Pffft. Either way, having Labour with 9,708,716 votes or Conservatives+Reform with 10,946,545 rule a state populated by about 67 million in conjunction with an unelected House of Lords and an autocratic, legally unaccountable monarch is a travesty in terms of democracy.
-
CFC is giving away a few founder editions, sponsored by Firaxis! We have 3 contests running: A Civ7 banner contest for the forum, also A civilization story contest and as third The modder raffle. Join the contests and maybe win a founder edition!
UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?
- Thread starter Arakhor
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uk politics
For how long were they originally supposed to be valid then?
EDIT: nvm, Google knew: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-68675348.amp
EDIT: nvm, Google knew: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-68675348.amp
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
My UK passports have always expired after 10 years. I got my first aged 9, so I'm now on my 5th, issued this June (just in time for our holiday...).
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,550
So it was previously a maximum of 10 years and 9 months? This doesn't seem noteworthy...
Edit: Although yes, potentially significant if you're not aware of this and are going by the expiry date printed on the passport.
What's relevant is where EU requirements and UK law intersect.
As I understand it, while the UK was in the EU, members rules applied and when the passport was issued didn't matter, it just had to be in date for travel.
Now that the UK is not a member, standard EU rules apply (for travel to most of the EU):
'Your passport should be valid for at least 3 months after the date you intend to leave the EU and it must have been issued within the last 10 years'
So a passport issued by the UK that would previously have been sufficient for travel is now not sufficient.
I was looking up the rules earlier today myself for a trip to Billund, Denmark.
Come to Ireland Gorbles, a bus pass would almost be enough to travel on depending on the airline.
As I understand it, while the UK was in the EU, members rules applied and when the passport was issued didn't matter, it just had to be in date for travel.
Now that the UK is not a member, standard EU rules apply (for travel to most of the EU):
'Your passport should be valid for at least 3 months after the date you intend to leave the EU and it must have been issued within the last 10 years'
So a passport issued by the UK that would previously have been sufficient for travel is now not sufficient.
I was looking up the rules earlier today myself for a trip to Billund, Denmark.
Come to Ireland Gorbles, a bus pass would almost be enough to travel on depending on the airline.
Especially as I've already got a visa approved on the old passport for a business trip in a month. Which went through with no issues and nobody raised any flags.
Gonna be a headache sorting that fresh back from this holiday. Which I was thankfully allowed on!
Senethro
Overlord
Its one of those cases where averaged out across the whole population its trivial, but potentially catastrophic to the individual with consequences that might include brief incarceration, deportation (both of which always involve risk of police being police) and severe financial damages.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Get ready for austerity round two
Ordnael
Emperor
I've been reading on multiple media sources that more and more people are being arrested for posting their opinions online. I ask of the resident Britons, is this true or just very exaggerated?
It is true when those opinions are "We should go and torch that building full of families".
aelf
Ashen One
Nah, free speech ftw. Except when Hamas does that. Then it's war.
We have this interesting statistic that people's English and maths GCSE scores are dropping, which basically means the last trilustre or so of austerity forced upon education means that Britain will have an entire generation who can't really read or count.
Excellent?
Excellent?
ARGH, Google amps links!
...are they undesirable for some reason?
Let us say they are. Walled garden, monetisation, and phishing are only a few concerns.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,284
It's always funny to see the reaction of the supporters of the police state when they finally figure out they can be victims of the police state.
But, on a more general note, keep in mind that nothing ever changed without at leats the credible threat of violence. Power concedes nothing without a fight. The believers in non-violence will always lose.
You're british: Corbin won the election for leader of Labour and refufes to use that power "violently" to expell the blairites. He was undone by them. If despite the party machine undermining him he had managed to be elected PM, he would have failed to apply his programme because his own MPs would simply refuse to follow it.
Or looking further back: Gandhi didn't achieve anything for India's independence. In everything he set out to do he failed, his non-violence didn't work. The british just imprisioned and repressed his followers for decades and kept ruling the subcontinent. It was the mutinies by the "native" indian navy and the british soldiers in India, combined with american financial pressure (no relief of war debt), that put an end to the empire there. Gandhi's last effort post-independence likewise failed, India split. And would have split further (contrary to Gandhi's wishes) had in not been for the use of military force by the Congress politicians to force several states into their "union".
This is independent of any moral opinion about either case. It's just as it was. I'm using those examples to illustrate that change can only happen when a "party" manages to capture the state and use its violence, or credible threat of violence. Without that there is no change because those who posess stuff/influence will refuse to give it. If you are anti "extremism" then you are for the current status quo.
Oerdin
Deity
The man is just a lying authoritarian.
You mean a politician?
