How about kids in camps with no adults to look after them and no relatives in the UK Have to be very careful when you are making exceptions
Priority number 2 for 'processing'. The ones with family elsewhere are the easy ones, it shouldn't take months to sort them out.
"...the EU won't have a single financial powerhouse if London leaves..." Your words, Chaz. How have I misquoted you?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...six-years-tax-returns-Panama-Papers-leak.html I love the homemade cardboard placard with the very British "Down a With This Sort Of Thing" message on it.
At the moment the only one that really punches globally is London, but there are really only three or four (NY, Tokyo and possibly HK being the others). If we leave, the EU will definitely build up Frankfurt. They may do so in any case, but by leaving we force their hand and by association we weaken London. I did NOT say London would be the only EU financial centre, nor did I say we would 'lead the EU'. That's how you misquoted me, by saying I said things that I didn't.
What I meant was why are these unaccompanied kids being kept in the camps and not looked after properly by the French system IE children's homes instead of tents
1. You said at #525 "...the EU won't have a single financial powerhouse if London leaves..." I said you said "London would be the single financial powerhouse." 2. You said at #523 "The UK would become the most powerful and influential 'external force' stating an independent case. If anything, it would likely be listened to more than today." I said at #536 "Chaz said "The UK would become the most powerful and influential 'external force' stating an independent case. If anything, it would likely be listened to more than today." Please explain how in either of these I have misquoted you.
My words in point 1 and yours are fundamentally different. I said that if we leave, there would be the need for the EU to build up Frankfurt. If w e stay, they may do that but would not need to. That's different from what you think I said.
Your post #525 in entirety: "And with the UK out of the EU, how is that different? Actually, it's far more likely to happen if we leave because the EU won't have a single financial powerhouse if London leaves..." Where is the reference to Frankfurt?
Stop trying semantics. You were talking about the EU building up Frankfurt so that London wasn't the financial centre of the EU. I responded, saying that leaving would make that a certainty. That's the context you are clearly ignoring.
I accept the context. But if you say the EU won't have a single financial powerhouse if London leaves, then my interpretation of what you were saying, that unless and until Brexit, London will be the single financial powerhouse - seems reasonable and not a misquote
I suspect that chaz may be a politician. Only politicians can wriggle on a hook in such a way, denying anything and everything when it suits.
OK, misinterpretation then. But London may well not be the only financial centre irrespective of the vote. My point was that if we leave, the EU will be forced to build one to rival London, creating the weakening situation you warned against by default. Only by staying in is there the possibility of t that being avoided.
A lot of fuss about inheritance tax today - the Mail calling it 'immoral' because it is tax on money that has already been taxed. Doesn't the same apply to VAT?
The City of London doesn't want a Brexit because it will be very bad for business. If it was otherwise and the City would thrive outside the EU - we'd have left a long time ago, and they wouldn't have bothered with a vote.
I don't think it's immoral but I do think it encourages 'avoidance' and the threshold should be very high. VAT is a more immoral tax because it is not progressive in any sense. why do people need to hide their dosh if there is no inheritance tax?
