior Green, 61... Despite having the letter, he said the problems began when he lost the passport containing the stamp. Attempts to get his new Jamaican passport stamped with the indefinite leave to remain were rebuffed by the Home Office in 2009 and 2014, he says, because he was unable to furnish them with proof of 10 years of continuous residence, even though he had the 1993 letter.
As I said, kudos to Amber for finally getting a grip on this. It's fair enough to criticise Theresa May for introducing the 2012 Act without addressing with the long-existing problems, but I really don't see how Amber Rudd can be blamed for it, nor do I see how Labour can claim the moral high ground.
I can't find the bit in that article about him being threatened with deportation, denied healthcare and unable to work
2009 act ( think) removed the ability to work,without proof of status.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
In a weird sense I think the Lords trying to amend absolutely everything just dilutes any point they are trying to make and will make potential Tory traitors easier to win back. They won't like the Lords trying to overrule them on absolutely everything, without even giving it a second thought.
The Charter amendment is particularly stupid since we'd automatically stop being a party to it as soon as we abrogate from the Treaty of Lisbon.
Whatever support they may have had among certain MPs will begin to drain away if they keep this up.
I think the Lords are overplaying their hand, but I’m not sure they care. They may think if they push hard enough they can collapse the whole thing.
The Government will win very few votes without the Tories there staying loyal, and the bulk of the crossbenchers siding with them, because I expect the Labour/LD peers to be as one on this.
I agree that they don't care. However, their attitude will make it much easier to kick back all of their amendments. If it was just one or two and it looked like they looked very hard and decided they had no choice but to send an amendment back to the commons. What they are doing now makes them look as if they don't care and are just pushing an agenda to halt Brexit, which not enough Tory MPs will get on board with.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
Incidentally, as far as I can see Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott didn't vote against the measures in the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which made it impossible to get a job here if you don't have documentation proving your right to do so. It wasn't that he wasn't paying attention - he did vote for an amendment that would have removed a clause from the Bill excluding from refugee status those committing ‘acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism’.
What is it about Jez and supporting terrorists. Fucking traitorous scum.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
Seriously? I am surprised at that. I do everything via mobile devices (asides work) as does virtually everyone. It is only now that I have seen it as an issue wrt this site. If the site administrators/designers do not see this as a problem, and the site owners have no problem with this (severe) lack of accessibility for users, then I am very surprised. At the end of the day it is their money & their site. Ho hum.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
Seriously? I am surprised at that. I do everything via mobile devices (asides work) as does virtually everyone. It is only now that I have seen it as an issue wrt this site. If the site administrators/designers do not see this as a problem, and the site owners have no problem with this (severe) lack of accessibility for users, then I am very surprised. At the end of the day it is their money & their site. Ho hum.
Yeah. I take that attitude about their site also. They put time and money in getting it to work and it acts as a great site for getting information. As guido always said who complained about his site, if they bring him a receipt he’ll gladly refund what they paid in full.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
It would be interesting to do a PB poll on this. My pref is of course to Remain, but the least worst Brexit for me is EFTA/EEA and I could grudgingly live with it.
Labour's fault, apparently, this Windrush business. I wouldn't count on those affected, including indirectly, children and grandchildren of that generation and all ethnicities, seeing it that way but I guess we will find out in 10 days or so.
The FT uses rational arguments in favour of its position and is critical of Leavers for failing to come up with an alternative.
Recommended counter-measure: ad hominem.
It's a shame one can't read the article as it's behind a paywall.
It would be interesting to see if the FT have some genuine arguments as to why we should remain in the CU or are merely jumping on the latest bandwagon designed to impede Brexit.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
The FT uses rational arguments in favour of its position and is critical of Leavers for failing to come up with an alternative.
Recommended counter-measure: ad hominem.
It's a shame one can't read the article as it's behind a paywall.
It would be interesting to see if the FT have some genuine arguments as to why we should remain in the CU or are merely jumping on the latest bandwagon designed to impede Brexit.
I read it.
It doesn’t really add anything you haven’t heard elsewhere: that some form of customs arrangement are essential for our supply chains, and that the government’s alternatives to a full customs union are unworkable.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
Depends what you mean by “uncontrolled”. As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
Labour's fault, apparently, this Windrush business. I wouldn't count on those affected, including indirectly, children and grandchildren of that generation and all ethnicities, seeing it that way but I guess we will find out in 10 days or so.
Well, I suppose you could argue that it's Labour's fault, in that it was the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act which took away the rights previously enjoyed simply by being citizens of an ex-colony.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
Seriously? I am surprised at that. I do everything via mobile devices (asides work) as does virtually everyone. It is only now that I have seen it as an issue wrt this site. If the site administrators/designers do not see this as a problem, and the site owners have no problem with this (severe) lack of accessibility for users, then I am very surprised. At the end of the day it is their money & their site. Ho hum.
I had a year of being logged out of the site in Safari several times a day, and not being able to log back in on the main page without resetting my password, which was hugely annoying. But recently it is all working fine.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
It is now up to UK to come up with its vision for the future relationship with EU, says @MichelBarnier UK should confirm its red lines or adapt them. Warning to some UK commentators: this is a UK choice, not “EU ramping up pressure”.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
Depends what you mean by “uncontrolled”. As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
I suspect if it was a choice people would prefer the CU to the SM.
Now while I believe its possible that the UK could in time arrange trade treaties which would be more advantageous than currently anything done now would have too much involvement of Liam Fox for my liking.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a certain degree, but Switzerland abides by the same rules and doesn't have any issues with unskilled migrants who arrive without a job. I had to prove self sufficiency after 90 days or I would get deported. The difference is that Switzerland's benefits system is fit for purpose and they don't have tax credits.
Additionally it is a closed labour market at the lower rungs. It's genuinely more difficult for a basic/intermediate German speaking migrant to find a job working in a supermarket than it was for me to get a an English speaking job at a bank.
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
It would be interesting to do a PB poll on this. My pref is of course to Remain, but the least worst Brexit for me is EFTA/EEA and I could grudgingly live with it.
Perhaps others feel the same way.
I think that Brexit should be a process rather than an event, and an arrangement like EEA/EFTA would be a reasonable next step in the process on our way out.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
Depends what you mean by “uncontrolled”. As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
The Leave hardliners would have it that every one of the 52% was committed to leaving EFTA/EEA as well as the EU but any sensible person knows that's bollocks.
There are some things to like about about Theresa May but her judgement in ruling out EEA or ETFA is truly woeful.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a certain degree, but Switzerland abides by the same rules and doesn't have any issues with unskilled migrants who arrive without a job. I had to prove self sufficiency after 90 days or I would get deported. The difference is that Switzerland's benefits system is fit for purpose and they don't have tax credits.
Additionally it is a closed labour market at the lower rungs. It's genuinely more difficult for a basic/intermediate German speaking migrant to find a job working in a supermarket than it was for me to get a an English speaking job at a bank.
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
It would be interesting to do a PB poll on this. My pref is of course to Remain, but the least worst Brexit for me is EFTA/EEA and I could grudgingly live with it.
Perhaps others feel the same way.
I think that Brexit should be a process rather than an event, and an arrangement like EEA/EFTA would be a reasonable next step in the process on our way out.
My preference is to leave at any cost, but to do so in a gradual way.
The first step is to accept no EU new laws and declare a total moratorium on any further integration. This, in itself, is a major victory. The next step is to begin disentangling ourselves from existing EU laws. If that takes a decade or more so be it. On the other hand if the choice is a short, sharp shock or no Brexit at all I'd still vote to leave. Short term economic pain would be guaranteed, but in the long term, democratic accounability is more valuable to a healthy society.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
It would be interesting to do a PB poll on this. My pref is of course to Remain, but the least worst Brexit for me is EFTA/EEA and I could grudgingly live with it.
Perhaps others feel the same way.
I think that Brexit should be a process rather than an event, and an arrangement like EEA/EFTA would be a reasonable next step in the process on our way out.
My preference is to leave at any cost, but to do so in a gradual way.
The first step is to accept no EU new laws and declare a total moratorium on any further integration. This, in itself, is a major victory. The next step is to begin disentangling ourselves from existing EU laws. If that takes a decade or more so be it. On the other hand if the choice is a short, sharp shock or no Brexit at all I'd still vote to leave. Short term economic pain would be guaranteed, but in the long term, democratic accountability is more valuable to a healthy society.
The problem you have is that you simply can't do this in a society that has democratic accountability because the people will vote you out. Leaving the EU in the way you want could only be executed by an authoritarian state.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
Depends what you mean by “uncontrolled”. As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
There are so many easy steps the UK government could take wrt to unskilled EU migrants arriving without a job. For one we can restrict access to the benefits system for all self-employed migrants until they have paid in for a period of 5 years. That literally gets rid of all the big issue sellers claiming loads of tax credits and housing benefits and allows us to easily deport the "beggars" in all major cities since they would no longer be self sufficient without the ability to claim housing benefits.
The problem is that these technical changes won't generate the kinds of headlines that the government would want.
Thanks for the welcome, mr Meeks. I remember you posting as Antifrank. I am not sure what the issue is, but I have had problems with safari (cannot refresh (or even login!?!) via iPhone/iPad), but am now logging in via another app, which seems to work. It is still a bit shit, if I am honest, and if all other posters go through the same horrid process, then I salute your dedication.
The site has always been utterly awful for IOS. SeanT and myself I think were the first poster with iPads in the day, it wasn’t too good then and got progressively worse. I have found that if you sign in and then visit the vanilla site, close safari and then come back to pb it seems to work a bit better.
Seriously? I am surprised at that. I do everything via mobile devices (asides work) as does virtually everyone. It is only now that I have seen it as an issue wrt this site. If the site administrators/designers do not see this as a problem, and the site owners have no problem with this (severe) lack of accessibility for users, then I am very surprised. At the end of the day it is their money & their site. Ho hum.
I use an iPhone and access via vanilla forums and it works perfectly.
Click on someone’s name, click on “Home” and that brings you to Recent Discussions. Click on the top one and you’re away!
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
Depends what you mean by “uncontrolled”. As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
The Leave hardliners would have it that every one of the 52% was committed to leaving EFTA/EEA as well as the EU but any sensible person knows that's bollocks.
There are some things to like about about Theresa May but her judgement in ruling out EEA or ETFA is truly woeful.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a certain degree, but Switzerland abides by the same rules and doesn't have any issues with unskilled migrants who arrive without a job. I had to prove self sufficiency after 90 days or I would get deported. The difference is that Switzerland's benefits system is fit for purpose and they don't have tax credits.
Additionally it is a closed labour market at the lower rungs. It's genuinely more difficult for a basic/intermediate German speaking migrant to find a job working in a supermarket than it was for me to get a an English speaking job at a bank.
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
Didn't you also have to get health insurance ?
Yes, very expensive health insurance. However, everyone in Switzerland has to get health insurance. I'm literally abiding by the same rules as everyone else. I don't think the government in the UK would ever make people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
The FT uses rational arguments in favour of its position and is critical of Leavers for failing to come up with an alternative.
Recommended counter-measure: ad hominem.
It's a shame one can't read the article as it's behind a paywall.
It would be interesting to see if the FT have some genuine arguments as to why we should remain in the CU or are merely jumping on the latest bandwagon designed to impede Brexit.
I read it.
It doesn’t really add anything you haven’t heard elsewhere: that some form of customs arrangement are essential for our supply chains, and that the government’s alternatives to a full customs union are unworkable.
Switzerland isn't in the CU, but it has a very competitive manufacturing sector and a deep supply chain dependent on importing semi-manufactured goods from the EU.
I really don't think it's an issue that creative thinking can't solve, and, in all honesty, has already been solved by Switzerland and the EU wrt to the Switzerland/Germany border.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a certain degree, but Switzerland abides by the same rules and doesn't have any issues with unskilled migrants who arrive without a job. I had to prove self sufficiency after 90 days or I would get deported. The difference is that Switzerland's benefits system is fit for purpose and they don't have tax credits.
Additionally it is a closed labour market at the lower rungs. It's genuinely more difficult for a basic/intermediate German speaking migrant to find a job working in a supermarket than it was for me to get a an English speaking job at a bank.
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
Didn't you also have to get health insurance ?
Yes, very expensive health insurance. However, everyone in Switzerland has to get health insurance. I'm literally abiding by the same rules as everyone else. I don't think the government in the UK would ever make people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
The UK's problem is that a generous non-contributory welfare state is not compatible with FoM with poorer countries.
Labour's fault, apparently, this Windrush business. I wouldn't count on those affected, including indirectly, children and grandchildren of that generation and all ethnicities, seeing it that way but I guess we will find out in 10 days or so.
Well, I suppose you could argue that it's Labour's fault, in that it was the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act which took away the rights previously enjoyed simply by being citizens of an ex-colony.
The Immigration Act 1971 which came into effect on January 1st 1973 gave all those people permanent leave to remain. So any or all previous "rights" are academic.
The IA 1971 was a Tory act. So, the implementation of the 2014 Act went against the 1971 Act.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a c
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
Didn't you also have to get health insurance ?
Yesake people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
The UK's problem is that a generous non-contributory welfare state is not compatible with FoM with poorer countries.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
They did, but didn't have the cojones to implement a contributory welfare system and take an axe to tax credits and housing benefits. If they had done so in 2010, Remain would have won by 60/40 in 2016.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
EFTA/EEA has always been the sensible option, but Theresa has stupidly ruled it out. It gives us a lot of room to breathe in terms of fixing our own overseas trading arrangements and long term relationship with the EU.
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
Doesn't that require uncontrolled migration from the EU ?
To a c
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
Didn't you also have to get health insurance ?
Yesake people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
The UK's problem is that a generous non-contributory welfare state is not compatible with FoM with poorer countries.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
Like most current politicians Cameron and Osborne preferred posturing and promises to proper preparation and attention to details.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
The only way we'll have a clear mandate is to have a vote between two knowns instead of a known and an unknown. We need a referendum on the deal versus remain, and then let all of those nuances distil themselves into a result we can have faith in.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
The only way we'll have a clear mandate is to have a vote between two knowns instead of a known and an unknown. We need a referendum on the deal versus remain, and then let all of those nuances distil themselves into a result we can have faith in.
We already did that in June 2016.
You had your vote on a negotiation - blame Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't negotiate properly.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
If it’s all so nuanced how come the Brex-o-loons are sure about the public not wanting to stay in the Customs Union?
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
The only way we'll have a clear mandate is to have a vote between two knowns instead of a known and an unknown. We need a referendum on the deal versus remain, and then let all of those nuances distil themselves into a result we can have faith in.
We already did that in June 2016.
You had your vote on a negotiation - blame Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't negotiate properly.
Alternatively we could have retrospective referendums on previous European treaties now we know what the consequences were.
Perhaps we should start with a Maastrich Referendum and if that vote is opposed then the EU returns to its 1991 status.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
If it’s all so nuanced how come the Brex-o-loons are sure about the public not wanting to stay in the Customs Union?
How are you so sure that they're wrong ?
I do remember some YouGov polling earlier this year which did show a large majority in favour of being able to have new trade treaties with the rest of the world even at the cost of barriers to the EU.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
If it’s all so nuanced how come the Brex-o-loons are sure about the public not wanting to stay in the Customs Union?
How are you so sure that they're wrong ?
I do remember some YouGov polling earlier this year which did show a large majority in favour of being able to have new trade treaties with the rest of the world even at the cost of barriers to the EU.
I was rather surprised at the result.
I didn’t say they were wrong I asked how they could be so sure given as you say the nuanced desire of the people.
And one YouGov poll does not the will of the people reflect.
For personal reasons, I have bet on Arthur - the boring favourite.
Although I did have a couple of quid on Edmund.
Does anyone remember what the bookies favourite boy or girl names were for Prince George or Princess Charlotte?
I think they were both favourites.
Many thanks.
I think it got out that she was having a girl last time. Before the gender was known this time, the betting was skewed towards female names - I even read a rumour she was having twin girls - so perhaps this time the market might not have it right.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
If it’s all so nuanced how come the Brex-o-loons are sure about the public not wanting to stay in the Customs Union?
How are you so sure that they're wrong ?
I do remember some YouGov polling earlier this year which did show a large majority in favour of being able to have new trade treaties with the rest of the world even at the cost of barriers to the EU.
I was rather surprised at the result.
I didn’t say they were wrong I asked how they could be so sure given as you say the nuanced desire of the people.
And one YouGov poll does not the will of the people reflect.
They're so sure in the same way that all politicians are so sure when its something they want to do.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
They did, but didn't have the cojones to implement a contributory welfare system and take an axe to tax credits and housing benefits. If they had done so in 2010, Remain would have won by 60/40 in 2016.
That may well be true. But some might well have asked: why shouldn't British citizens get preferential treatment in their own country? I.e. why shouldn't a country say to foreigners coming here that they need to contribute through taxes for a period of time before becoming eligible for benefits/welfare but say that its own citizens do not have to jump through the same hoops?
Of course that raises the whole issue of treating all citizens of EU states in the same way - which is the concept which Maastricht made explicit. But I think that some in this country objected to this on principle - in short, enough people in Britain felt that British people should be treated differently (better) than non-British citizens (including EU citizens) in their own home country for your suggestion to be a non-starter. Certainly not without the sort of intensive debate needed before you start turning a non-contributory welfare system into a contributory one and apply it to your own citizens. I just don't see how any politician in this country could do it
Any attempt to change the welfare system is seen as toxic. So because of the failure to do this, we have ended up with a decision to exclude ourselves from the EU in order to deal with the consequences of the combination of a non-contributory welfare system combined with FoM.
Meanwhile you cannot move these days without an ex-Arsenal player sticking the ball in the back of the net in the PL or setting someone up.
We will never know what went on in the boardroom at The Emirates but I continue to believe that Arsene did as well as humanly possible with the material he had.
Yes, very expensive health insurance. However, everyone in Switzerland has to get health insurance. I'm literally abiding by the same rules as everyone else. I don't think the government in the UK would ever make people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
Do their insurers have a different approach to ours? It often strikes me that the main aim of the insurers here is not to insure but to duck out of their commitments.
If we had more faith in insurers coughing up when needed, maybe it would work better.
I see the Lords have defeated the Government yet again on U.K. membership of the charter of fundamental rights.
I now expect the Government to lose virtually every single amendment there.
Time for an election? "Who governs?"
It might come down to that.
I think the Lords might be unbiddable on this.
We already had a “Who governs?” election. May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
The Lords isn’t democratic.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
Although the majority of Leavers voted against free movement, the majority of the country perhaps did not.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Well you are correct. It required only 3% of the 52% not to be against "free movement".
That assumes all the 48% support FoM.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
If it’s all so nuanced how come the Brex-o-loons are sure about the public not wanting to stay in the Customs Union?
How are you so sure that they're wrong ?
I do remember some YouGov polling earlier this year which did show a large majority in favour of being able to have new trade treaties with the rest of the world even at the cost of barriers to the EU.
I was rather surprised at the result.
I didn’t say they were wrong I asked how they could be so sure given as you say the nuanced desire of the people.
And one YouGov poll does not the will of the people reflect.
They're so sure in the same way that all politicians are so sure when its something they want to do.
Yes that is the point. And no one seemingly with the same conviction but for the opposing view. Who is not in a party lead by someone who will drive the country into the ground, that is.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
They did, but didn't have the cojones to implement a contributory welfare system and take an axe to tax credits and housing benefits. If they had done so in 2010, Remain would have won by 60/40 in 2016.
That may well be true. But some might well have asked: why shouldn't British citizens get preferential treatment in their own country? I.e. why shouldn't a country say to foreigners coming here that they need to contribute through taxes for a period of time before becoming eligible for benefits/welfare but say that its own citizens do not have to jump through the same hoops?
Of course that raises the whole issue of treating all citizens of EU states in the same way - which is the concept which Maastricht made explicit. But I think that some in this country objected to this on principle - in short, enough people in Britain felt that British people should be treated differently (better) than non-British citizens (including EU citizens) in their own home country for your suggestion to be a non-starter. Certainly not without the sort of intensive debate needed before you start turning a non-contributory welfare system into a contributory one and apply it to your own citizens. I just don't see how any politician in this country could do it
Any attempt to change the welfare system is seen as toxic. So because of the failure to do this, we have ended up with a decision to exclude ourselves from the EU in order to deal with the consequences of the combination of a non-contributory welfare system combined with FoM.
Changing the welfare system in this way would kill any government that proposed it. There would be far too many losers.
As you say, why shouldn't governments be entitled to favour nationals over non-nationals.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osborne never worked that out. They had enough of a narrative to change the system to reduce the pull factor. All the EU ask is that the change applies to your own citizens as it does to foreign ones. Cameron went round the EU begging for concessions for something he could have changed himself.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
They did, but didn't have the cojones to implement a contributory welfare system and take an axe to tax credits and housing benefits. If they had done so in 2010, Remain would have won by 60/40 in 2016.
That may well be true. But some might well have asked: why shouldn't British citizens get preferential treatment in their own country? I.e. why shouldn't a country say to foreigners coming here that they need to contribute through taxes for a period of time before becoming eligible for benefits/welfare but say that its own citizens do not have to jump through the same hoops?
Of course that raises the whole issue of treating all citizens of EU states in the same way - which is the concept which Maastricht made explicit. But I think that some in this country objected to this on principle - in short, enough people in Britain felt that British people should be treated differently (better) than non-British citizens (including EU citizens) in their own home country for your suggestion to be a non-starter. Certainly not without the sort of intensive debate needed before you start turning a non-contributory welfare system into a contributory one and apply it to your own citizens. I just don't see how any politician in this country could do it
Any attempt to change the welfare system is seen as toxic. So because of the failure to do this, we have ended up with a decision to exclude ourselves from the EU in order to deal with the consequences of the combination of a non-contributory welfare system combined with FoM.
FoM with much poorer countries with the likely consequences denied and not prepared for.
For personal reasons, I have bet on Arthur - the boring favourite.
Although I did have a couple of quid on Edmund.
Does anyone remember what the bookies favourite boy or girl names were for Prince George or Princess Charlotte?
I think they were both favourites.
Many thanks.
I think it got out that she was having a girl last time. Before the gender was known this time, the betting was skewed towards female names - I even read a rumour she was having twin girls - so perhaps this time the market might not have it right.
I think they'll go for James.
I too thought that James had to be in with a shout, then I remembered that Prince Edward's young son is also called James.
I know that they are the two favourites for the new Prince. But either Prince Arthur or Prince Albert just sounds so old fashioned, from another era, where as George and Charlotte are still pretty popular names today.
Yes, very expensive health insurance. However, everyone in Switzerland has to get health insurance. I'm literally abiding by the same rules as everyone else. I don't think the government in the UK would ever make people buy health insurance. The NHS is an article of faith, even though the Swiss healthcare system is leagues better.
Do their insurers have a different approach to ours? It often strikes me that the main aim of the insurers here is not to insure but to duck out of their commitments.
If we had more faith in insurers coughing up when needed, maybe it would work better.
Good evening, everyone.
I've had contact with the Swiss healthcare system a few times and I've never had any issues with them paying up. My fiancé has slightly cheaper insurance and she uses it a bit more because of women's stuff and she never has any problems either.
I think there is a difference in attitude as well, there is almost no insurance fraud in Switzerland. When someone makes a claim on their insurance it is because they have a need (health, home, car etc...). The whiplash injury scam would never happen in Switzerland.
Comments
The act was one of many that increasingly tied the noose tighter around those without documentation. The 2014 one added banking and housing to a list that had got longer and longer.
Nutjob - See you in court.
The Charter amendment is particularly stupid since we'd automatically stop being a party to it as soon as we abrogate from the Treaty of Lisbon.
Whatever support they may have had among certain MPs will begin to drain away if they keep this up.
removed a clause from the Bill excluding from refugee status those committing
‘acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism’.
The Government will win very few votes without the Tories there staying loyal, and the bulk of the crossbenchers siding with them, because I expect the Labour/LD peers to be as one on this.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
May didn’t win.
Nor can she flood the HoL. I think it would be deemed a democratic outrage and would have the effect of strengthening the resolve of opponents. Like it or lump it, the HoL are doing the job our constitution asks them to do.
Given the technical detail involved in Brexiting, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the public want. But the locus of opinion seems to be an EFTA style deal.
That’s not currently on the table due to May’s red lines, but perhaps it should be. What other option unites me, Tyndall and Nabavi?
Not a lot we can do about it tbh.
My pref is of course to Remain, but the least worst Brexit for me is EFTA/EEA and I could grudgingly live with it.
Perhaps others feel the same way.
It would be interesting to see if the FT have some genuine arguments as to why we should remain in the CU or are merely jumping on the latest bandwagon designed to impede Brexit.
EFTA would be acceptable were it not for the fact it requires free movement, which the public definitely voted against.
I think May is going for single market in goods, controlled (or capped) EU migration, very close customs collaboration, and freedom in services, but we’ll see where we end up.
It doesn’t really add anything you haven’t heard elsewhere: that some form of customs arrangement are essential for our supply chains, and that the government’s alternatives to a full customs union are unworkable.
As we now know, the lack of control is largely through our own unwillingness to impose a regstrations regime and tighter benefit eligibility for incomers.
But yes, it means being willing to live with free access to the U.K. for migrants from the EU.
Many Brexiters might not want that, but perhaps a majority of the country would be content with it, given all the trade offs to be balanced.
This is all very well coordinated.
That’s what polling suggests anyway.
Although I did have a couple of quid on Edmund.
It is now up to UK to come up with its vision for the future relationship with EU, says @MichelBarnier UK should confirm its red lines or adapt them. Warning to some UK commentators: this is a UK choice, not “EU ramping up pressure”.
Now while I believe its possible that the UK could in time arrange trade treaties which would be more advantageous than currently anything done now would have too much involvement of Liam Fox for my liking.
Additionally it is a closed labour market at the lower rungs. It's genuinely more difficult for a basic/intermediate German speaking migrant to find a job working in a supermarket than it was for me to get a an English speaking job at a bank.
If anything anger towards migrants in Switzerland is reserved for Germans who work in Switzerland but live in Germany, thereby not contributing to the Swiss economy.
There are some things to like about about Theresa May but her judgement in ruling out EEA or ETFA is truly woeful.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/donald-trumps-personal-nightmare-for-2019-is-losing-the-house.html
The first step is to accept no EU new laws and declare a total moratorium on any further integration. This, in itself, is a major victory. The next step is to begin disentangling ourselves from existing EU laws. If that takes a decade or more so be it. On the other hand if the choice is a short, sharp shock or no Brexit at all I'd still vote to leave. Short term economic pain would be guaranteed, but in the long term, democratic accounability is more valuable to a healthy society.
The problem is that these technical changes won't generate the kinds of headlines that the government would want.
Clearly the work of a German: Prussia, Saxony and Bavaria all recognised entities - the rest of Europe cut and pasted together any old how.
Click on someone’s name, click on “Home” and that brings you to Recent Discussions. Click on the top one and you’re away!
Welcome btw.
Edit: all with Chrome.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being-a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html
https://www.kingdomcomment.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-smear-dan-hannan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jTRoySFfo
The two James were crap kings and the reintroduction of Charles hasn't been a success.
Though the test did fail and I had to whip out the laptop to fix it on SQL Server.
I really don't think it's an issue that creative thinking can't solve, and, in all honesty, has already been solved by Switzerland and the EU wrt to the Switzerland/Germany border.
The IA 1971 was a Tory act. So, the implementation of the 2014 Act went against the 1971 Act.
Which isn't the case.
Things, as always, are more nuanced with many different shades of grey and not too many pure black and pure white.
When you speak to people who live and work in other eu nations it’s quite clear the idea of turning up in Italy or France without work, housing or a means of support and expecting to be able to start a fresh and get paid to do it is ludicrous. You get given short shrift.
For a Man U fan, I have to say this is the most sensible thing a Liverpool manager has ever said.
Coincidence or shadowy powers at work? You decide...
You had your vote on a negotiation - blame Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't negotiate properly.
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/16178796.Labour___s_Worcester_MP_candidate_Mandy_Richards_breaks_silence_over_newspaper_reports/
Every time you think Labour are touching rock bottom...
Perhaps we should start with a Maastrich Referendum and if that vote is opposed then the EU returns to its 1991 status.
I do remember some YouGov polling earlier this year which did show a large majority in favour of being able to have new trade treaties with the rest of the world even at the cost of barriers to the EU.
I was rather surprised at the result.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43873058
And one YouGov poll does not the will of the people reflect.
I think they'll go for James.
Of course that raises the whole issue of treating all citizens of EU states in the same way - which is the concept which Maastricht made explicit. But I think that some in this country objected to this on principle - in short, enough people in Britain felt that British people should be treated differently (better) than non-British citizens (including EU citizens) in their own home country for your suggestion to be a non-starter. Certainly not without the sort of intensive debate needed before you start turning a non-contributory welfare system into a contributory one and apply it to your own citizens. I just don't see how any politician in this country could do it
Any attempt to change the welfare system is seen as toxic. So because of the failure to do this, we have ended up with a decision to exclude ourselves from the EU in order to deal with the consequences of the combination of a non-contributory welfare system combined with FoM.
We will never know what went on in the boardroom at The Emirates but I continue to believe that Arsene did as well as humanly possible with the material he had.
If we had more faith in insurers coughing up when needed, maybe it would work better.
Good evening, everyone.
As you say, why shouldn't governments be entitled to favour nationals over non-nationals.
I think there is a difference in attitude as well, there is almost no insurance fraud in Switzerland. When someone makes a claim on their insurance it is because they have a need (health, home, car etc...). The whiplash injury scam would never happen in Switzerland.