FlyTheNest

Willow904 wrote: Very long time ago I would say. HMRC haven't been preferential creditors for a quite a while. They rank alongside unsecured creditors these days.

I stand corrected then!

Thanks.

Why come to a Forum and just ignore comments of others as though they'd never said them?

To tediously stir where self same indiv has tirelessly stirred before?

You're doing a sterling job HSOM.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: So, we proceed as though we are leaving. I do not accept that the timescales laid out for leaving are inflexible. There is time.

and whay is the basis for this belief?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:We identify which aspects of the EU people actually want to leave. The outcome will probably be that people want some control on freedom of movement and a greater feeling of sovereignty, while maintaining free trade.



And how is this to be identified? A referendum with a variety of options? I think it implausible in the extreme that any such view gathering exercise will be undertaken. The government is in charge.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Other EU jurisdictions already control who is allowed to live and work there. New policy could easily be articulated.

I'm lost. Which EU juriosdictions are you suggesting don't abide by freedom of movement?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The apparent democratic deficit is perhaps harder, because it's largely an illusion. In any case, the UK is not alone in the EU in wanting changes in these areas.

So, your idea seems to be some kind of re-negotation of the EU, by this government, or a Labour government replacing it? Is that right?

I am afraid I think that a complete fantasy. No conceivable UK government will be attempting that, and the EU 27 will ave no interest in that coming from the UK.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:As a result of constructive engagement with other EU states, .

Again, who is doing this constructive engagement? I assume you agree with me that this government won't be doing so.

So presumably a replacement Labour government? How are you envisaging that coming about before 2019 (or some other near date as you seemt o think the Tory government will just stop Brexit for some reason).

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:who in the main do not want the UK to leave, a new accommodation is found that benefits the wider EU. The UK will probably have to sign up for some kind of "concession" as a slap for having been naughty (end of rebate?) and we have the win win solution.

I am sure that the EU27 would accept a UK government that sought to Remain (although it wouldn't renegotiate the terms of the EU, nor would it accept our remaining on the gerneous terms we jave now.)

How are you envisaging a Uk government that seeks that coming about?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:You normally argue with details.

Indeed, and for good reason. When you look at the details of your happy story, it isn't going to happen.

Which is why I haven't been engaging with it. You strike me as a very nice man, but the above scenario for how Brexit could be avoided really isn't very serious.

We need to engage with the world as it is, not the world as we would wish it to be,

[Apologies for the formattting.]

howsillyofme1 wrote:.

It would be really nice though if they actually engaged with people

Requiring others to read and comment on long screeds of stuff about how there is no such thing as the single market and so on, seems to place too heavy a burden on other board users.

@SH

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... mmigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

free-movement-isnt-free-truth-about-eu-immigration

As Refitman once so eloquently put it:

"Fucking yawn."

PS not directed at PFYs point immediately above.
(obv)

tinyclanger2 wrote:PS not directed at PFYs point immediately above.
(obv)

Phew

Carillion? Nothing to do with regretful and disappointed Dave

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... inted-dave" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Latest John Crace

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@SH

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... mmigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

free-movement-isnt-free-truth-about-eu-immigration

Of course, but that doesn't remotely support the claim that "other EU states can control who lives and works here."

If a Romanian gets a job picking apples in the UK the UK state cannot bar him from living and working here.

Quite right too.

There are some rules we could tighten, but as the overwhelming number of EU migrants come to the UK to work, they're just irrelevant.

The Cameron Years - on R4 now if anyone interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ly26m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@SH

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... mmigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

free-movement-isnt-free-truth-about-eu-immigration

Of course, but that doesn't remotely support the claim that "other EU states can control who lives and works here."

If a Romanian gets a job picking apples in the UK the UK state cannot bar him from living and working here.

Quite right too.

There are some rules we could tighten, but as the overwhelming number of EU migrants come to the UK to work, they're just irrelevant.

Liechtenstein, a member of the single market, has recently imposed quotas on EU migrants.

AngryAsWell wrote:The Cameron Years - on R4 now if anyone interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ly26m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm washing my hair!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The Cameron Years - on R4 now if anyone interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ly26m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm washing my hair!

Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)

AngryAsWell wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The Cameron Years - on R4 now if anyone interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ly26m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm washing my hair!

Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)

Blair as the successor to Thatcher, and Cameron his successor ...

Today's Crace ...


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... inted-dave" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:Put another way, if the party were now being led by Ed Miliband, would the approach to Brexit have been the same?

Obviously not.

But then, it isn't that kind of party now, at all.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... wer-remain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would have differed in nuance only.

Labour's approach has largely been dictated by the unenviable position the party found itself in come June 24 2016.

I seriously believe that only those totally blinded by anti-Corbyn bitterness can fail to see this obvious truth.

The Channel Islands are in the EEA. They have migrant controls

But we won't get that. If we did it would encourage the break up of the EU.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:---
It would have differed in nuance only.

Labour's approach has largely been dictated by the unenviable position the party found itself in come June 24 2016.

I seriously believe that only those totally blinded by anti-Corbyn bitterness can fail to see this obvious truth.

(cJA edit)
I agree with you.

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:.

It would be really nice though if they actually engaged with people

Requiring others to read and comment on long screeds of stuff about how there is no such thing as the single market and so on, seems to place too heavy a burden on other board users.

I think that is a misrepresentation of my views to say the least

My belief is that the European Internal Market is made up of a number of components that are defined in the treaties. Parts of that Internal Market can be accessed as part of the EEA agreement whose treaty sets out this level of participation.

My contention is that when people talk about the single market it can mean different things and I would prefer that we are precise on what it means. If we mean EEA then that is what we should refer to it as....and the implications are to access that is we would need to join EFTA and decide to sign up for it (like the triumvirate) or not, as in Switzerland and therefore need bespoke bilaterals

My position has always been the level of participation in the EU internal market is defined by membership of certain organisations (EU, EEA; EFTA) or via a FTA......so when commentators say 'member of the Single Market' I think this is erroneous

You talk about Single Market and Custom's Union a lot so I think it is fair to ask what that entails......I assume you mean EEA for the first part and I also assume that you mean a pretty much status quo for the union....or do you have another view?

If any party commits to EEA/Custom's Union then we are in 'pay, no say' scenario. There is also the question of how easy it will be to join the EEA after leaving it

When Corbyn says leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market then legally he is probably (I admit there is some contention) right as we would leave the EEA - this is because the EEA is a treaty covering EFTA and the EU - being outside both would leave us a 3rd country. This could be resolved by us rejoining via EFTA if we so desire

The reason I get a bit pedantic about all this is that no a few commentators make it sound as though the EEA/CU option is really easy to declare but it has no precedence anywhere else and it assumes we will be welcomed into EFTA with open arms

If people find my posts annoying and overlong please say so and I will stop (this only allies to people I respect the opinions of, ie everyone except you)

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Very long time ago I would say. HMRC haven't been preferential creditors for a quite a while. They rank alongside unsecured creditors these days.

I stand corrected then!

Thanks.

I just read my comment back and realise it comes across way more stuffy than I intended! What I meant to convey was that you are correct, HMRC did used to be preferential creditors, but that seems to have been changed at some point (under Labour?) but I have no idea why. Sorry for the school-marmish tone.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Channel Islands are in the EEA. They have migrant controls

But we won't get that. If we did it would encourage the break up of the EU.

Are they Tubby - found this on wiki (source?) which indicates not. I know there are a number of small territories that have a bit of a fudge relationship with the EU

Channel Islands[edit]
The Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey—which form the Channel Islands—are Crown dependencies, under the sovereignty of the British monarch and thus part of the remaining British Empire. The islands take part in the EU freedom of movement of goods but not labour, services or capital. They are outside the VAT area, but inside the customs union.[6]

Channel Islanders are British citizens and hence European citizens.[60] As a result, they can travel freely within the EU, and all European citizens can travel to the islands without restrictions. However, the islands do not participate in the freedom of movement of labour, and as a result their citizens are not entitled to work or reside within the EU unless they are directly connected (through birth, or descent from a parent or grandparent) with the United Kingdom. After five years continuous residence in the United Kingdom, islanders are entitled to participate in the freedom of movement of labour or services throughout the EU.

Carillion crisis deepens amid scramble to save jobs after firm collapses

Thousands of private sector workers at risk and 30,000 small firms owed money may lose out


Thousands of staff who worked for the collapsed construction firm Carillion inside private sector companies will have their wages stopped on Wednesday unless their jobs are rescued by other firms, the government has said. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-48-hours

Has anyone seen Theresa May lately?

Night night.

PorFavor wrote:Has anyone seen Theresa May lately?

Nope. Tories wanted leadership, they've got leadership. What have they done with it? Failing country and people since their onset

PorFavor wrote:Night night.

Goodnight, PorFavor

Keir Starmer
‏
Verified account

@Keir_Starmer
8 minutes ago

As we start to focus on the next stage of the Brexit negotiations, a reminder of Labour’s red lines ...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor wrote:

Carillion crisis deepens amid scramble to save jobs after firm collapses

Thousands of private sector workers at risk and 30,000 small firms owed money may lose out

Thousands of staff who worked for the collapsed construction firm Carillion inside private sector companies will have their wages stopped on Wednesday unless their jobs are rescued by other firms, the government has said. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-48-hours

(cJA emphasis)
Have leadership no shame? Abandonment of thousands of people. Tories do charity, the only entitlement they recognise is their own.

AngryAsWell wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The Cameron Years - on R4 now if anyone interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ly26m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm washing my hair!

Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)

I wasn't actually washing my hair I was helping daughter with her maths homework.

I've been in ratio hell

Willow904 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Very long time ago I would say. HMRC haven't been preferential creditors for a quite a while. They rank alongside unsecured creditors these days.

I stand corrected then!

Thanks.

I just read my comment back and realise it comes across way more stuffy than I intended! What I meant to convey was that you are correct, HMRC did used to be preferential creditors, but that seems to have been changed at some point (under Labour?) but I have no idea why. Sorry for the school-marmish tone.

As I remember, it was changed because it wasn't fair to put the Revenue ahead of trade creditors. Actually it's not as relevant now, because it's much harder for companies of any size to spin out paying over their PAYE & VAT these days.

Following changes to the law in September 2003 the categories of debt that are considered to be preferential were significantly reduced with the Crown losing most of its preferential status.

Cheers, Gilsey. Good stuff.

The winners of the Carillion scandal – making £300m from the Government contractor’s collapse

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... pse/15/01/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Put another way, if the party were now being led by Ed Miliband, would the approach to Brexit have been the same?

Obviously not.

But then, it isn't that kind of party now, at all.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... wer-remain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would have differed in nuance only.

Labour's approach has largely been dictated by the unenviable position the party found itself in come June 24 2016.

I seriously believe that only those totally blinded by anti-Corbyn bitterness can fail to see this obvious truth.

I think that badly mistaken.

There is a large majority of the PLP who favour being in the EEA and Customs Union. They're passionate social democrats of the European tradition, as am I. Miliband is in that group. He would have fought for it.

He now shows remarkable calm backing Corbyn's policy, but when it looked like he could be shifted for a pro-EU leader, Miliband backed it.

"There is no alternative" is just lazy loyalty when you should know it is wrong.

Miliband has barely fought for it from the backbenches.

He deserves huge credit for opposing a referendum in 2015 but he's been far too worried immigration.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Miliband has barely fought for it from the backbenches.

He deserves huge credit for opposing a referendum in 2015 but he's been far too worried immigration.

I think he thinks he did his bit, and it is enough to post the occassional amusing thing on twitter. I suspect he also blames himself. Rightly, Must be very hard.

Firefighters are on standby to deliver school meals to children in at least one area of the country as local councils and other public bodies scramble to deal with the collapse of the outsourcing firm, Carillion.

The company provided a host of services to the NHS, as well as schools and other organisations across the country that will need to be covered. Among them was Oxfordshire county council, which was forced to put the firefighters on notice after Carillion’s downfall left the provision of school meals in the short-term in doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-collapse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Make the goddamn DWP minister do it