Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
I think that the problem is that a liberal immigration policy is not easily compatible with a liberal welfare system, with a redistributive emphasis.
That's true within some parameters - eg if Britain had open door, and nobody other developed country did, you could imagine that a lot of very poor, uneducated people might move there, and not pay much tax, so you'd have to cut benefits. But on the current scale it's entirely compatible with a liberal welfare system, because immigrants are young and get jobs.
You can do the same with politics: It's of course possible, in the abstract, for a lot of people to show up in a democracy who believe in some other system, like theocracy, and not be persuaded why democracy is better, which would endanger the democracy. But if you're trying to apply this to the current political spectrum, then the argument isn't that it's theoretically possible, it's that actually imminent, which is total and utter shite.
When a quarter of all Muslims think that sharia law, which has been ruled as incompatible with the ECHR, should be in force in some parts or for some groups in Britain, then there is an issue. It does not mean the imminent replacement of democracy. But it does raise issues which need addressing.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
War game the alternative where the Commons doesn't vote for a customs union (i.e. they vote to give May a free hand in negotiations). How does that lead to a different outcome? Arguably it puts her in a more tricky position because then she's still left with trying to get the backstop past the DUP, or find a viable alternative.
There is a viable alternative, a free trade deal with MaxFac.
It’s not viable by 31 Dec 2020, and if the EU don’t like it, there’d be no transition period anyway.
Failure to prepare for hard Brexit has ensured that either outcome I laid out will probably be politically disastrous for the government. You can’t negotiate if you can’t credibly exit.
It is an indictment of Theresa May and our supposedly impartial civil service.
RoyalBlue - you are completely correct in both your posts. The idea that we can join the CU without accepting FOM is simply a nonsense - yesterday I challenged the remainers to point out how 'soft Brexit' can happen without FOM and there was deafening silence.
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Personally, I think she has to walk. There will be disruption but it is manageable and it will only be for a limited period. But it probably needs someone with a brain to lead the UK through it.
Thank you @archer101au - it is a pleasure to join you in the sunlit uplands of Arch-Brexitry, albeit I’m a little nearer the front line than you
Who will historians be more critical of: Cameron or May?
I think that the problem is that a liberal immigration policy is not easily compatible with a liberal welfare system, with a redistributive emphasis.
That's true within some parameters - eg if Britain had open door, and nobody other developed country did, you could imagine that a lot of very poor, uneducated people might move there, and not pay much tax, so you'd have to cut benefits. But on the current scale it's entirely compatible with a liberal welfare system, because immigrants are young and get jobs.
You can do the same with politics: It's of course possible, in the abstract, for a lot of people to show up in a democracy who believe in some other system, like theocracy, and not be persuaded why democracy is better, which would endanger the democracy. But if you're trying to apply this to the current political spectrum, then the argument isn't that it's theoretically possible, it's that actually imminent, which is total and utter shite.
When a quarter of all Muslims think that sharia law, which has been ruled as incompatible with the ECHR, should be in force in some parts or for some groups in Britain, then there is an issue. It does not mean the imminent replacement of democracy. But it does raise issues which need addressing.
The death penalty is also incompatible with the ECHR. Is support for it a threat to democracy?
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Personally, I think she has to walk. There will be disruption but it is manageable and it will only be for a limited period. But it probably needs someone with a brain to lead the UK through it.
It simply can't be done with a population where the majority now believe the Brexit decision was wrong to begin with.
Your kind of Brexit could only be delivered by a Putin-style leader with full control of the state and a willingness to repress the opposition.
Bollocks. The British people voted to leave the EU. They didn’t vote for us to have even less control of our destiny than we have now, which is the deal the EU will offer us.
Opinion polls don’t trump elections. You should have clocked that by now.
Bollocks. The British people voted to leave the EU. They didn’t vote for us to have even less control of our destiny than we have now, which is the deal the EU will offer us.
Indeed they didn't, which is why a full interpretation of their wishes is that the people voted for More Europe. 2016 was a vote to join the Euro.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Ha, ha.
That looks very like post-nationalism to me. There is no seeking to blame or scapegoat others for the perceived ills of a society, merely an observation that despite differences more unites than divides people across the whole of Spain. I make no apologies for rather liking that way of seeing the world. It seems to me a lot healthier than railing against Madrid, Westminster, Brussels, etc.
It's just railing against Barcelona, Holyrood etc that you're fine with (ok, very much in favour of).
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Do you mean walk as in quit (which would be amusing) or walk as in stop negotiating and do the Full English Brexit (fuck Northern Ireland, WTO, JRM's glasses mist over with emotion)?
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democra
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping Tories out isn't enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
So all that investment in public services and increased public spending was not a success? Tax credits? Increased migration into the country? Signing of the Lisbon Treaty? Intervention in Kosovo to protect Muslims from Serbian persecution? None of these were successes?
What would you like to have done that wasn't done?
Smash the bourgeoisie. With McDonnell in Number 11 it might actuallly happen.
Well that's one way to put it.
I'll say a country at ease with itself, that takes care of the needs of all, where levels of inequality are diminished, where public services are there to serve the public rather than shareholders or fatcats, where the natural environment is sustained, and where we do not dance to Washington's tune.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Yes - they just let it burn down.
PS houses aren't people and don't have access to the Spanish welfare or health care system.
I can't say I enjoy reading these offerings from the far right and unfortunately the wordiness doesn't disguise it. Very disappointing. Perhaps we should have a self selecting panel in every parish to decide whose views we find acceptable.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
The change has happened very quickly, in about 12 months. Citizens were on around 15% a year ago, now on about 28%.
It has and it is mostly an exchange with PP but I'd be very wary as polls here overestimared C's last time quite a lot and the List system seems to favour the PP and PSOE.
'They had no right to do that but nobody is willing or able to call them out on it or force them on it.
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.'
Pro EU membership parties got 95 per cent plus of the vote in almost every UK election from 1987 to 2010. And 87 per cent in 2015. As June 2016 showed that clearly didn't mean 95 per cent of voters wanted to stay in the EU. Voting for a package such as a treaty or manifesto does not imply you endorse every measure.
And in lreland there has been no vaguely Eurosceptic party to vote for for some time bar the odd independent in a few seats - since Sinn Fein changed their stance. While I accept the majority of the Irish people are pro EU if you aren't you have no way of expressing that opinion at the ballot box. Even then Ireland rejected Nice and Lisbon - before being told to vote again the second time with menaces.
Regarding bold section actually it does. Treaties are all or nothing affairs. Once you approve the Treaty then all parts of the Treaty are approved. That is different to manifestos which are aspirations which can be amended or rejected individually in Parliament - the Treaty can't be amended without a new Treaty.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
It does - no ID card and the hospital will insist on a credit card. Only over 65's get free healthcare and that is paid by the UK government. You cannot get residence without producing proof of either entitlement to the Spanish health, system through a job or being a pensioner, or by evidence of private health insurance. I have had private cover since 2009 as I a not yet 65 but it is much cheaper than the UK, covers everything [exc precons] and gives much quicker treatment. Even next year when I become entitled to the Spanish NHS - I will keep my private cover but I will be able to get prescritions 90% cheaper than currently. non-residents can get emergency cover with the EHIC card but that is it.
Most voters are quite happy with immigration of skilled workers where needed, it is greater control of unskilled immigration and those who may pose a security risk they want
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Yes - they just let it burn down.
PS houses aren't people and don't have access to the Spanish welfare or health care system.
Fire spreads.
So if you do have an ID card and your neighbours property is on fire endangering your property the fire brigade won't come out yet?
Bollocks. The British people voted to leave the EU. They didn’t vote for us to have even less control of our destiny than we have now, which is the deal the EU will offer us.
Indeed they didn't, which is why a full interpretation of their wishes is that the people voted for More Europe. 2016 was a vote to join the Euro.
If the Euro was part of the proposition it would have been at least 70% Leave
Didn't the journalist who eventually broke the story say that he turned away from it initially because he couldn't face it and was concerned about the possible implications? It did take a lot of work to make it stand up but there was a delay before he even started because of his own misgivings about the use that might be made of it by those with a sinister agenda. It was a commendably honest statement for him to make and shows how hard it is to whistleblow or speak up about bad stuff when you know or suspect that what you are saying might be misused.
It might have been better if people had listened to those MPs who were raising these concerns. The diaries of Chris Mullin from that time show that there were plenty of people within the Labour Party in these areas who knew enough to know that there was a problem but who, for various reasons, were unwilling to go public and/or were criticised or shunned when they did so.
I think you might be right about the history.
As for your last paragraph: look at the way the left responded to the Stafford scandal. They utterly denied what was going on, and hounded the whistleblower out of town.
Indeed. None so deaf as those that don't want to hear. Ann Cryer was treated abysmally by her colleagues. So was Sarah Champion and the social worker who raised concerns. Ditto the policewoman who raised similar issues. The problems they were raising were in Labour fiefdoms and raised questions about the wisdom of having large-scale migration of people from very different cultures without any effective integration, issues which most on the Left then (and some now) did not want to talk about. Remember what happened to Ray Honeyford in 1984.
Look at the way that whistleblowers are treated in other sectors. Much has been said this weekend about the change in attitudes in Ireland. John McGahern, a writer, wrote about the violence and misogyny of rural Irish life back in the 1960's - attitudes which underpinned much of the approach to family life, womens' rights etc for so long - and was hounded out of his job as a teacher and left to live elsewhere. Much of what we learnt later about Tuam and the Magdalene laundries and the deadening hand of the Catholic Church and a violent underbelly in Irish life was all there in his writing, for those willing to see.
While the Irish Church deserves the criticism it's received, it was the doing what most of the population wanted. They wanted "fallen" women to get it in the neck. They blamed children for leading adults on etc.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Lol - I was talking about healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc. In the case you refer to, as with healthcare they could easily bill you afterwards. I had a neighbour who was billed although in his case they deemed hi to have caused the fire by his own stupidity. Long and irrelevant story...
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
It looks likely Rivera will be the next Spanish PM, the main question is whether that is in a Citizens/PP deal or a Citizens/PSOE deal
Bollocks. The British people voted to leave the EU. They didn’t vote for us to have even less control of our destiny than we have now, which is the deal the EU will offer us.
Indeed they didn't, which is why a full interpretation of their wishes is that the people voted for More Europe. 2016 was a vote to join the Euro.
If the Euro was part of the proposition it would have been at least 70% Leave
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Do you mean walk as in quit (which would be amusing) or walk as in stop negotiating and do the Full English Brexit (fuck Northern Ireland, WTO, JRM's glasses mist over with emotion)?
Frankly I would settle for either. But she needs to suspend negotiations with the EU. She should leave the offer of citizens rights as previously agreed, and offer 20bn for the transition with the rest to be revisited if there is ever an FTA. Otherwise the UK will prepare for exit in March 2019 and offer to discuss with the EU any measures they may wish to discuss to reduce the disruption. I have previously outlined a plan for UK trade at that point. Once the exit has been made we can return to trade talks if the EU are interested.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
Again with your hang-ups over a temporary transition that would have expired years before the referendum. You don't understand the meaning of the word transition if you think the EU would offer that to us as a permanent thing, what would we be transitioning to?
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping the Tories out isn't really enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
Labour not keeping its promise to change the voting system looks very foolish now.
Very interesting as was your one on aircraft shares. I hope you'll excuse me making the suggestion but I'd cut down the hand movements. They're distracting when the framing is tighter than a mid shot. Hands constantly entering from the bottom of frame means the movement is neither in nor out. A lectern like 'Ted Talks' isn't a bad idea then you can go as close or wide as you like
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Yes - they just let it burn down.
PS houses aren't people and don't have access to the Spanish welfare or health care system.
Fire spreads.
So if you do have an ID card and your neighbours property is on fire endangering your property the fire brigade won't come out yet?
Of course they will - the discussion was referring to benefits like healthcare, unemployment, etc - none of which can be accessed without ID cards.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
It looks likely Rivera will be the next Spanish PM, the main question is whether that is in a Citizens/PP deal or a Citizens/PSOE deal
On current polling it would have to be with PP - as PSOE are likely to come third or even fourth.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
Again with your hang-ups over a temporary transition that would have expired years before the referendum. You don't understand the meaning of the word transition if you think the EU would offer that to us as a permanent thing, what would we be transitioning to?
The expiration as I have pointed out before was irrelevant as it would have expired across the EU at the same time.
It was France, Germany and most of the EU having transition controls while the UK did not for 7 years which saw the UK take a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants and was pivotal to the Leave majority given Leave won by just 4%.
Even a 7 year transition control equivalent, say until 2028 after the end of the formal transition period, would be a significant change
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Do you mean walk as in quit (which would be amusing) or walk as in stop negotiating and do the Full English Brexit (fuck Northern Ireland, WTO, JRM's glasses mist over with emotion)?
Frankly I would settle for either. But she needs to suspend negotiations with the EU. She should leave the offer of citizens rights as previously agreed, and offer 20bn for the transition with the rest to be revisited if there is ever an FTA. Otherwise the UK will prepare for exit in March 2019 and offer to discuss with the EU any measures they may wish to discuss to reduce the disruption. I have previously outlined a plan for UK trade at that point. Once the exit has been made we can return to trade talks if the EU are interested.
If you are correct that no deal with the EU is possible, which think is pessimistic, it would be better to leave it up to them to flounce.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
It looks likely Rivera will be the next Spanish PM, the main question is whether that is in a Citizens/PP deal or a Citizens/PSOE deal
On current polling it would have to be with PP - as PSOE are likely to come third or even fourth.
Depends which poll you look at, certainly none of the 3 are likely to touch Podemos
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
It does - no ID card and the hospital will insist on a credit card. Only over 65's get free healthcare and that is paid by the UK government. You cannot get residence without producing proof of either entitlement to the Spanish health, system through a job or being a pensioner, or by evidence of private health insurance. I have had private cover since 2009 as I a not yet 65 but it is much cheaper than the UK, covers everything [exc precons] and gives much quicker treatment. Even next year when I become entitled to the Spanish NHS - I will keep my private cover but I will be able to get prescritions 90% cheaper than currently. non-residents can get emergency cover with the EHIC card but that is it.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
I think to get residence you just have to prove you've been living legally for 5 years. Once you have permanent residence in Spain your healthcare is paid by Spain. It's an issue in the event of no-deal Brexit when all those pensioners may have to come back to the UK because they can't afford medical care in Spain.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
I think you meant to say "of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to Freedom of Movement". Not dissimilar indeed. Exactly the same would be more accurate.
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Do you mean walk as in quit (which would be amusing) or walk as in stop negotiating and do the Full English Brexit (fuck Northern Ireland, WTO, JRM's glasses mist over with emotion)?
Frankly I would settle for either. But she needs to suspend negotiations with the EU. She should leave the offer of citizens rights as previously agreed, and offer 20bn for the transition with the rest to be revisited if there is ever an FTA. Otherwise the UK will prepare for exit in March 2019 and offer to discuss with the EU any measures they may wish to discuss to reduce the disruption. I have previously outlined a plan for UK trade at that point. Once the exit has been made we can return to trade talks if the EU are interested.
If you are correct that no deal with the EU is possible, which think is pessimistic, it would be better to leave it up to them to flounce.
The EU's actions suggest they are not interested in anything but the UK's capitulation with enough of a fig leaf where May can stay in power. To them, May is the ideal PM, dithering, unlikely to take tough action and not confident enough in her position to force a showdown.
The bigger issue for the EU is if May is forced out. If she accepts a deal that is eviscerated as a sellout, then Tory MPs will panic as they did in 1990 with Thatcher and see May as a liability that needs to be got rid of ASAP. Any candidate who sees themselves as redible candidate will have to sign up to the Leaver case, which is why Javid and Williamson have pivoted themselves more to a Leave position.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
Again with your hang-ups over a temporary transition that would have expired years before the referendum. You don't understand the meaning of the word transition if you think the EU would offer that to us as a permanent thing, what would we be transitioning to?
The expiration as I have pointed out before was irrelevant as it would have expired across the EU at the same time.
It was France, Germany and most of the EU having transition controls while the UK did not for 7 years which saw the UK take a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants and was pivotal to the Leave majority given Leave won by just 4%.
Even a 7 year transition control equivalent, say until 2028 after the end of the formal transition period, would be a significant change
The expiration is relevant because the point is there were no control and no possibility of controls at the point of the referendum.
Regardless of whether Blair was right, wrong or indifferent not to put controls on we don't have a Tardis and there can not be controls anymore. It is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. The EU will never agree to allow a "transition" for pre-existing members and nor should they, what is it transitioning to? The purpose of a transition is to adjust to new members - they are already long established members.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
It does - no ID card and the hospital will insist on a credit card. Only over 65's get free healthcare and that is paid by the UK government. You cannot get residence without producing proof of either entitlement to the Spanish health, system through a job or being a pensioner, or by evidence of private health insurance. I have had private cover since 2009 as I a not yet 65 but it is much cheaper than the UK, covers everything [exc precons] and gives much quicker treatment. Even next year when I become entitled to the Spanish NHS - I will keep my private cover but I will be able to get prescritions 90% cheaper than currently. non-residents can get emergency cover with the EHIC card but that is it.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
I think to get residence you just have to prove you've been living legally for 5 years. Once you have permanent residence in Spain your healthcare is paid by Spain. It's an issue in the event of no-deal Brexit when all those pensioners may have to come back to the UK because they can't afford medical care in Spain.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
It does - no ID card and the hospital will insist on a credit card. Only over 65's get free healthcare and that is paid by the UK government. You cannot get residence without producing proof of either entitlement to the Spanish health, system through a job or being a pensioner, or by evidence of private health insurance. I have had private cover since 2009 as I a not yet 65 but it is much cheaper than the UK, covers everything [exc precons] and gives much quicker treatment. Even next year when I become entitled to the Spanish NHS - I will keep my private cover but I will be able to get prescritions 90% cheaper than currently. non-residents can get emergency cover with the EHIC card but that is it.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65. If you retire before 65 and choose not to work you have to get private cover or pay into the Spanish system. No residence card will be issued unless you can prove your right to Spanish NHS or provide proof of private cover. The links you provide refer to pensioners ie over 65. Everybody else has to have a job or private cover as I stated originally. Similarly the medical treatment card lapses if you have no job. In Spain there is no free lunch
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
I think to get residence you just have to prove you've been living legally for 5 years. Once you have permanent residence in Spain your healthcare is paid by Spain. It's an issue in the event of no-deal Brexit when all those pensioners may have to come back to the UK because they can't afford medical care in Spain.
This is nothing that we here need to be worried about. Mr Felix is safe.
Indeed - because I understand the rules and have private cover. I will add without providing details without that private cover illness would have forced me to return to the UK 5 years ago since I am not entitled to anything other than emergence health treatment from the Spanish NHS. I have good reason to know what I am talking about.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
I think you meant to say "of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to Freedom of Movement". Not dissimilar indeed. Exactly the same would be more accurate.
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
Cameron's problem was he did not get those transition control equivalents before the referendum and any significant concessions in the negotiations.
Had he done so Remain would likely have narrowly won.
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Do you mean walk as in quit (which would be amusing) or walk as in stop negotiating and do the Full English Brexit (fuck Northern Ireland, WTO, JRM's glasses mist over with emotion)?
Frankly I would settle for either. But she needs to suspend negotiations with the EU. She should leave the offer of citizens rights as previously agreed, and offer 20bn for the transition with the rest to be revisited if there is ever an FTA. Otherwise the UK will prepare for exit in March 2019 and offer to discuss with the EU any measures they may wish to discuss to reduce the disruption. I have previously outlined a plan for UK trade at that point. Once the exit has been made we can return to trade talks if the EU are interested.
If you are correct that no deal with the EU is possible, which think is pessimistic, it would be better to leave it up to them to flounce.
Someone on the EU side likened Brexit Britain to a gunboat whose intentions towards you are doubtful. You either want to bring it into harbour so you can keep an eye on it with your shore battery pointing at it, or you push it out to sea. You don't want the boat marauding off your coast. From the UK's point of view neither the harbour nor the open sea are attractive options.
The EU is interested in a deal that includes UK conformity with EU regulation, subject to EU oversight. Whether that's possible for us depends on whether we think no deal is more impossible.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs l supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
Again with your hang-ups over a temporary transition that would have expired years before the referendum. You don't understand the meaning of the word transition if you think the EU would offer that to us as a permanent thing, what would we be transitioning to?
The expiration as I have pointed out before was irrelevant as it would have expired across the EU at the same time.
It was France, Germany and most of the EU having transition controls while the UK did not for 7 years which saw the UK take a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants and was pivotal to the Leave majority given Leave won by just 4%.
Even a 7 year transition control equivalent, say until 2028 after the end of the formal transition period, would be a significant change
The expiration is relevant because the point is e purpose of a transition is to adjust to new members - they are already long established members.
No the expiration is completely irrelevant as the transition controls for that 7 year period would have ensured we had no where near the level of Eastern European migrants we did have putting pressure on wages and services and indeed the UKIP vote would not have risen so far leading Cameron to agree a referendum. For example in 1999 at the European elections before Eastern European accession to the EU UKIP got just 6%, by 2014 after 7 years of Eastern European migration without transition controls UKIP got 27% at that year's European elections.
There is no reason whatsoever the EU could not grant the UK controls for 7 years equivalent to the controls they could have had from 2004 to 2011 applied specifically to Eastern European migrants and equivalent to what say Germany had. That would also enable the UK effectively to stay in the single market even if if left the EU
I won't speak to content, but let's look at your presentation:
* Your colour correction seems adequate, as does the audio quality. Both could (and should) be improved but at a later date * Your hand gestures are distracting, but (unlike Roger) I'm not sure what to do about them! You were very stilted at the beginning, but more animated towards the end and I don't want you to lose that natural quality at the end[1]. So I assume the best approach would be to do several takes and choose the ones that seem more natural. Or just sit on your hands... * Why are you wearing eyeglasses? Are you reading off a script and if so would larger text remove the need for your glasses? * You are middle aged with a beard. That means your chin dominates the field. This is exacerbated by the fact that the camera seems to be below your eyeline. Try to make the camera at or slightly higher than your eyeline so you are slightly looking up. This minimises the size of the chin. * Please, please look at the camera! You're consistently looking slightly above it and come across as a bit spectrumy. * At 0:23 you take a step to the side, which is...weird. Would sitting down help?
But to be honest, it's pretty good as it is. Just relax, make incremental improvements, and you'll be OK.
Hints and tips * Open up a twitter feed and put a link to it. Otherwise people won't know you've released. * Try to pick a regular release day and stick to it. Make it an event to look forward to, instead of a random happening. * You might want to start a Patreon page in the future, but i'm ambiguous about them (unless you want money, in which case knock yourself out... )
[1] That bit at 5:50 with "let's go to Madrid..I love technology" was natural and fun.
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun doesn't need to back Corbyn, it just needs to bang on about better alternatives leaders (as they sees it) to May. I don't imagine you believe there is such a candidate as your loyalty to her causes your voice to become quite muffled, but I dont imagine it's a widely held view amongst activists after the recent fiascos.
It would also make selling independence easier - "rUK and IScotland will still be in a/the/some Customs Union and the Single Market".....just the 70 years of superior economic growth to get back to the status-quo ante on the removal of Barnett to make up then....and having a finance sector without a central bank...oh, and currency.....
If you want your point of view to be taken seriously, you might start by actually reading the document:
3.147 Most of these costs would be associated with establishing four new bodies: a defence force and associated defence ministry, a foreign affairs and trade department, a security and intelligence agency, and a central bank and financial regulator.
P.S. - if Indy Scotland uses the pound informally, it would be freed from the need to defend it if it came under attack, as Denmark just managed ( at some cost) in 2016 wheras Switzerland gave up trying.
I can't say I enjoy reading these offerings from the far right and unfortunately the wordiness doesn't disguise it.
That response was as predictable as if you never read it.
I'm sure I should understand what you mean but I don't. I don't believe that you should decide immigration on the strength of people's views. If I chose to live in Lebanon-a place I like very much-and I was banned for my views on whether it should be unlawful for unmarried people to sleep together or for women to sunbathe topless I would consider it first rate bigotry
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc. And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS? In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
This is nothing that we here need to be worried about. Mr Felix is safe.
Indeed - because I understand the rules and have private cover. I will add without providing details without that private cover illness would have forced me to return to the UK 5 years ago since I am not entitled to anything other than emergence health treatment from the Spanish NHS. I have good reason to know what I am talking about.
As I thought, We are all mightily relieved. Are all expats as well briefed as yourself, Mr Felix?
Well perhaps every Ex IMF or Goldman Sachs banker will - as long as no one voted for them in an election which would mean they are automatically barred from holding the office.
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun doesn't need to back Corbyn, it just needs to bang on about better alternatives leaders (as they sees it) to May. I don't imagine you believe there is such a candidate as your loyalty to her causes your voice to become quite muffled, but I dont imagine it's a widely held view amongst activists after the recent fiascos.
It can bang on about alternative leaders all it likes, the May local elections and the polls show most voters still on balance prefer a May government to a Corbyn government and most alternative Tory leaders with the exception of Ruth Davidson (who is more of a Remainer than May anyway) would likely poll worse than May is against Corbyn Labour
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
I think you meant to say "of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to Freedom of Movement". Not dissimilar indeed. Exactly the same would be more accurate.
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
Cameron's problem was he did not get those transition control equivalents before the referendum and any significant concessions in the negotiations.
Had he done so Remain would likely have narrowly won.
Cameron's problem is that we have an entitlement based benefits system rather than one that requires contributions first. Given that no Conservative Government can fix that problem - Cameron was on a hiding to nothing once he won a majority and couldn't "trade" the referendum away.
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Most Conservative MPs backed Remain even when the Sun, Mail and Telegraph backed Brexit, Mogg's ERG constitutes about a third, not a majority, of Tory MPs
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
I think you meant to say "of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to Freedom of Movement". Not dissimilar indeed. Exactly the same would be more accurate.
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
Cameron's problem was he did not get those transition control equivalents before the referendum and any significant concessions in the negotiations.
Had he done so Remain would likely have narrowly won.
Cameron's problem is that we have an entitlement based benefits system rather than one that requires contributions first. Given that no Conservative Government can fix that problem - Cameron was on a hiding to nothing once he won a majority and couldn't "trade" the referendum away.
Reforming the welfare system to make it more based on NI contributions is separate from allowing in large numbers of Eastern European migrants putting pressure on housing and services and willing to work for a low wage
When a quarter of all Muslims think that sharia law, which has been ruled as incompatible with the ECHR, should be in force in some parts or for some groups in Britain, then there is an issue. It does not mean the imminent replacement of democracy. But it does raise issues which need addressing.
The death penalty is also incompatible with the ECHR. Is support for it a threat to democracy?
Britain was a democracy when it did have the death penalty. The US is a democracy and does have it. So I don't think that the existence of the death penalty tells you anything one way or the other about the democratic nature of the state. I am against it. But now that we have abolished it and agreed never to reinstate it, if people in this country started acting on that belief and executing others, it might well end up being. It would certainly be a challenge to our laws and justice system.
A belief in sharia is not a problem if it is only a belief with no consequences in real life for real people. The problem arises when that belief is enacted, for instance, in the case of sharia "courts" coming to "judgements" in the cases of divorce and inheritance. Having informal religious courts which mean that British citizens (female) get deprived of their rights under the law is a problem. No democracy should long tolerate people operating within its borders according to laws contrary to the law of the country.
And it was Tom Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of the Constabulary who said, back in 2014, that there were certain communities 'born under other skies' which 'preferred to police themselves'. He argued that such areas were not 'no go zones' as such for police, but that in the absence of any contact between the persons who lived in such communities and British police, they simply 'won't know what's going on'. I assume that there were reasons for his expressed concerns.
Freedom to come to the UK shoucontributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically?
I don't see how ID cards helps solve the problem that you simply cannot restrict access to some public services.
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
I think you might be wrong about the healthcare. [You seem to have accepted ID cards don't help restrict access to other public services like firefiighters!]
This is nothing that we here need to be worried about. Mr Felix is safe.
Indeed - because I understand the rules and have private cover. I will add without providing details without that private cover illness would have forced me to return to the UK 5 years ago since I am not entitled to anything other than emergence health treatment from the Spanish NHS. I have good reason to know what I am talking about.
As I thought, We are all mightily relieved. Are all expats as well briefed as yourself, Mr Felix?
Probably not. Moving to another country is a complex business even in the EU. It's a sanguine reminder of how easy life in the UK is. In Spain it's much harder to freeload off the state - and a good thing too.
Reasons why color correction, audio and lighting are important:
Chris Stuckmann 7 years ago h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVvmQQcGpC8
Chris Stuckmann now h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkKwBQMa0I
Lindsay Ellis 9 years ago h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7rg2GomVh4
Lindsay Ellis now h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YesMWAxqJ60
Jeremy Jahns 8 years ago h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG8fW-gaafo
Jeremy Jahns now h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6mGXVA5USs
All effectively doing the same shtick (and without background music, yay!) but they have all worked on the presentation and the improvement is obvious.
I can't say I enjoy reading these offerings from the far right and unfortunately the wordiness doesn't disguise it.
That response was as predictable as if you never read it.
I'm sure I should understand what you mean but I don't. I don't believe that you should decide immigration on the strength of people's views. If I chose to live in Lebanon-a place I like very much-and I was banned for my views on whether it should be unlawful for unmarried people to sleep together or for women to sunbathe topless I would consider it first rate bigotry
No-one is talking about banning people for their views. Merely that Lebanon should be able to decide whether it is willing to let you live there. Much as pretty much every country in the world can. The issue is how to make that decision in a way which is practical, in the interests of the country concerned and without the sort of nasty talk and behaviour we have seen in Britain towards people such as EU citizens and Windrush citizens here legally.
If I were Helmut Marko I’d find a way to have the new contract in front of Ricciardo while he’s still on the high from this weekend, even if Mr Mateschitz needs to sign a big cheque first.
I think it’s probably 3/1 or thereabouts that he takes Bottas’ seat, and 10/1 that he replaces Raikkonen.
I can't say I enjoy reading these offerings from the far right and unfortunately the wordiness doesn't disguise it.
That response was as predictable as if you never read it.
I'm sure I should understand what you mean but I don't. I don't believe that you should decide immigration on the strength of people's views. If I chose to live in Lebanon-a place I like very much-and I was banned for my views on whether it should be unlawful for unmarried people to sleep together or for women to sunbathe topless I would consider it first rate bigotry
Bigoted or not, the Lebanese would still be within their rights to exclude you, or to admit you upon condition that you conformed to their values.
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Most Conservative MPs backed Remain even when the Sun, Mail and Telegraph backed Brexit, Mogg's ERG constitutes about a third, not a majority, of Tory MPs
They backed Remain because that is what the party leadership backed and they dutifully followed the line. Since then we have had the likes of Hunt, Truss and Javid talk about how they would have voted out. In any event, most Conservative MPs are mainly concerned about their seats. If May looks to be a liability, and that will be the case if the papers desert her, then they will abandon here a la Thatcher
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Most Conservative MPs backed Remain even when the Sun, Mail and Telegraph backed Brexit, Mogg's ERG constitutes about a third, not a majority, of Tory MPs
They backed Remain because that is what the party leadership backed and they dutifully followed the line. Since then we have had the likes of Hunt, Truss and Javid talk about how they would have voted out. In any event, most Conservative MPs are mainly concerned about their seats. If May looks to be a liability, and that will be the case if the papers desert her, then they will abandon here a la Thatcher
In 1990 Thatcher was about 15% behind Kinnock in polls after the poll tax, May is now at least tied with Corbyn in polls and in most polls still ahead. So a totally different scenario.
Newspapers follow public opinion now they don't change it and most papers bar the Mirror and Guardian won't touch Corbyn with a barge pole either
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
And to add: there are no free translator services provided in the Spanish NHS - the patient must pay this privately and it can be very expensive for those sick elderly people you referred to. As I said there is no free lunch here in Spain.
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Most Conservative MPs backed Remain even when the Sun, Mail and Telegraph backed Brexit, Mogg's ERG constitutes about a third, not a majority, of Tory MPs
The careerists and the loyalists, who probably outnumber either sides ideologue, will vote for whatever the leader appears to be in favour of, if the currently Remain PM was replaced by a Leave PM no one would be surprised how many suddenly found they had a new understanding of their views on BrExit.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Sounds like Obama's " There isn't a red America or Blue America but a United States of America". Very nationalist that man was........
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
The influence of the Sun is waning and it will never back Corbyn anyway, as well as the Tories remain tied or ahead of Labour in the polls May is probably safe
The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph all still have significant influence with Conservative MPs, which is what counts. Also remember, you need to multiple circulation numbers by roughly 2x to get readership, so a lot more influential than the circulation numbers suggest.
Most Conservative MPs backed Remain even when the Sun, Mail and Telegraph backed Brexit, Mogg's ERG constitutes about a third, not a majority, of Tory MPs
They backed Remain because that is what the party leadership backed and they dutifully followed the line. Since then we have had the likes of Hunt, Truss and Javid talk about how they would have voted out. In any event, most Conservative MPs are mainly concerned about their seats. If May looks to be a liability, and that will be the case if the papers desert her, then they will abandon here a la Thatcher
In 1990 Thatcher was about 15% behind Kinnock in polls after the poll tax, May is now at least tied with Corbyn in polls and in most polls still ahead. So a totally different scenario.
Newspapers follow public opinion now they don't change it and most papers bar the Mirror and Guardian won't touch Corbyn with a barge pole either
TM is being kept up partly because of JC but also because a lot of Leave voters still believe she will deliver. If the final agreement is seen as a sellout - and all signs are that, unless we walk out, it probably will - they would happily walk. As Indigo said, they do not need to push Jeremy Corbyn, they can push an alternative within the Conservatives.
I think there is a feeling amongst those driving the decisions that, at the end of the day, Leave WWC voters are somewhat thick and can get hoodwinked by being sold a BINO. That will turn out to be a very bad mistake on their part.
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
When I lived in Spain a decade ago you’d be asked for your “DNI” almost every time you paid for something with a credit card, and a surprisingly high number of people wrote down the number of your ID in their various computer systems.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Sounds like Obama's " There isn't a red America or Blue America but a United States of America". Very nationalist that man was........
By European standards everyone in the US is a nationalist.
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
When I lived in Spain a decade ago you’d be asked for your “DNI” almost every time you paid for something with a credit card, and a surprisingly high number of people wrote down the number of your ID in their various computer systems.
That has gone thanks to pin numbers but without ID may life very difficult.
Thank you Mr Dancer, I have been lurking but busy with a business venture which is now more or less complete, so I am as the actors put it 'resting' between ventures
TM is being kept up partly because of JC but also because a lot of Leave voters still believe she will deliver. If the final agreement is seen as a sellout - and all signs are that, unless we walk out, it probably will - they would happily walk. As Indigo said, they do not need to push Jeremy Corbyn, they can push an alternative within the Conservatives.
I think there is a feeling amongst those driving the decisions that, at the end of the day, Leave WWC voters are somewhat thick and can get hoodwinked by being sold a BINO. That will turn out to be a very bad mistake on their part.
If you vote for £350 million a week extra for the NHS and no Project Fear you are voting for Brexit in Name Only. The real problem is there is no BINO available. You can have damage limited Brexit and you can have outright destruction. Accepting damage limitation means accepting you voted for damage in the first place. Which would be completely pointless. Brexit is something we voted for, it isn't something that's happening to us, like an earthquake for example. So you are left with destruction. Maybe so, but that hardly counts as success. I think Leavers need Brexit to be a success.
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
When I lived in Spain a decade ago you’d be asked for your “DNI” almost every time you paid for something with a credit card, and a surprisingly high number of people wrote down the number of your ID in their various computer systems.
That has gone thanks to pin numbers but without ID may life very difficult.
Here is the Wild East there is also much need for showing IDs for many things (as a foreign resident I am, in any case, required to carry either my passport, or my 'alien certificate of registration'), but there is a document which is far more powerful, and essential in almost every transaction, the Original Receipt, a surprising number of places really dont care who you are so long as you can prove you have paid!
When a quarter of all Muslims think that sharia law, which has been ruled as incompatible with the ECHR, should be in force in some parts or for some groups in Britain, then there is an issue. It does not mean the imminent replacement of democracy. But it does raise issues which need addressing.
The death penalty is also incompatible with the ECHR. Is support for it a threat to democracy?
A belief in sharia is not a problem if it is only a belief with no consequences in real life for real people. The problem arises when that belief is enacted, for instance, in the case of sharia "courts" coming to "judgements" in the cases of divorce and inheritance. Having informal religious courts which mean that British citizens (female) get deprived of their rights under the law is a problem. No democracy should long tolerate people operating within its borders according to laws contrary to the law of the country.
I have no problem with observant Muslims using sharia law courts to settle civil matters amongst themselves in the same way I have no objection to observant Jews using Jewish courts in a similar matter. If someone feels that the observance of their religion requires them to submit to their religion's law, even if that law is stacked against them on some arbitrary basis such as gender, then that is their right. You and I might consider these people foolish to do so, but if that is what they need to do to feel they are fulfilling the requirements of their faith, I don't think it's right to prevent them.
Of course, the caveats are that no-one must be compelled to do so, and if at any point someone decides that their right to equitable justice overrides their feeling of obligation to observe their faith's norms, they should have the right to take their dispute to the secular courts. I understand that sometimes people, often in vulnerable circumstances, can be bullied into giving up their legal rights, but that happens all too often in non-religious circumstances as well. The solution is better education so that everyone is aware of their civil rights, but if someone truly feels that their obligations to their faith override the rights the state would guarantee otherwise, I don't see that they can be denied that.
Not correct. Access to healthcare is only free for those in employment, or over 65.... In Spain there is no free lunch
So a free lunch for those permanent residents aged over 65 then? Who are the most expensive people to cover. [Also children and pregnant women I understand].
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
Except we were discussing benefits to health, unemployment etc. BTW virtually every contact with the Police begins with ID. Same goes for most public officials, banks, etc. You will get quite a shock if you try a move abroad .
When I lived in Spain a decade ago you’d be asked for your “DNI” almost every time you paid for something with a credit card, and a surprisingly high number of people wrote down the number of your ID in their various computer systems.
It's commonplace in Sweden to present ID and have it scanned when buying something by card in shops. I was quite surprised to find that the scanners were perfectly happy with the barcode on the back of my New York State driver's license.
It would also make selling independence easier - "rUK and IScotland will still be in a/the/some Customs Union and the Single Market".....just the 70 years of superior economic growth to get back to the status-quo ante on the removal of Barnett to make up then....and having a finance sector without a central bank...oh, and currency.....
If you want your point of view to be taken seriously
The commission broadly assumes that the big banks would move their headquarters to London post-independence to stay in with the current regulatory regime - although they hope that this might not cost many jobs, as local branches and other companies would stay in Scotland.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
There may be some regulatory alignment with the single market but only full single market membership requires free movement and of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to the transition controls the EU allowed us to have from 2004 to 2011 in terms of Eastern European nations but Blair refused to take
I think you meant to say "of course the work permits/job offer requirement May is proposing is not dissimilar to Freedom of Movement". Not dissimilar indeed. Exactly the same would be more accurate.
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
Cameron's problem was he did not get those transition control equivalents before the referendum and any significant concessions in the negotiations.
Had he done so Remain would likely have narrowly won.
Cameron's problem is that we have an entitlement based benefits system rather than one that requires contributions first. Given that no Conservative Government can fix that problem - Cameron was on a hiding to nothing once he won a majority and couldn't "trade" the referendum away.
Reforming the welfare system to make it more based on NI contributions is separate from allowing in large numbers of Eastern European migrants putting pressure on housing and services and willing to work for a low wage
You seem to be in a different part of the country to me. Around here your typical Eastern European works the same 16 hour weeks many others do.
I have no problem with observant Muslims using sharia law courts to settle civil matters amongst themselves in the same way I have no objection to observant Jews using Jewish courts in a similar matter. If someone feels that the observance of their religion requires them to submit to their religion's law, even if that law is stacked against them on some arbitrary basis such as gender, then that is their right. You and I might consider these people foolish to do so, but if that is what they need to do to feel they are fulfilling the requirements of their faith, I don't think it's right to prevent them.
Of course, the caveats are that no-one must be compelled to do so, and if at any point someone decides that their right to equitable justice overrides their feeling of obligation to observe their faith's norms, they should have the right to take their dispute to the secular courts. I understand that sometimes people, often in vulnerable circumstances, can be bullied into giving up their legal rights, but that happens all too often in non-religious circumstances as well. The solution is better education so that everyone is aware of their civil rights, but if someone truly feels that their obligations to their faith override the rights the state would guarantee otherwise, I don't see that they can be denied that.
I understand where you are coming, and have sympathy with it, but sadly all too frequently that's not what occurs.
These are the issues that face the Beth Din, and Islamic Sharia courts will have more given the generally lower levels of integration in the community.
The issues with the Beth Din have been talked about for years, and the leaders have shown a certain contempt for the complaints. Given this, we should be tightening down on them, not opening up the concept, because it is simply not working.
Having two separate legal systems like this will always lead to abuses.
Comments
Also my understanding is that British citizens who are permanent residents in Spain have their healthcare costs paid for by the Spanish state.
When a quarter of all Muslims think that sharia law, which has been ruled as incompatible with the ECHR, should be in force in some parts or for some groups in Britain, then there is an issue. It does not mean the imminent replacement of democracy. But it does raise issues which need addressing.
So if you're in a house in Spain which is on fire and you have no ID card, the fire brigade won't come out?
Who will historians be more critical of: Cameron or May?
Opinion polls don’t trump elections. You should have clocked that by now.
I'll say a country at ease with itself, that takes care of the needs of all, where levels of inequality are diminished, where public services are there to serve the public rather than shareholders or fatcats, where the natural environment is sustained, and where we do not dance to Washington's tune.
PS houses aren't people and don't have access to the Spanish welfare or health care system.
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
So if you do have an ID card and your neighbours property is on fire endangering your property the fire brigade won't come out yet?
It was France, Germany and most of the EU having transition controls while the UK did not for 7 years which saw the UK take a disproportionate number of Eastern European migrants and was pivotal to the Leave majority given Leave won by just 4%.
Even a 7 year transition control equivalent, say until 2028 after the end of the formal transition period, would be a significant change
That must be the wrong odds but the definition of the market isn't clear.
Will the President ask him to form government? Yes.
Will he survive the initial vote of no confidence? No (80%).
I think to get residence you just have to prove you've been living legally for 5 years. Once you have permanent residence in Spain your healthcare is paid by Spain. It's an issue in the event of no-deal Brexit when all those pensioners may have to come back to the UK because they can't afford medical care in Spain.
https://theconversation.com/what-a-no-deal-brexit-would-mean-for-healthcare-of-british-pensioners-in-spain-74327
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25134521
https://theconversation.com/british-pensioners-in-spain-worry-brexit-could-force-them-to-return-to-uk-74329
“Successive foreign secretaries – including the current one – have been hobbled. They’ve had the title, but they haven’t had the power.”
In reply to which, bearing in mind the identity and character of the present incumbent, most of us will answer "Thank goodness for that!"
Did you Tories learn nothing from Cameron's failure? He risked his whole premiership on the grounds that if he kept referring to his non-achievement as 'special status' people would believe him. Why do you think the same trick will work now?
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/27/americas/colombia-elections/index.html
The bigger issue for the EU is if May is forced out. If she accepts a deal that is eviscerated as a sellout, then Tory MPs will panic as they did in 1990 with Thatcher and see May as a liability that needs to be got rid of ASAP. Any candidate who sees themselves as redible candidate will have to sign up to the Leaver case, which is why Javid and Williamson have pivoted themselves more to a Leave position.
Regardless of whether Blair was right, wrong or indifferent not to put controls on we don't have a Tardis and there can not be controls anymore. It is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. The EU will never agree to allow a "transition" for pre-existing members and nor should they, what is it transitioning to? The purpose of a transition is to adjust to new members - they are already long established members.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6392710/theresa-may-is-walking-into-an-eu-trap-to-derail-brexit-and-betray-leave-voters/
Including the line,
"The sad truth is that Mrs May is not up to the job as Prime Minister at a momentous point in our history"
How long before The Sun pulls the plug followed by The Mail and everyone else?
Had he done so Remain would likely have narrowly won.
The EU is interested in a deal that includes UK conformity with EU regulation, subject to EU oversight. Whether that's possible for us depends on whether we think no deal is more impossible.
There is no reason whatsoever the EU could not grant the UK controls for 7 years equivalent to the controls they could have had from 2004 to 2011 applied specifically to Eastern European migrants and equivalent to what say Germany had. That would also enable the UK effectively to stay in the single market even if if left the EU
* Your colour correction seems adequate, as does the audio quality. Both could (and should) be improved but at a later date
* Your hand gestures are distracting, but (unlike Roger) I'm not sure what to do about them! You were very stilted at the beginning, but more animated towards the end and I don't want you to lose that natural quality at the end[1]. So I assume the best approach would be to do several takes and choose the ones that seem more natural. Or just sit on your hands...
* Why are you wearing eyeglasses? Are you reading off a script and if so would larger text remove the need for your glasses?
* You are middle aged with a beard. That means your chin dominates the field. This is exacerbated by the fact that the camera seems to be below your eyeline. Try to make the camera at or slightly higher than your eyeline so you are slightly looking up. This minimises the size of the chin.
* Please, please look at the camera! You're consistently looking slightly above it and come across as a bit spectrumy.
* At 0:23 you take a step to the side, which is...weird. Would sitting down help?
But to be honest, it's pretty good as it is. Just relax, make incremental improvements, and you'll be OK.
Hints and tips
* Open up a twitter feed and put a link to it. Otherwise people won't know you've released.
* Try to pick a regular release day and stick to it. Make it an event to look forward to, instead of a random happening.
* You might want to start a Patreon page in the future, but i'm ambiguous about them (unless you want money, in which case knock yourself out... )
[1] That bit at 5:50 with "let's go to Madrid..I love technology" was natural and fun.
Another interesting post from Rolf Degen:
"Rolf Degen
@DegenRolf
A surprising number of people are "phone walkers", clinging to their cell phone for long durations without using the device. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/1568539x-00003496 …"
twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001076385220263936
3.147 Most of these costs would be associated with establishing four new bodies: a defence force
and associated defence ministry, a foreign affairs and trade department, a security and
intelligence agency, and a central bank and financial regulator.
P.S. - if Indy Scotland uses the pound informally, it would be freed from the need to defend it if it came under attack, as Denmark just managed ( at some cost) in 2016 wheras Switzerland gave up trying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/44278688
Shade frit, perhaps?
None of this changes my original point - that ID cards do not enable you to restrict access to many public services such as firefighting, police etc...
A belief in sharia is not a problem if it is only a belief with no consequences in real life for real people. The problem arises when that belief is enacted, for instance, in the case of sharia "courts" coming to "judgements" in the cases of divorce and inheritance. Having informal religious courts which mean that British citizens (female) get deprived of their rights under the law is a problem. No democracy should long tolerate people operating within its borders according to laws contrary to the law of the country.
And it was Tom Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of the Constabulary who said, back in 2014, that there were certain communities 'born under other skies' which 'preferred to police themselves'. He argued that such areas were not 'no go zones' as such for police, but that in the absence of any contact between the persons who lived in such communities and British police, they simply 'won't know what's going on'. I assume that there were reasons for his expressed concerns.
Reasons why color correction, audio and lighting are important:
Chris Stuckmann 7 years ago
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVvmQQcGpC8
Chris Stuckmann now
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkKwBQMa0I
Lindsay Ellis 9 years ago
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7rg2GomVh4
Lindsay Ellis now
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YesMWAxqJ60
Jeremy Jahns 8 years ago
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG8fW-gaafo
Jeremy Jahns now
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6mGXVA5USs
All effectively doing the same shtick (and without background music, yay!) but they have all worked on the presentation and the improvement is obvious.
Although, like I said, you are pretty much there.
[edit: unlink links cos too big!]
I think it’s probably 3/1 or thereabouts that he takes Bottas’ seat, and 10/1 that he replaces Raikkonen.
If I were the Silver Arrows, I'd be gunning for Ricciardo.
Newspapers follow public opinion now they don't change it and most papers bar the Mirror and Guardian won't touch Corbyn with a barge pole either
I think there is a feeling amongst those driving the decisions that, at the end of the day, Leave WWC voters are somewhat thick and can get hoodwinked by being sold a BINO. That will turn out to be a very bad mistake on their part.
Of course, the caveats are that no-one must be compelled to do so, and if at any point someone decides that their right to equitable justice overrides their feeling of obligation to observe their faith's norms, they should have the right to take their dispute to the secular courts. I understand that sometimes people, often in vulnerable circumstances, can be bullied into giving up their legal rights, but that happens all too often in non-religious circumstances as well. The solution is better education so that everyone is aware of their civil rights, but if someone truly feels that their obligations to their faith override the rights the state would guarantee otherwise, I don't see that they can be denied that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44237956
And if the Commission wanted to be taken seriously, do you think cutting & pasting a 10 year old New Zealand analysis was a good idea?
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1001112432264273920
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1001108701317656577
NEW THREAD
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-jewish-orthodox-councils-institutionalising-marital-captivity-and-upholding-discriminatory-a6803256.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-women-trapped-in-marriages-by-jewish-courts-1765888.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/fighting-be-free-lengths-orthodox-jewish-women-will-go-get-320536.html
+ more.
These are the issues that face the Beth Din, and Islamic Sharia courts will have more given the generally lower levels of integration in the community.
The issues with the Beth Din have been talked about for years, and the leaders have shown a certain contempt for the complaints. Given this, we should be tightening down on them, not opening up the concept, because it is simply not working.
Having two separate legal systems like this will always lead to abuses.