I stand corrected then!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.
Thanks.
I stand corrected then!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.
To tediously stir where self same indiv has tirelessly stirred before?Why come to a Forum and just ignore comments of others as though they'd never said them?
and whay is the basis for this belief?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.
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.
I'm lost. Which EU juriosdictions are you suggesting don't abide by freedom of movement?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Other EU jurisdictions already control who is allowed to live and work there. New policy could easily be articulated.
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.
Again, who is doing this constructive engagement? I assume you agree with me that this government won't be doing so.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:As a result of constructive engagement with other EU states, .
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).
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.)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.
How are you envisaging a Uk government that seeks that coming about?
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:You normally argue with details.
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.howsillyofme1 wrote:.
It would be really nice though if they actually engaged with people
tinyclanger2 wrote:PS not directed at PFYs point immediately above.
(obv)
Latest John CraceCarillion? Nothing to do with regretful and disappointed Dave
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... inted-dave" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
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.
I'm washing my hair!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;
Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm washing my hair!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;
Blair as the successor to Thatcher, and Cameron his successor ...AngryAsWell wrote:Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm washing my hair!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;
It would have differed in nuance only.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;
(cJA edit)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.
SpinningHugo wrote: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.howsillyofme1 wrote:.
It would be really nice though if they actually engaged with people
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.RogerOThornhill wrote:I stand corrected then!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.
Thanks.
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.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-48-hoursCarillion 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)
Nope. Tories wanted leadership, they've got leadership. What have they done with it? Failing country and people since their onsetPorFavor wrote:Has anyone seen Theresa May lately?
Goodnight, PorFavorPorFavor wrote:Night night.
(cJA emphasis)PorFavor wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-48-hoursCarillion 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)
I wasn't actually washing my hair I was helping daughter with her maths homework.AngryAsWell wrote:Know your enemy is my motto (plenty in the program still in government)PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm washing my hair!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;
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.Willow904 wrote: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.RogerOThornhill wrote:I stand corrected then!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.
Thanks.
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.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:It would have differed in nuance only.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;
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.
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.
Make the goddamn DWP minister do itFirefighters 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;