How much upset was there over the color (or the colour) of the passports?
I’ve heard that Boris Johnson has someone in mind to come up with one.
As of today we Yanks have a spare bombastic that Boris could invite in for tea and shenanigans. I’m sure that little diversion would take some pressure off Boris’ need to be seen as performing.
Funnily enough, over 95% of the EU regulations on financial services were either written by the UK or already matched what the UK had in place at the time of implementation. We’re now going to see a slow drifting apart of regulatory requirements, with lighter or less stringent regulation in the EU than in Britain. That’s likely to draw more business to the Continent in terms of headquartering and ‘home country’ status over time, although they will continue to do plenty of business in the UK.
It’s a classic button-push issue (like bent bananas etc), mostly cooked-up by Priti Patel (HM’s Home Secretary, previously Secretary of State for International Development).
Here’s the Gov’t statement: note the weasel words.
Iconic blue passports return next month - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
“Britons will be able to travel with a blue passport when the traditional colour returns for the first time in almost 30 years.”
“The distinctive blue cover will be re-introduced now the UK has left the EU, and will replace burgundy passports which were gradually rolled out from 1988.”
"Leaving the European Union gave us a unique opportunity to restore our national identity and forge a new path in the world.
By returning to the iconic blue and gold design, the British passport will once again be entwined with our national identity and I cannot wait to travel on one."
"The blue cover is a return to the original appearance of the British passport, with the colour first used in 1921.
It remained the colour of choice until the UK joined the EU when a change to burgundy was agreed and adopted."
But this nowhere says that the UK was compelled to change its passport colour/color anytime between joining on 1 January 1973 and leaving 47 years later. That’s because it wasn’t!
For some essentially right-wing, pro-Brexit comments, look at the Daily Express.
"The burgundy document approved by Brussels caused upset among Eurosceptics when it was introduced in 1988.
Brussels later floated plans to remove the Queen’s crest to make it more European and to end use of the phrase “Her Britannic Majesty” in the documents."
But this was a proposal made by members of the EU, the club we had joined. And we, and other members would have none of it.
So: it’s another Brexit lie.
My understanding is that it won’t be the traditional dark blue, but rather closer to turquoise. And printed in Poland, Which is in the EU.
What else do you call it when a government is deciding when and how to use cheap loans, grants, tax allowances and so on to encourage and support new technologies to replace dying industries, whether and where to invest in infrastructure, and to do so in a way that encourages geographically, socially well-balanced and sustainable economic development? Wasn’t that part of Trump’s appeal (however confused)? Isn’t what every government tries to do, however imperfectly?
For decades (way back into the 60s to my certain knowledge) there has been an argument in the UK that financial services have led to lop-sided economic and social development. If their (overheated?) expansion in recent decades is now going to deflate because of Brexit, how else are we going to be able to make up the lost ground?
If they’re musicians like Van Morrison, the Gallagher brothers or (sadly) Ian Brown, well, Europe is well rid of the plague rats.
And is Britain better off without, say, Simon Rattle?
There’s a lot more money in popular music and yet this is hurting those musicians; in the classical arena this has already been devastating.
Rattle was already half-arsing it - I think he was functionally only 1 month of the year actually at the LSO, and at home in Berlin the rest of the time. Let’s face it, the new concert hall was never going to get built. And Europe is better off having him in Bavaria. Sucks to be Britain, but then if you can’t tell, I take Europe’s side on this. And like I said, it’s better off without idiots like Morrison. And utter fucking hypocrites like Brexiteer Daltrey. Talk about completely out of touch: “We used to tour Europe in the 60s and 70s without the EU” Yeah, well, Grandad, the world has moved on.
Sounds like the whole “reducing bureaucracy” thing is going swimmingly. [Narrator: It was not.]
(probably paywalled, sorry)
From a trucker in the article: “The only way I can explain it is to say that everything used to run freely, there was no waiting for paperwork; but last Friday I was held up five hours in Kent,” he said.
“We are all stuck in limbo — one of our lads was here for four days early in January,” Mr. Lucas said. “It’s terrible, absolutely terrible,” he added, and “I can only see it getting worse before it gets better.”
Yes, of course everything ran smoothly and there was no paperwork, when your country was a member of the EU. What do you expect now that you chose to go off on your own?
That doesn’t seem to be the way the public are seeing it.
Not only has he lasted, he’s seen as the best option for PM and the Tories are back in the lead..
And all this was on polling done before the EU layed its steaming turd regarding the potential vaccine export restrictions.
I guess I’m eating crow.
That doesn’t change the fact that Britain is not in a good spot. The fact that Boris could do with NI what he did is a “brevet van onvermogen” (licence to fail?) for the opposition. Governments have failed over smaller issues.
I think it’s It’s quite ironic that, given the past four years hand-wringing over the possibility of Brexit leading to a hard Irish border, the first people to threaten it was the EU.
I think it would only be a surprise if someone had no knowledge of the the EU’s track record. And note, they didn’t just threaten it, they imposed a de-facto hard border at the drop of a hat and after apparently zero consultation with either the UK or Ireland.
I would like you to remember that the EU members are sovereign nations. Brexiteers always have trouble with this concept. The EU has no powers to impose anything on Ireland.
I’m not a brexiteer so that’s irrelevant.
And to the best of my knowledge the EU was imposing export restrictions, are you saying that those restrictions did not apply to Ireland?
To who did “they” impose this?
Who is “they”?
The “hard” border between the UK and the EU is a direct consequence (the goal?) of Brexit. The EU has given extraordinary concessions to allow the UK to put NI “inside” the EU border. The idea that the UK would have to do anything less than bend over backwards to appease the EU to be allowed to keep this so is patently ridiculous (to me).
I’ve a feeling you haven’t been following the story.
The criticism of the EU for that hasty decision has been instant and very loud indeed.
I find the idea that any problem on the NI border is somehow not of Boris’ making ridiculous.