Alf Bentley Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 I heard that, as a migrant to the Middle East, Richard's attitude to racial and cultural integration left a bit to be desired, too....
bovril Posted 21 May 2018 Posted 21 May 2018 He also had a broad Edinburgh accent, as Prince of Thieves taught us.
Guest Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 Brexit has officially already made us all poorer. And it hasn't even happened yet! Brexit vote has cost each UK household £900, says Mark Carney https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/brexit-vote-cost-uk-mark-carney-bank-of-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 46 minutes ago, toddybad said: Brexit has officially already made us all poorer. And it hasn't even happened yet! Brexit vote has cost each UK household £900, says Mark Carney https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/brexit-vote-cost-uk-mark-carney-bank-of-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard It’s a price worth paying. WE’VE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK YOU DIRTY SNOWFLAKE BASTARD!
Strokes Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 3 hours ago, toddybad said: Brexit has officially already made us all poorer. And it hasn't even happened yet! Brexit vote has cost each UK household £900, says Mark Carney https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/brexit-vote-cost-uk-mark-carney-bank-of-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Not all of us
Buce Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 32 minutes ago, Strokes said: Not all of us How do you know? However relatively wealthy you feel, you still may have £900 less than you might have had.
Strokes Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 1 hour ago, Buce said: How do you know? However relatively wealthy you feel, you still may have £900 less than you might have had. Our company has had the best results in its 40 year history and as a result we are apparently due a decent bonus this month. I don’t know the exact amount yet but if the rumours are true its a lot more than £900. Of course you could say this would have happened should we have remained but it can’t be proved either way and I’m happy.
Buce Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 EU talks with Australia and New Zealand deal blow to UK free trade plans Bloc could end up on better terms with the Commonwealth nations after Brexit than UK The EU has leapt ahead of the UK in the pursuit of free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand after member states gave the green light for talks to start within weeks. With Theresa May insistent that leaving the EU will involve exiting the customs union and the bloc’s external commercial policy, the announcement from Brussels opens up the possibility that the EU could enjoy better terms with the two Commonwealth nations after Brexit than the UK will. New Zealand’s trade minister, David Parker, said the UK’s withdrawal did not diminish the huge potential gains for his country that would come from breaking down trade barriers with the remaining 27 member states. He said: “The EU is our third-largest trading partner, with two-way trade worth more than $20bn [£10.3bn]. Even excluding the UK, our trade with the EU is worth about $16bn annually.” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, had recently spoken of “reinvigorating” the Commonwealth partnership with a host of trade deals after Brexit, labelled “empire 2.0” by sceptical Whitehall officials. But the UK will not be able to start its negotiations over future trade with New Zealand and Australia until 30 March 2019. The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has vowed to complete the EU’s talks with the two countries by 31 October of that year, when his time in office expires. Brussels is eyeing up export opportunities for motor equipment, machinery, chemicals, processed foods and services. In recent months, the EU has struck deals with Canada, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and Mexico. Last week May privately proposed to Ireland and to Donald Tusk, the European council president, her government’s concept of a “backstop” to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, which would involve the UK temporarily staying in the customs union beyond the transition period. It would come into force should a satisfactory free trade deal or bespoke technological solution fail to emerge that can solve the border problem. Formal negotiations in Brussels restarted on Tuesday and are scheduled to last until Thursday. However, in a sign that the Brexiters in the cabinet are no closer to accepting the idea of staying in a customs union, the environment secretary, Michael Gove, was insistent on Tuesday morning that it could only be a temporary solution. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It means what it says on the tin. That temporary means not permanent. It means for a short period of time. “I’m not going to pre-empt the eventual position that we take after we have negotiated with the European Union and with Ireland ... In the same way as when you move house, a bridging loan is meant to be temporary, but whether that’s weeks or months, we don’t know precisely.” The EU has made it clear before its negotiations with Australia and New Zealand that the size of its market offers bountiful opportunities, without the need for the bloc to expose its agricultural sector to cheap imports. The mandate given to the commission for the talks, due to be formally launched in Wellington and Canberra next month, envisages special treatment for agricultural goods in order to protect European producers. In contrast, there are some voices in the Brexiter wing of the Conservative party who would like to radically liberalise the farming sector in the UK, and open it up to challenge from highly efficient antipodean agricultural exporters. Responding after EU foreign ministers announced the talks, Cecilia Malmström, the European commissioner for trade, said: “Together, we will now negotiate win-win trade deals that create new opportunities for our businesses, as well as safeguard high standards in key areas such as sustainable development. “Starting these talks between likeminded partners sends a strong signal at a time where many are taking the easy road of protectionism.”
Guest Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: Our company has had the best results in its 40 year history and as a result we are apparently due a decent bonus this month. I don’t know the exact amount yet but if the rumours are true its a lot more than £900. Of course you could say this would have happened should we have remained but it can’t be proved either way and I’m happy. It's fair to say this isn't a position us NHS workers find ourselves in.
Innovindil Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: It's fair to say this isn't a position us NHS workers find ourselves in. Give up some job security and make a go of it in the private sector. From what I hear, medical staff are worth their weight in gold right now.
Izzy Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 26 minutes ago, Bryn said: Absolute ****ing mess. It was always going to be. People voted for something they didn't really understand and weren't fully informed. The result took everyone by surprise and now we're having to deal with it best we can. Not sure who's to blame but the government are just trying to implement what the majority voted for. It's all unprecedented and new territory so it's bound to be a bit of a mess while everybody makes it up as they go along. Just gotta be patient and hope it all works out O.K. I guess...
Guest Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Give up some job security and make a go of it in the private sector. From what I hear, medical staff are worth their weight in gold right now. What I do is primarily a public sector thing. I am a little bit tempted to see if I could do something in the private world but it would have to be self employed and start as a sideline. Unfortunately there are three problems with this: 1- the public sector is a ridiculous market these days so I can't do what I do in my day job as a self employed role without having issues 2- there's been practically no pay rises for 8 years and the new pay system is very dodgy from what I can see so I've no spare cash (and instead debt) to set up on my own. 3- there's no real private sector market Edited 22 May 2018 by Guest
fuchsntf Posted 22 May 2018 Posted 22 May 2018 6 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: It’s a price worth paying. WE’VE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK YOU DIRTY SNOWFLAKE BASTARD! You/we've never had our Country in the 1st place...Politicians and some Business cronies,stole it Centuries ago... 1
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44214279 One constant regarding the Arab-Israeli mess is that both sides seem to be without any sense of humour whatsoever.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44214279 One constant regarding the Arab-Israeli mess is that both sides seem to be without any sense of humour whatsoever. How is making jokes about Jews saying kerching funny? Its blatently antisemitic.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 8 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: How is making jokes about Jews saying kerching funny? Its blatently antisemitic. It's also pretty blatant parody - I'm not sure how much more exaggeration needed to be included. Guess we have to be thankful that it's just a diplomatic squawk and not a bunch of gunmen storming the TV office ala Charlie Hebdo that is the response this time but given all the suffering that the various Abrahamic organised religions have inflicted upon various areas of humanity in response to sometimes the slightest offence please forgive me for the accusation of lack of humour and the wish that some folks in all of those religions would frankly grow a thicker skin as a viewpoint on that.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: It's also pretty blatant parody - I'm not sure how much more exaggeration needed to be included. Guess we have to be thankful that it's just a diplomatic squawk and not a bunch of gunmen storming the TV office ala Charlie Hebdo that is the response this time but given all the suffering that the various Abrahamic organised religions have inflicted upon various areas of humanity in response to sometimes the slightest offence please forgive me for the accusation of lack of humour and the wish that some folks in all of those religions would frankly grow a thicker skin as a viewpoint on that. Its not a critism of Judaism as a religion its a slur against the Jewish peoples, squawking kerching is conforming to the stereotype that Jews love money and revel in the accumulation of it. These are fallacies that led to the Holocaust and persecution of millions of, mainly impoverished, Jews.
leicsmac Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 8 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Its not a critism of Judaism as a religion its a slur against the Jewish peoples, squawking kerching is conforming to the stereotype that Jews love money and revel in the accumulation of it. These are fallacies that led to the Holocaust and persecution of millions of, mainly impoverished, Jews. I agree that it's definitely playing on a stupid stereotype - again though, in a fashion that is pretty obviously blatant parody (though what one person thinks is parody compared to another is of course entirely subjective). The Israelis are of course free to complain about it if it offends them and you're totally right that playing upon those stereotypes has led to some very very dark places in the past...but at the same time I don't like the idea of Abrahamic religious entities (either as nation states or demographic groups) being able to influence what is said about what they do, even subtly. (That last part might be a strawman though as I know you didn't say that they should.)
Guest Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 So, under max fac, firms would be charged £32.50 a time to register each border crossing, at a total cost to business of £20b per year. Twice what we pay into the EU coffers. No words. The new customs partnership variant favoured by TM but dismissed by Boris, IDS etc would cost nothing (though take some time to set up).
Buce Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 43 minutes ago, toddybad said: So, under max fac, firms would be charged £32.50 a time to register each border crossing, at a total cost to business of £20b per year. Twice what we pay into the EU coffers. No words. The new customs partnership variant favoured by TM but dismissed by Boris, IDS etc would cost nothing (though take some time to set up). Just another example of what an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk decision Brexit is. Right from the off, they've been making it up as they go along. 1
Buce Posted 23 May 2018 Posted 23 May 2018 UK might have to pay £39bn Brexit bill before trade deal agreed Suella Braverman’s comments cast doubt on government’s insistence that paying withdrawal bill is linked to agreeing future trade deal A Brexit minister has admitted there are no plans for a legally enforceable link between Britain’s £39bn divorce bill for leaving the European Union and future trade. Suella Braverman, who was previously chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs, suggested that paying the withdrawal bill and any trade deal could be enforced only by a “duty of good faith”. Some MPs on the Brexit committee expressed concerns that parliament would have to vote on the financial deal in the withdrawal agreement this autumn, without first having a legal assurance over what the UK would get in return. Ministers have said they will publish the final departure deal with the EU, which is about 75% agreed, as well as a separate political declaration on the future relationship, in October. The government has always insisted that paying the Brexit bill would be linked to agreeing a future trade deal, but Braverman’s comments cast doubt on whether this would in fact be the case. She insisted the duty of good faith was “more than just words”. The minister, pressed on about a dozen occasions by MPs from all sides on the issue, confirmed that Britain had raised the possibility that the final deal might be conditional in negotiations, but did not reveal what those conditions might be. The Labour committee member Pat McFadden asked her: “Isn’t it the case that we will be agreeing to pay the financial settlement before we have a legal text on the future agreement between the UK and the EU?” Braverman responded: “The withdrawal agreement text has been nearly finalised and agreed, that contains issues relating the financial settlement. At present, it doesn’t contain aspects you talk about on conditionality. “There is agreed a duty of good faith and that is an important aspect of the withdrawal agreement which obliges both parties to cooperate in a way, which means we are working constructively towards a future framework which is mutually beneficial and meets our objectives.” She added: “The prime minister has made very clear that the offer on the financial settlement is made as part of a broader package relating, and in the spirit of our future partnership the two will be connected when we vote in October.” Braverman suggested that if a trade deal with Brussels was not agreed then there was a “very clear possibility” that a renegotiation would take place and “those payments would not be owed”. MPs pointed out that parliament would have already voted on paying the Brexit bill by that point. Britain’s financial obligations are also understood to be heavily front-loaded so the money could already have been paid. Boris Johnson was asked about the issue in Santiago, Chile, where the foreign secretary is on the last leg of his trade tour. He said: “Article 50 makes it absolutely clear that the terms of the withdrawal have to be seen in the context of the future relationship. “And [I’ll] just remind you of the basic fact of all negotiations that is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” The prime minister’s official spokesman reiterated that sentiment, adding: “We’re clear that we intend to agree the future framework at the same time as the withdrawal agreement ... This means that parliament will vote on the withdrawal agreement at the same time as the terms of our future relationship with the EU.” He suggested that the EU would honour any commitment it had made, legal or otherwise, on the future relationship.
Guest Posted 24 May 2018 Posted 24 May 2018 The report was welcomed by an all-party group of MPs. Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the health and social care select committee, Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats former care minister, and Liz Kendall, the former shadow care minister, said: “As a cross-party group of MPs who have come together to campaign for a new settlement for the NHS and the care system, we wholeheartedly endorse this analysis. NHS needs £2,000 in tax from every household to stay afloat – report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/24/nhs-needs-2000-in-tax-from-every-household-to-stay-afloat-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
breadandcheese Posted 24 May 2018 Posted 24 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: The report was welcomed by an all-party group of MPs. Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the health and social care select committee, Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats former care minister, and Liz Kendall, the former shadow care minister, said: “As a cross-party group of MPs who have come together to campaign for a new settlement for the NHS and the care system, we wholeheartedly endorse this analysis. NHS needs £2,000 in tax from every household to stay afloat – report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/24/nhs-needs-2000-in-tax-from-every-household-to-stay-afloat-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Playing devil's advocate, for that amount, you could buy private medical insurance and take some of the burden off the NHS.
breadandcheese Posted 24 May 2018 Posted 24 May 2018 12 hours ago, Buce said: UK might have to pay £39bn Brexit bill before trade deal agreed If that is the case, then the government should resign.
Recommended Posts