Blah Blah

I agree. Given that most people here have been paying taxes for years and decades in some cases (my wife included)and are already well known on existing bureacratic databases, their rights should have been ring fenced. It is the notion of 'application' that irks me most. If it were simply a case of giving an automatic right to remain status, that would be fine. But the language of application suggests some people will be turned down and mistakes will be made.

No surprise regarding Farage, and also note that he is not returning to UKIP, unable to implant himself as party leader there. It was thus always about Farage of course. My view is that whatever happens, a genie is out of the bottle that can not be put back. There is no winnable position as far as the electorate are concerned (although I would love to see how a battle between Farage's new party and UKIP pans out), so MPs have to put the economy first and deal with what comes afterwards. It was political expediency that got us into this mess. It will not be political expediency that gets us out of it.

I was at Parliament Square for the vote on the deal Keano, and it was a very weird experience. To have two opposing sides demonstrating, but wanting the same outcome (the deal voted down). Very surreal. You are right on one thing. There is no deal better than the one we currently have as members of the EU, with our various existing opt outs and rebate. So any deal is going to be a trade off, probably in areas around trade, so what is the point really? The price we will pay for freedom to make trade deals outside of the EU will be reduced access or less competitive access to EU markets. No-one knows how that will work out (even though some try to say they do) because there are so many other factors at play. Any idea though that we can be some great Empire again with booming growth is misguided. The West is in decline and has been for some time.

Quite Tomdhu. This is an age old battle of opinion that has barely changed or shifted in decades. So why anyone thinks it will be resolved now is baffling.

The bulk of asset stripping came in the 80's care of one Goldsmith senior through various takeover bids, not during the Blair years. By the time the Tories reacted, it was too late. Goldsmith just took himself off to America instead and did exactly the same thing there. Where Blair and Brown can be criticised though is in exporting neo-liberal policy to the EU. It was never the other way round as so many leave voters seem to think. The points around QMV are valid ones. but came about from similar discussions around representative democracy, or perceived lack of it, as the EU expanded. The majority voting percentages have been adjusted regularly since, there is nothing new about that. In fact, if the current Treaty of Lisbon percentages had been applied in our referendum, neither side would have won it, which is why I find it somewhat ironic that any leave voter would offer that as any kind of criticism of the EU's voting rules. Once again, it is worth remembering that voting has only gone the opposite way to our government's wishes just 15% of the time since we joined the bloc.

Not true. Did you bother to read the link I sent you at all? If you had bothered to read it, you would see that the UK has been very influential in shaping policy. Oh and not to mention that very bespoke deal we already have, in not being part of Schengen, not adopting the Euro, rebate etc etc. Because you see, you bang on about sovereignty, but ignore the bleeding obvious before your very eyes, that we have always had a say in our role within the EU, always had a say in what we are prepared to adopt. And the truth is that we voted 'for' 85% of all legislation to pass through the EU during our entire membership of it. This is not a story of the UK having legislation foisted on it that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed with. And if you think differently, then prove it with the same detail and insight I have offered. Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial pacts won't cut it ;)

And you Trinnydad have no idea how the EU actually works. Directives only pass if the European Parliament vote for them. Germany has no overriding power in that. WE vote for MEPs. Commissioners are appointed by the governments WE elect. The EU parliament works in a similar way to our own, with stages of voting and intermediate committee stages. Now you tell me what part of that is undemocratic? I really suggest you read this link and learn something about what influences EU law. And then you might want to rethink your idea that Merkel is some kind of kingpin over which none of the other 26 members nations and their leaders have any say. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/10/eu-law-uk-eu-law-without-uk

You clearly have no conception of generational hardship do you TheCat. It can be argued that generational hardship, caused by successive governments doing too little to regenerate the economy outside of the SE is why we are where we are, with the EU being scapegoated for what has been too much reliance on the service sector and the SE for our economic growth. All that brexit delivers, is greater power to those very people who have shaped the economy that genuinely lies at the heart of our woes. Other countries manage perfectly well within the EU with better outcomes and less social inequality. Finland has such a low tax gap that people actually pay more than they need to. Whereas it is no accident that the biggest voices backing brexit politically speaking are also those with numerous offshore interests and have most to lose from the EU's coming directives on tax avoidance and tax havens. They sold a brexit to the people, and promised a deal that would be easy to agree, and have delivered nothing. They sold brexit from a completely different agenda to those they conned into voting for it. And they will continue to fail the very people they have failed for the last 40 years, if they get their way.

But who in their right mind is prepared to wear recession, knowing full well how that compounds millions of people, low paid and unemployed alike to hardship on top of 10 years of already bad austerity? Even worse than that, it makes no economic sense to risk recession at a time where billions have to be spent making those both economic and practical adjustments. And that is for me the whole problem with the Bexit debate. Economics (the real issue) was sidelined for vague notions around sovereignty and immigration. In truth, everything we are is government delivered, over successive decades. That is not going to change because we leave the EU. And also in truth, we have done more to shape EU policy over the past 25 years than being changed by it. This is a good read for an understanding of that. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/10/eu-law-uk-eu-law-without-uk All I see is continued confusion from many leave voters about how any of this stuff actually works.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Goddard and his slightly right of centre > mates are out for a p*ss up by the way on Saturday > - Everyone invited, Lords, Ladies, MPs, Leavers > and Remainers, all except the corrupt global > establishment (Anna Soubry) > > https://twitter.com/JGoddard230616/status/10859014 > 80144580609 They will be running into the Women's March - minus James of course, because he is banned from London for 28 days - conditions of his bail after being arrested for his behaviour the other week.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah said > > ?...compounded by the referendum not delivering a > definitive result either way...? > > ???? 4% is not definitive Keano. In fact, Farage held the same view before the referendum ;) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Corbyn wants a GE because he misguidedly thinks he will win it (even though the polling says he won't and his personal ratings are way down from where they need to be to look like being the next PM - always behind May in fact, and she is not in great shape either). Political expediency is the reason we were given this referendum, and political expediency is shaping much of what is going on in Parliament right now. Both main parties have half an eye on the next GE and both parties need both leave voters and remain voters to vote for them to win it. THAT is the problem, compounded by the referendum not delivering a definitive result either way. Two years have been completely wasted, with no effort to find consensus either within Parliament or among the people. I can see no other way to get a deal through the House than a 2nd referendum right now, and who knows how that will turn out.

She can of course call a 2nd ref arguing that the people should decide on the deal if parliament can't. And Labour are cornered into voting it through if there is no GE by their own membership and conference motion. I think that is where we are heading to be honest, along with an extension to A50 to facilitate it.

She did the right thing and you were right to report it to Police. It does not matter that nothing happened. One day a teenage girl may well accept the offer of a lift and what then? No adult should be pursuing an underage girl in this way, ever.

The whole problem with this debate is that it is biased in regards to type of highway user. Pedestrians are not interacting with vehicles on a pavement, so of course cyclists are branded the worse of the two, just as on the roads, cyclists brand drivers as worse and vice versa. The vast majority of accidents happen because one or more highway users do not use due care and attention, and no single type of road user has a monopoly on that.

This is so needed and a great spot for it too. Echo the comments above about how great Krystal's is.

I thought it was a massive improvement on the recent months, both in terms of management of the panel and the audience. She seems a lot better researched on the arguments too. Will be interesting to see how she handles a more militant audience. Meanwhile, on This Week afterwards, Owen Jones and Andrew Neil showed no such discipline or control.

Pedestrians tend to be on the road near the actual closure, but there has always been a fair amount of jaywalking when the road is clear to be fair. Cycling at speed along Rye Lane has never been an option. Personally, I am liking the absence of buses, and find dismounting to walk the 50 yards with my cycle to the other side of the closure no real inconvenience at all. Cars driving at inappropriate speed might be less of an issue as the works move further down the lane.

So Steve32 is now 'Innocence'. Good to know.

Cycled up there today. The road closure is literally just 50 metres, and you can get off your bicycle and walk it. No need to detour at all.

Sadly the council are under financial pressure and some difficult decisions have to be made. Adult social care or subsidising bulk waste collection is one of them. As far as I know, the fee is ?16 to have the council remove bulk rubbish. There are higher fees and requirements for commercial waste, which is why fly tipping is perhaps on the rise. It's not an easy one to fix.

I think it is a great idea to ask people to donate unused instruments. Does it really matter what school James is helping here? The principle is a good one.

Nope. I can assure you that a lot of Labour members are pretty effed off with Corbyn right now. And we don't buy his lie that he said 'people' and not 'woman' either. He just seems completely out of his depth.

Quite and nor do they seem to realise that most benefit recipients have worked and also paid tax, or that most of them are currently in some type of work, but do not earn enough to live on.

Graphite must be part of lock lubricants for a reason though. Graphite on it's own makes no sense of course, but within a lube it is different. Glad you got it sorted anyway.