Why do you think I watch itlol
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You're just upset because they have more mod powers than you do.........
Its the living wage its just completely gone I feel sorry for young families I saved like mad a humble Craftsman Nursery man interest rates at 11% my wife's earnings were not allowed to be calculated yet I go on the housing ladder in 1977. 2008 bankers crash imo has caused this and yes we bailed the bankers out!
Jib in lad
Player Valuation: £25m
Something like 1.5 million homes have been sold under the right to buy that is where the problem lies.
Last edited:
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Not so sure tbh.....a bit of info in here..
https://static.halifax.co.uk/assets...sing-UK-20th-January-2010-Housing-Release.pdf
Jib in lad
Player Valuation: £25m
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
And there we have it....let's just poke Putin in the eye.....
European Union states agreed on Thursday to waive visas for Ukrainians on short visits, (and ignored the Dutch referendum result), but only after the bloc beefs up a mechanism to suspend visa-free agreements in an emergency.
Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, has fostered closer ties with the EU since Moscow annexed its Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and started backing rebels fighting Kiev's troops in the east of the country.
Many difficulties to progress remain, not least Ukraine's sluggish fight against endemic corruption and the EU's caution on immigration after the arrival of about 1.3 million refugees and migrants in 2015, mainly from the Middle East and North Africa.
But, a week before an EU-Ukraine summit on Nov. 24, EU states gave their conditional backing to allowing Ukrainians to travel visa-free to the bloc for short visits.
Implementation, however, will take time as further negotiations are needed between the EU states, the European Parliament and the bloc's executive European Commission.
The decision on Thursday also says visa liberalization for Ukraine should not take effect until after the bloc - wary of a repeat of last year's refugee influx - rolls out a beefed-up mechanism to lift any visa waivers in case of emergency.
Talks on the so-called suspension mechanism have been making slow progress and diplomats say it could take weeks before it is in place.
European Union states agreed on Thursday to waive visas for Ukrainians on short visits, (and ignored the Dutch referendum result), but only after the bloc beefs up a mechanism to suspend visa-free agreements in an emergency.
Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, has fostered closer ties with the EU since Moscow annexed its Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and started backing rebels fighting Kiev's troops in the east of the country.
Many difficulties to progress remain, not least Ukraine's sluggish fight against endemic corruption and the EU's caution on immigration after the arrival of about 1.3 million refugees and migrants in 2015, mainly from the Middle East and North Africa.
But, a week before an EU-Ukraine summit on Nov. 24, EU states gave their conditional backing to allowing Ukrainians to travel visa-free to the bloc for short visits.
Implementation, however, will take time as further negotiations are needed between the EU states, the European Parliament and the bloc's executive European Commission.
The decision on Thursday also says visa liberalization for Ukraine should not take effect until after the bloc - wary of a repeat of last year's refugee influx - rolls out a beefed-up mechanism to lift any visa waivers in case of emergency.
Talks on the so-called suspension mechanism have been making slow progress and diplomats say it could take weeks before it is in place.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
17 NOVEMBER 2016
First, when it comes to Brexit, there are the familiar problems. On EU law, the prime minister’s idea is to pass a "Great Repeal Bill" to take effect the day we leave. This will do exactly the opposite of what its title suggests: it will confirm the place of every existing EU law in the UK statute books, at least initially. The idea is that Parliament will then go through and review them all over the coming decades.
Even this supposedly most straightforward of steps is riddled with complexity. EU laws in the form of shared regulations lay down cross-border protections for consumers, as well as technical and legal standards enabling products to circulate without further ado. But then what happens when EU countries decide to amend a regulation a few months or years down the line? Do we meekly accept decisions over which we no longer have any say, like Norway, and change our rules too? Or do we allow our rules to drift away from their continental counterparts, thus making technical standards no longer compatible, nullifying consumer guarantees and progressively shutting us out of the single market on which so much British trade depends?
But while the dangers of quitting not just the EU, but the single market and the European customs union as well, are now widely discussed, there is more that we are yet to consider. Soon, though it will be hard to ignore. Over the years, we’ve taken advantage of the EU framework in many practical ways to help us achieve many national objectives. Unpicking each of those is its own bureaucratic nightmare.
For a start, we save money and administrative headaches by doing tasks jointly rather than duplicating each other's effort many times over. Research is the classic example. There’s simply no point in every single country paying for its own expensive medical research, for instance, when collaboration brings better results faster and far more cheaply. In recent years, this joint approach has made Europe a world leader in science and Britain an internationally recognised centre of excellence. Are we really ready to pay an entire continent’s worth of investment out of our own national coffers, simply to try and keep pace with our neighbours?
Then there are areas where we have world-level international commitments to meet, whether we like it or not. Right now, as an EU member, we often delegate compliance to joint agencies. To take just one example: currently we take care of our international reporting and monitoring obligations on maritime safety through our membership of the European Marine Safety Agency (EMSA), and through shared EU rules on seafarer working conditions. This is how we maintain Britain’s status as a "quality flag state" under international law. If we lose this, we don’t lose our obligations — but we do lose our ability to meet them quickly and easily. Will we set up a separate UK agency for this purpose? Where will we find the necessary expertise, how long will it take and what will it cost?
Similar points apply to a whole host of fields. How will we certify aircraft, their engines and other related products for safety if we leave the European Air Safety Agency? How about approving medicines for sale on the market, currently done through the European Medicines Agency based in London? How about testing and authorising (or banning) potentially hazardous chemicals, currently done jointly through the European Chemicals Agency? Responding to coastal pollution (European Environment Agency)? Protecting British trademarks and patents abroad (European Union Intellectual Property Office and the Patent office and court)? Ensuring that our sat-nav systems work (European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency)?
The list of agencies whose work we would suddenly have to duplicate is very long. And every single case will need its own, bespoke, solutions.
Finally, there are areas where we co-operate because there are things we can’t do alone, as a simple matter of logic. It’s futile to make unilateral attempts to manage local fish stocks, for instance, when fish have the unfortunate habit of swimming from one country’s territory to another’s. We can’t possibly maintain our open skies agreement across Europe, vital to so many UK businesses, without the cooperation of other countries. And the European Arrest Warrant, which has both brought homegrown crooks back to face British justice and allowed us to remove foreign ne’er-do-wells from British soil in days rather than decades, simply could not exist without the shared legal frameworks we’ve developed with our neighbours.
In all these areas and many more, the point is not that pulling out of the EU means throwing in the towel. Quite the opposite. We will still need to find ways to do these things, either because of blatant self-interest or because of our wider commitments to the world. Other non-EU members do them too. But once we’ve lost our EU membership, we will have the worst of both worlds. We’ll incur massive economic and bureaucratic costs – the kind of costs we’ve spent the last fifty years gradually eliminating — at the same time as crippling our effectiveness both domestically and on the world stage. At best, we will have to find new and potentially complex ways to continue the cooperation which, inside the EU, has been straightforward. At worst, we will simply have to duplicate everything.
It’s all too easy, as Britain is now discovering, to decide one day to quit the EU. But managing the fallout from that decision is a bureaucratic and costly nightmare, and getting Britain back on its feet post-Brexit will be a Herculean task.
Britain in Europe has led the world in so many areas. It seems likely that only through dismantling that leadership will we realise quite how good we’ve had it up till now. When reality hits home, it will hardly be surprising if we see people asking for a rethink of the Brexit decision.
Richard Corbett is the Labour MEP for Yorkshire & Humberside
not true; if those people didn't buy them back then they'd still be in them...or somebody would - so no net gain or loss
Harold McMillan, who was housing minister in the 50's before becoming PM - set/was set a target of 300,000 new houses. It was seen as core policy...not now or so it seems.
17 NOVEMBER 2016
First, when it comes to Brexit, there are the familiar problems. On EU law, the prime minister’s idea is to pass a "Great Repeal Bill" to take effect the day we leave. This will do exactly the opposite of what its title suggests: it will confirm the place of every existing EU law in the UK statute books, at least initially. The idea is that Parliament will then go through and review them all over the coming decades.
Even this supposedly most straightforward of steps is riddled with complexity. EU laws in the form of shared regulations lay down cross-border protections for consumers, as well as technical and legal standards enabling products to circulate without further ado. But then what happens when EU countries decide to amend a regulation a few months or years down the line? Do we meekly accept decisions over which we no longer have any say, like Norway, and change our rules too? Or do we allow our rules to drift away from their continental counterparts, thus making technical standards no longer compatible, nullifying consumer guarantees and progressively shutting us out of the single market on which so much British trade depends?
But while the dangers of quitting not just the EU, but the single market and the European customs union as well, are now widely discussed, there is more that we are yet to consider. Soon, though it will be hard to ignore. Over the years, we’ve taken advantage of the EU framework in many practical ways to help us achieve many national objectives. Unpicking each of those is its own bureaucratic nightmare.
For a start, we save money and administrative headaches by doing tasks jointly rather than duplicating each other's effort many times over. Research is the classic example. There’s simply no point in every single country paying for its own expensive medical research, for instance, when collaboration brings better results faster and far more cheaply. In recent years, this joint approach has made Europe a world leader in science and Britain an internationally recognised centre of excellence. Are we really ready to pay an entire continent’s worth of investment out of our own national coffers, simply to try and keep pace with our neighbours?
Then there are areas where we have world-level international commitments to meet, whether we like it or not. Right now, as an EU member, we often delegate compliance to joint agencies. To take just one example: currently we take care of our international reporting and monitoring obligations on maritime safety through our membership of the European Marine Safety Agency (EMSA), and through shared EU rules on seafarer working conditions. This is how we maintain Britain’s status as a "quality flag state" under international law. If we lose this, we don’t lose our obligations — but we do lose our ability to meet them quickly and easily. Will we set up a separate UK agency for this purpose? Where will we find the necessary expertise, how long will it take and what will it cost?
Similar points apply to a whole host of fields. How will we certify aircraft, their engines and other related products for safety if we leave the European Air Safety Agency? How about approving medicines for sale on the market, currently done through the European Medicines Agency based in London? How about testing and authorising (or banning) potentially hazardous chemicals, currently done jointly through the European Chemicals Agency? Responding to coastal pollution (European Environment Agency)? Protecting British trademarks and patents abroad (European Union Intellectual Property Office and the Patent office and court)? Ensuring that our sat-nav systems work (European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency)?
The list of agencies whose work we would suddenly have to duplicate is very long. And every single case will need its own, bespoke, solutions.
Finally, there are areas where we co-operate because there are things we can’t do alone, as a simple matter of logic. It’s futile to make unilateral attempts to manage local fish stocks, for instance, when fish have the unfortunate habit of swimming from one country’s territory to another’s. We can’t possibly maintain our open skies agreement across Europe, vital to so many UK businesses, without the cooperation of other countries. And the European Arrest Warrant, which has both brought homegrown crooks back to face British justice and allowed us to remove foreign ne’er-do-wells from British soil in days rather than decades, simply could not exist without the shared legal frameworks we’ve developed with our neighbours.
In all these areas and many more, the point is not that pulling out of the EU means throwing in the towel. Quite the opposite. We will still need to find ways to do these things, either because of blatant self-interest or because of our wider commitments to the world. Other non-EU members do them too. But once we’ve lost our EU membership, we will have the worst of both worlds. We’ll incur massive economic and bureaucratic costs – the kind of costs we’ve spent the last fifty years gradually eliminating — at the same time as crippling our effectiveness both domestically and on the world stage. At best, we will have to find new and potentially complex ways to continue the cooperation which, inside the EU, has been straightforward. At worst, we will simply have to duplicate everything.
It’s all too easy, as Britain is now discovering, to decide one day to quit the EU. But managing the fallout from that decision is a bureaucratic and costly nightmare, and getting Britain back on its feet post-Brexit will be a Herculean task.
Britain in Europe has led the world in so many areas. It seems likely that only through dismantling that leadership will we realise quite how good we’ve had it up till now. When reality hits home, it will hardly be surprising if we see people asking for a rethink of the Brexit decision.
Richard Corbett is the Labour MEP for Yorkshire & Humberside
I feel sorry for him in a way. He's wrote all that, but people will dismiss him as a 'Remoaner' and not bother actually reading it, despite it being absolutely spot on.
That's just typical 'Tories in power' stuff. Not shocking to me that they don't give the slightest toss about the poor.
Sharpattack
Player Valuation: £35m
Unfortunately, that argument was made four months ago, and was lost,but the great unwashed didn't care. It was all about "foreigners", as far as they were concerned
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
It's an utter mess. An embarrassment.
Pity his constituents voted to LEAVE - self interest too as in 2 years his job will be defunct!
- Status