Tuesday 19 July 2016
Posted: Tue 19 Jul, 2016 6:45 am
Hello all
The Italians must be as disappointed in us as I am.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rosceptics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dire economic performance in the bel paese (beautiful country) has seen hundreds of thousands of Italians move to the UK, which was until recently held up as an example of how a nation should be run.
But in the post-referendum era, Brits in Italy receive sympathetic looks as concerned locals seek to understand how UK voters could have made such a drastic choice. “It’s a mistake for them,” says Luca Miccinilli, a shop worker in central Rome. “Maybe they never really felt European.”
on July 30 will highlight that not all of "The British People" have the same absurd will.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
Swansea
Experts, brexperts.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... 24bnPhilip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Hammond, the chancellor, said that the deal showed that Britain “has lost none of its allure to international investors”, but industry leaders warned it was a setback for the country.
Last week, she said that the Government should be capable of stepping in when a foreign firm swoops for British businesses that are important to workers and communities. Today, Theresa May hailed the £24bn takeover of ARM Holdings by Japanese firm SoftBank
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 42556.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
Swansea
Is it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?Since they sell us billions of pounds worth of goods per year more than we do them, it is they, not us, who will come off worst from any “trade war”. The UK is one of the biggest importers of goods from the EU, and they threaten us at their peril. If no deal were done at all and we just left, the outcome would be that we would have to pay a 4% tariff on the goods we sell to the EU. However, we could implement the same tariff on their goods and in effect be better off than we are now because we import more.
I'm not an expert (so you can listen to me!) but it sounds like "wibble" to me. Surely tariffs on imports is, in effect, a consumer tax on UK residents in the form of higher prices? We import from 27 EU countries, while 27 EU countries will face only tariffs from one, us.tinybgoat wrote:tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... s-of-trade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;David Davis needn’t worry about the “sheer generosity” of rights granted to EU nationals triggering a “surge in new arrivals”. One of the many things Mr Davis and his fellow Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that it was the UK’s reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan society, light years ahead of most other European countries in terms of multiculturalism and mutual respect, that attracted many of us to make our lives here. By destroying this reputation, leave campaigners and voters have done more to curb future immigration from EU countries than the most draconian measures the new government will be able to impose.
Silke Lührmann
SwanseaIs it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?Since they sell us billions of pounds worth of goods per year more than we do them, it is they, not us, who will come off worst from any “trade war”. The UK is one of the biggest importers of goods from the EU, and they threaten us at their peril. If no deal were done at all and we just left, the outcome would be that we would have to pay a 4% tariff on the goods we sell to the EU. However, we could implement the same tariff on their goods and in effect be better off than we are now because we import more.
What compromise is available?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.
But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
yahyah wrote:Another lesson to be learnt. Don't launch a coup if you can't manage to carry it off, and if you do then find a better candidate than Eagle.
Thanks (Robert & Willow).RobertSnozers wrote:I don't know much about this but I would assume that import duty can end up being paid by UK consumers through higher prices being passed on, or by importers taking a smaller profit, or a bit of both. There are presumably export tariffs to consider as well, where EU companies pay their own governments for the privilege of selling to the UK, which would both restrict the amount of goods exported to us, and put up the price.Willow904 wrote:I'm not an expert (so you can listen to me!) but it sounds like "wibble" to me. Surely tariffs on imports is, in effect, a consumer tax on UK residents in the form of higher prices? We import from 27 EU countries, while 27 EU countries will face only tariffs from one, us.tinybgoat wrote: Is it just me, or has he misunderstood who pays the tariffs, and regardless of that it's still a daft argument?
My understanding of import tariffs is that they are principally a means of restricting imports rather than a means of raising money. I'd have thought they were fundamentally contrary to the kind of free market ideology Davis et al stand for.
The same for Brits in France . When it was still fresh, some local people were as much in visible shock as many of us . All were very solicitous towards me, in sympathy .Brits in Italy receive sympathetic looks as concerned locals seek to understand how UK voters could have made such a drastic choice.
Sky is going to kill formula 1. It needs a lot of money, which means sponsorship, which means an audience and Sky just can't attract the numbers. As many of the teams are based in the UK, there are a lot of technical jobs relying on it. If Sky can't even support elite sports properly, there's no hope for the Olympics legacy, is there, with an ever growing paywall for access to any kind of sports viewing.adam wrote:From the graun
Open TV viewing figures plunge by 75% in first year of Sky Sports coverage
The bbc highlights programme had better viewing figures - by about 400,000 - than the peak viewing on Sky.
Cricket sold their rights to Sky, just after the 2005 Ashes series when kids were bringing cricket gear into school and taking over the yard. Since then we can't even get students together for an organised school team, never mind them choosing to follow the sport. Golf has different uptake issues, obviously, but it's just another example of what a terrible pall Sky brings to the national mood over what should be really strong community-minded behaviour over televised sport.
RobertSnozers wrote:Indeed. Astonishing that having launched the coup, which had clearly been planned for some time (so much so that the plans were published in the media weeks before), and on its failure to cause Corbyn to step down, they had nothing whatsoever to back it up with. Does anyone seriously believe that this was a spontaneous uprising?yahyah wrote:Another lesson to be learnt. Don't launch a coup if you can't manage to carry it off, and if you do then find a better candidate than Eagle.
Interesting how many people are now repeating Eagle's line that they tried to serve Corbyn, but x,y, or z event proved to them that he could not lead. (These are, in some cases, people who didn't resign at the Iraq war, but hey). Almost as though they felt they had to prove their good faith to angry members of their local party.
Competence.
Is that better, or worse, than simply having "the wrong sort of" rail minister, do you reckon?HindleA wrote:Today's 'all peers' meeting with Govt on @SouthernRailUK fiasco has been cancelled ... due to the shortage of a Rail Minister in Commons
#Labour Peers
That's rea;y not how its going to happen,if you think that you are delusional...SpinningHugo wrote:What compromise is available?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.
But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.
One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.
Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.
The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.
There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.
On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.
Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.
Well, we'll see won#t we? We have both made verifiable predictions as to the future and one at least will be wrong. I think the PLP is more cohesive than you do.Current events are not attributable to 20 Blairite bastards. Neither Smith nor Eagle are in that category.Temulkar wrote:That's rea;y not how its going to happen,if you think that you are delusional...SpinningHugo wrote:What compromise is available?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.
But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.
One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.
Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.
The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.
There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.
On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.
Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.
Corbyn is likely to win the contest by a huge margin according to Te Times poll. The NEC is likely to be overwhelmingly left wing and supportive. At that point deselection rules will be change and the split will happen. The 20-30 whigs will leave and after shouting a lot about how awfully mean Corbyn and his followers are, they will be wiped out in the next election.
As I've said previously there are some excellent non-Corbynista female MPs in the Shadow Cabinet - Abrahams, Rayner & Thornberry are my favourites - I'd love to hear from them more.SpinningHugo wrote:What compromise is available?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:There is no doubt for me that there are substantial failings on all sides in the Labour leadership debacle.
But what is invariably needed in these situations is for all sides to sit down together, to listen to each other and to compromise. It's not rocket science. Continued attacks by one side on the other will only lead to fracture. And history tells us that won't work out well.
Watson tried, and failed. Many on here kept on saying that there were rules for a challenge and that they should be invoked. Now they are.
One side want Corbyn gone. The other side don't.
Corbyn will, without doubt, win, and next year we'll go through this again.
The next year will be painful in the extreme. The shadow shadow cabinet is extremely thin. 81%+ of MPs want their leader in the Commons gone.
There is not going to be a split. Instead the fight over Labour will continue, with Corbyn and supporters seeking deselections, while the MPs continue to try to remove him.
On and on it will go. With each side blaming the other.
Don't elect a leader with no Parliamentary support is the lesson. Or, at least elect a competent one.
Although this is a qualitative claim, I think we'll see over the course of the next year whether it is true that Corbyn has unearthed some hidden gems so as to construct a viable shadow cabinet.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:[
As I've said previously there are some excellent non-Corbynista female MPs in the Shadow Cabinet - Abrahams, Rayner & Thornberry are my favourites - I'd love to hear from them more.
but looks who's involved...One of the very worst academy chains operating in Kent in my view, as illustrated many times elsewhere on this website is Lilac Sky Academy Trust (LLSAT), founded by Mr Trevor Averre-Beeson in 2009. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the Academies operation of Lilac Sky is to be closed down by the Regional Schools Commissioner, all the schools to be passed over to other chains, with parents being quietly informed on academy websites. The Chair of the Academy Trust has already gone, to be replaced by a new Interim Chair.
and what's worse...The academy is being handed over to ‘Turner Schools’ along with Morehall Academy, also in Folkestone. There is little information available about this organisation, but: “Jo Saxton, Ph.D. is founder of Turner Schools, a new MAT dedicated to improving outcomes in East and North Kent, and is a Trustee of NSN, the charity that helps people set-up new state funded schools. Until recently Jo was Chief Executive of Future Academies, the MAT chaired by Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, and Jo remains a Director of the Trust”. Turner Schools has also been reported as being interested in taking over the controversial Spires Academy in Canterbury.
So a year after 4 new schools opened, the trust is being shut down?Other Lilac Sky Academies
In Kent, these are Thistle Hill Primary on the Isle of Sheppey, Principal Ms Averre, and Richmond Primary in Sheerness, both to pass to Stour Academy Trust, see letter. There are also four primary academies in East Sussex, Hailsham and Newhaven, new build one form entry academies opened in September 2015, White House Academy new build one form entry primary opened September 2014; and Marshlands Academy, served with a Government Pre-Termination Warning in November 2015, because of unacceptably low standards.
Its not good, no.SpinningHugo wrote:This is what Hilary Benn was referring to on radio 4 just now
http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian ... ty_members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought it shocking.
thatchersorphan wrote:Bulk data collection only lawful in serious crime cases, ECJ preliminary finding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ht-serious" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Interesting snippet from that poll.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Last night's YouGov poll of Labour members was taken before Smith had launched his campaign, which is I think a bit naughty.
I now have no doubt that he has more potential to win over people than Eagle.