placeholder

Actually, my impression was that it was you who didn't read the link provided given what I posted above.

This is from your the page your link connects to: "If you were legally living in an EU country before 1 January 2021, your right to work will be protected as long as you carry on living there. This is because you are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement. You’re also protected by the Withdrawal Agreement if you started working in one EU country and living in a different EU country or the UK, before 1 January 2021. You’ll have the same rights as nationals of the country you’re working in when it comes to working conditions, pay and social security (for example, benefits)." See any difference between then and now?

Sometimes I start half-believing...nah not really. And, I never take these people at their word about what their actual situations really are. In fact, I don't take anyone on this forum at their word about their personal experiences in large matter like this. How to verify? Do the moderators run background checks on all members to ensure that their personal reports are accurate? Telling me how to repair a bathtub is one thing. Claiming certain personal experience as relevant to issues that affect millions is quite another. And for the same reason, I don't acquiesce in their attempts to make it personal about me. Or, in a very recent case about you and them: "You obviously cannot cope, get some proffesion business help my family are still doing very well.." Comments like this reveal how little integrity and how much hostility some posters harbor.

I'm just trying explicate more clearly the revolutionary and in-absolutely-no-way-nonsensical arguments of members like DaLa and Kwasaki.

And your unverifiable personal claims put you in perspective, too.

It has no relevance. This is just Mickmanus trying to make it personal. As though alleged personal experience, whether actual or not, actually have evidentiary value when drawn from a nation that has over 65 million inhabitants.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that decreasing the number of prosperous businesses in the UK is actually good for the UK economy.

I don't think you understand. It's good for the UK that those slackers are no longer bringing so much money into the UK economy and buying as much from other businesses in the UK. Which will make doing business harder for those people which will be good for the uk because those businesses in turn will buy less from other uk businesses and so forth and so on. And it gets even better because they all will also be paying less in taxes. Ya see, sometimes lose, lose = win, win. Do you understand it now?

Once again, a right-winger turns to videos to make a case. What do you people have against reading? is it that it's too easy to spot the B.S. when an argument is committed to the written word?

Just to note that these are the words of the Vice-President of the Confederacy.

Ya got me there. But, of course, it's pretty much universally recognized that Washington was fighting for a good cause. Somehow, I don't see fighting for the preservation of slavery as possessing quite the same cachet.

I've been thinking about what you've written here and perhaps I was unfair in my comments about masochism. It could be that you just revolutionized the whole field of economics. Your thesis seems to be "the harder it is to do business, the more business will get done." Clearly, what the UK needs to do is to pile on even more paperwork to match what the EU is doing. And impose inspections just as strict and time-consuming. The result being that the UK will prosper as never before!

Utterly believable!

The motto of masochists if ever there was one.

The extremists used to be the fringe? What was Newt Gingrich then?

It's not so clear anymore that Trump is supporting McCarthy. It's like his stance on vaccines. He was very vociferous i claiming credit for them until his base turned against them. Now nothing. Now Trump is trying to lead by following.

One other thing about the Morrill Tariffs. They only passed because 7 of the Southern States had already seceded and all those Senators were anti-Tariff. Had they remained, the Tariffs would not have passed. "Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage." https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

Add "entrepreneur" to his C.V. Santos charging to attend swearing-in: reports https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3797509-santos-charging-to-attend-swearing-in-reports/

Before the war the tariff hardly figured in reasons given for secession. Were they keeping it a secret? https://www.thoughtco.com/morrill-tariff-real-cause-of-the-civil-war-1773719 Whereas the defense of slavery figured prominently in every state's declaration of secession. And all of the seceding states mention Abraham Lincoln and his suspected abolitionist program. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Because "necessary" isn't the key word to justify the distinction? Your objection is utterly irrelevant.

Yes, he was a traitor to the UK. Has anyone put up a statue of him at Sandhurst?

Necessary? No choice in the matter? Really?

Given that the govt of the UK has actually proposed breaking the rules, what's the big deal about bending them?

Santos claims he's not a criminal. Brazil isn't so sure about that: Prosecutors in Brazil reopening criminal fraud case against George Santos https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3796179-prosecutors-in-brazil-reopening-criminal-fraud-case-against-george-santos/