Expats can vote if they have been out of the country for less than 15 years. At which point, their right to vote ends.
Which is disgraceful, and I haven't found another European country where that happens. My mate as a dual citizen has a permanent national vote in both Germany and Sweden
I don't think it disgraceful at all. Just because other countries have different rules, it doesn't make ours wrong.
I know that you feel strongly about this but others feel just as strongly that if you don't reside in a country, you relinquish the right to influence it's politics.
I know that you will come back to me and point out that you contribute financially into the U.K. but I assume that you do this for long term financial security/gain? Forgive me if I have misunderstood as I do not accuse you of anything, just looking to get the facts right.
Assuming that I am correct then how would you differentiate your financial input to that of a foreign investor in a business or property in the U.K.?
Clearly you have family and emotional attachment that people born in another country may not but I can't see a practical difference.
Not looking for a fight, just my view. Happy to debate.
It would be very unfair not to let expats vote, as well as administratively impractical, especially for people who move every couple of years. Part of the modern world is that people move around for work and other reasons. Moving abroad does not make them a 'traitor to the country' as I was amusingly called on here once!
It used to be.
????
We voted against the unfettered right of people to move from country to country for work and other reasons. It was all about bringing back control.
People can still "move around for work and other reasons" though
Yes. For the next few months. Beyond that it's entirely unclear.
But I'm sure you understand the point.
I do understand it, I just don't agree with it
You don't agree that we have had the ability to move country in the past? Or you don't agree that the right to do so is going to be curtailed?
I believe that you will still be able to travel and work in whatever country you can now, all be it with a bit more paperwork to fill in and an extra stamp in your passport
We can only hope.
Do you think there will be complete bans on going to certain EU countries after Brexit then?
I don't think anyone thinks that. But there will be - for the first time in decades - restrictions on who can live and work where.
Expats can vote if they have been out of the country for less than 15 years. At which point, their right to vote ends.
Which is disgraceful, and I haven't found another European country where that happens. My mate as a dual citizen has a permanent national vote in both Germany and Sweden
I don't think it disgraceful at all. Just because other countries have different rules, it doesn't make ours wrong.
I know that you feel strongly about this but others feel just as strongly that if you don't reside in a country, you relinquish the right to influence it's politics.
I know that you will come back to me and point out that you contribute financially into the U.K. but I assume that you do this for long term financial security/gain? Forgive me if I have misunderstood as I do not accuse you of anything, just looking to get the facts right.
Assuming that I am correct then how would you differentiate your financial input to that of a foreign investor in a business or property in the U.K.?
Clearly you have family and emotional attachment that people born in another country may not but I can't see a practical difference.
Not looking for a fight, just my view. Happy to debate.
It would be very unfair not to let expats vote, as well as administratively impractical, especially for people who move every couple of years. Part of the modern world is that people move around for work and other reasons. Moving abroad does not make them a 'traitor to the country' as I was amusingly called on here once!
It used to be.
????
We voted against the unfettered right of people to move from country to country for work and other reasons. It was all about bringing back control.
People can still "move around for work and other reasons" though
Yes. For the next few months. Beyond that it's entirely unclear.
But I'm sure you understand the point.
I do understand it, I just don't agree with it
You don't agree that we have had the ability to move country in the past? Or you don't agree that the right to do so is going to be curtailed?
I believe that you will still be able to travel and work in whatever country you can now, all be it with a bit more paperwork to fill in and an extra stamp in your passport
We can only hope.
Do you think there will be complete bans on going to certain EU countries after Brexit then?
I don't think anyone thinks that. But there will be - for the first time in decades - restrictions on who can live and work where.
So you think that same as me, but you think it's a negative and I think it's a positive
Expats can vote if they have been out of the country for less than 15 years. At which point, their right to vote ends.
Which is disgraceful, and I haven't found another European country where that happens. My mate as a dual citizen has a permanent national vote in both Germany and Sweden
I don't think it disgraceful at all. Just because other countries have different rules, it doesn't make ours wrong.
I know that you feel strongly about this but others feel just as strongly that if you don't reside in a country, you relinquish the right to influence it's politics.
I know that you will come back to me and point out that you contribute financially into the U.K. but I assume that you do this for long term financial security/gain? Forgive me if I have misunderstood as I do not accuse you of anything, just looking to get the facts right.
Assuming that I am correct then how would you differentiate your financial input to that of a foreign investor in a business or property in the U.K.?
Clearly you have family and emotional attachment that people born in another country may not but I can't see a practical difference.
Not looking for a fight, just my view. Happy to debate.
It would be very unfair not to let expats vote, as well as administratively impractical, especially for people who move every couple of years. Part of the modern world is that people move around for work and other reasons. Moving abroad does not make them a 'traitor to the country' as I was amusingly called on here once!
It used to be.
????
We voted against the unfettered right of people to move from country to country for work and other reasons. It was all about bringing back control.
No we didn't, we voted to leave the EU - we could do that without impacting the "right of people to move from country to country for work and other reasons" - the government have decided themselves to remove this right.
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
Surprised May bothered as I think Ruth Davidson is doing a great job North of the border and, while we're on the subject of the Tories and Scotland, I would absolutely love to see Anus Robertson lose his seat to them as is being touted
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
Or perhaps rather than playing in the European championship we are now playing in the World Cup.
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
Or perhaps rather than playing in the European championship we are now playing in the World Cup.
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
Or perhaps rather than playing in the European championship we are now playing in the World Cup.
As Charlton Athletic
I was just using the war criminal's argument against him. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree just a different spin (he loves spin!)
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
Or perhaps rather than playing in the European championship we are now playing in the World Series.
"The single market put us in the Champions League of trading agreements. A free-trade agreement is like League One. We are relegating ourselves.”
You can't really be relegated from the Champions League though (although if you finish 3rd in your group I think you drop into the Europa) - Blair needs to work on his footballing analogies.,
His analogy works for me. We were qualified to take part in the Champions league but have decided to decline to take part and have asked to be relegated from the Premiership into League 1.
Or perhaps rather than playing in the European championship we are now playing in the World Cup.
I am under absolutely no illusions at the moment that, given the damning evidence from today back to when she first entered Number 10, May is totally out of her depth and as absolutely no place leading our country, through Brexit or otherwise. Whatever reason that would lead someone to go put a cross next to the Tory on polling day cannot override this fact. Regardless of whether you think Corbyn or anyone else would be unsuitable, we at least know May is the wrong choice from her track record. At least someone else may be able to reverse the damage she has already done to our perillious negotiating position with the EU.
Labour is not going to win, but if the Tories get a decreased majority May will probably go and the natural successor will have to be more positive about the single market. So people shouldn't have an issue voting for Labour or the Lib Dems - it will be the best way of avoiding the impending financial disaster.
May hasn't got a clue. Smacks of someone who has never been told no. No wonder she has surrounded herself with brown-nosing sycophants who call her Mummy. Absolutely disgusting.
The Investigatory Powers bill has received royal assent and been signed into law in the UK. This basically means that the government, police, secret services, local council, in fact pretty much any authorities in the country can legally access your personal data,including emails, messaging, internet activities etc. etc. They can also legally hack your devices, potentially use your laptop/smart TV camera to snoop on you. It is probably the most draconian surveillance legislation in any democracy around the world.
The Investigatory Powers bill has received royal assent and been signed into law in the UK. This basically means that the government, police, secret services, local council, in fact pretty much any authorities in the country can legally access your personal data,including emails, messaging, internet activities etc. etc. They can also legally hack your devices, potentially use your laptop/smart TV camera to snoop on you. It is probably the most draconian surveillance legislation in any democracy around the world.
Totally against this, but the response from them will be that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.
That, of course, is not the bloody point!
Surveillance overkill and will be used against ordinary citizens for the wrong reasons.
May hasn't got a clue. Smacks of someone who has never been told no. No wonder she has surrounded herself with brown-nosing sycophants who call her Mummy. Absolutely disgusting.
Did you see May on Andrew Marr? What a car crash of an interview for her. No wonder she won't participate in a televised debate. It is laughable that people think she can handle Brexit when she can't even handle a fairly friendly interview with Marr.
She just did not answer the questions. When asked about nurses being so poor that had to use food banks, her answer was that the reason people use food banks is complex! No it isn't - the reason people use food banks is simple - they can't afford to buy their own food.
And her claim that actually a lot of nurses have had 3% rises not 1% - my wife nearly had a heart attack, she was so enraged by this outright lie (she works in the NHS).
The people will give May and the Tories a blank cheque. I see it as good because they have no chance of doing a deal ( unless they promise go give away all your money...not theirs) and then we will be in no deal circumstances which might make people see what these D-list Tories are really like. We will see the skull beneath the skin.
The Investigatory Powers bill has received royal assent and been signed into law in the UK. This basically means that the government, police, secret services, local council, in fact pretty much any authorities in the country can legally access your personal data,including emails, messaging, internet activities etc. etc. They can also legally hack your devices, potentially use your laptop/smart TV camera to snoop on you. It is probably the most draconian surveillance legislation in any democracy around the world.
Depressing that we are not seeing a lot more public outcry at this.
Just caught up with that Marr interview with her yesterday.
What an absolutely disgusting insult to highly qualified, highly trained, caring, critical members of our society. She didn't even acknowledge their value to us all in her answer, just parroted out another stock phrase like the cliché machine she is. Is it any wonder nursing and medical staff are bailing out of the UK to live in countries that not only value them but pay them appropriately too.
The Investigatory Powers bill has received royal assent and been signed into law in the UK. This basically means that the government, police, secret services, local council, in fact pretty much any authorities in the country can legally access your personal data,including emails, messaging, internet activities etc. etc. They can also legally hack your devices, potentially use your laptop/smart TV camera to snoop on you. It is probably the most draconian surveillance legislation in any democracy around the world.
Depressing that we are not seeing a lot more public outcry at this.
Well, maybe not. The clue is in the first section of the legislation entitled "Unlawful interception". Its position in the legislation right up there at the front tells you a lot.
Can I add some insight as someone who used to seek authority to obtain various data about individuals from time to time. First off, I could do most of the stuff that comes under IPA under the previous legislation I worked under, namely the FSMA 2000 and the RIPA 2000 and even the gateways available under DPA 1998. In fact the latter, for example, in section 28 is quite clear about when the disclosure of personal data is permitted.
You'll notice that these pieces of legislation were brought in during a period when we had the Labours in Govt. As far as I can recall, no one made much of a fuss about it then either. You can give these Acts whatever emotive name you like, but the truth of the matter is that they are used very carefully and in a targeted manner. There are also all sorts of checks and balances. For example, here's the list of authorities that can use the legislation to obtain information. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/schedule/4/enacted
You'll notice that a senior official is required to sign off use of the powers. There will also have to be good grounds for their use. That's why all the initial sections of the Act contain all sorts of dire warnings, penalties and criminal sanctions for the misuse of the powers.
In short, an official would have to be barking mad to even attempt misuse of the Act to obtain personal data. You'll also notice that the list in Sch. 4 does not include all and sundry. In fact the only organisation in the list that I don't quite understand is "An ambulance trust in England" (Maybe I am missing something?). It is otherwise quite realistic that all the other entities need access to data in order to carry out their investigatory functions properly and thoroughly.
It really is a fuss about nothing. I would be very surprised indeed if these powers were ever abused.
TV coverage of Corbyn today. In the rain. He seems to have a nice young lady holding his umbrella for him. I wonder if she's on zero hours? (Even QEII carries her own umbrella ffs.)
Just caught up with that Marr interview with her yesterday.
What an absolutely disgusting insult to highly qualified, highly trained, caring, critical members of our society. She didn't even acknowledge their value to us all in her answer, just parroted out another stock phrase like the cliché machine she is. Is it any wonder nursing and medical staff are bailing out of the UK to live in countries that not only value them but pay them appropriately too.
(Why can't I embed videos any more...argh!!)
When asked why poorly paid nurses went to food banks her answer was that the reasons why people go to foodbanks was complex. She must love the existence of foodbanks for nurses in the country in which she is Prime Minister, even David Cameron expressed regret and discomfort about the growth in foodbanks when asked by Paxman during the last election, Theresa May probably thinks 'great. we can cut welfare, and if people complain we can issue them tripadvisor guides to foodbanks'. These Tories are not even D-List, and people moan about Corbyn.
How complex can it be? They can't afford food. Mainly because nurses are having to work ludicrous hours in horrendous conditions for terrible pay and it's getting worse under this government.
How complex can it be? They can't afford food. Mainly because nurses are having to work ludicrous hours in horrendous conditions for terrible pay and it's getting worse under this government.
How complex can it be? They can't afford food. Mainly because nurses are having to work ludicrous hours in horrendous conditions for terrible pay and it's getting worse under this government.
Comments
(And anyone)
What is the point of being a citizen of a country if you cannot vote?
You could vote then. It's really deciding what your priorities are.
This basically means that the government, police, secret services, local council, in fact pretty much any authorities in the country can legally access your personal data,including emails, messaging, internet activities etc. etc.
They can also legally hack your devices, potentially use your laptop/smart TV camera to snoop on you.
It is probably the most draconian surveillance legislation in any democracy around the world.
That, of course, is not the bloody point!
Surveillance overkill and will be used against ordinary citizens for the wrong reasons.
She just did not answer the questions. When asked about nurses being so poor that had to use food banks, her answer was that the reason people use food banks is complex! No it isn't - the reason people use food banks is simple - they can't afford to buy their own food.
And her claim that actually a lot of nurses have had 3% rises not 1% - my wife nearly had a heart attack, she was so enraged by this outright lie (she works in the NHS).
They bore the hell out of me and I wrote them.
What an absolutely disgusting insult to highly qualified, highly trained, caring, critical members of our society. She didn't even acknowledge their value to us all in her answer, just parroted out another stock phrase like the cliché machine she is. Is it any wonder nursing and medical staff are bailing out of the UK to live in countries that not only value them but pay them appropriately too.
(Why can't I embed videos any more...argh!!)
Can I add some insight as someone who used to seek authority to obtain various data about individuals from time to time. First off, I could do most of the stuff that comes under IPA under the previous legislation I worked under, namely the FSMA 2000 and the RIPA 2000 and even the gateways available under DPA 1998. In fact the latter, for example, in section 28 is quite clear about when the disclosure of personal data is permitted.
You'll notice that these pieces of legislation were brought in during a period when we had the Labours in Govt. As far as I can recall, no one made much of a fuss about it then either. You can give these Acts whatever emotive name you like, but the truth of the matter is that they are used very carefully and in a targeted manner. There are also all sorts of checks and balances. For example, here's the list of authorities that can use the legislation to obtain information. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/schedule/4/enacted
You'll notice that a senior official is required to sign off use of the powers. There will also have to be good grounds for their use. That's why all the initial sections of the Act contain all sorts of dire warnings, penalties and criminal sanctions for the misuse of the powers.
In short, an official would have to be barking mad to even attempt misuse of the Act to obtain personal data. You'll also notice that the list in Sch. 4 does not include all and sundry. In fact the only organisation in the list that I don't quite understand is "An ambulance trust in England" (Maybe I am missing something?). It is otherwise quite realistic that all the other entities need access to data in order to carry out their investigatory functions properly and thoroughly.
It really is a fuss about nothing. I would be very surprised indeed if these powers were ever abused.
She must love the existence of foodbanks for nurses in the country in which she is Prime Minister, even David Cameron expressed regret and discomfort about the growth in foodbanks when asked by Paxman during the last election, Theresa May probably thinks 'great. we can cut welfare, and if people complain we can issue them tripadvisor guides to foodbanks'.
These Tories are not even D-List, and people moan about Corbyn.