***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 51 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 19:32
|
Our Conservative Association chairman was, along with others, invited to No. 10 to hear all about the latest proposed "deal".
She is also our PPC and is a petty hard Brexiteer, as are the majority of the members.
She gave us a short resumé of the presentation and is optimistically reserving judgement on the outcome, with a leaning to accepting it as the best we are likely to get.
Conservative Central Office has been left in no doubts about the feelings of grass-root members who are very largely not happy with negotiations so far and are opposed to any further softening of the Brexit deal.
She told us that this latest deal is the "final proposal" to be put to the EU negotiators and no further concessions will be made.
I wish I could believe this, but on previous form in spinelessness, I'm not holding my breath.
This Chequers plan, as amended by a narrow vote in the HoC, offers something to everyone, thus will totally please no-one.
|
>> offers something to everyone, thus will totally please no-one.
That's the typical problem with politicians. They never say things clearly. They believe hiding facts and babbling somehow would fool the electorates.
Looking at Chequers Plan and I felt everything would remain as it is but just renamed to make voters think that things are changing.
Example, freedom of movement renamed as mobility framework etc.
|
Any future deal is worthless until the agreement on leaving the EU is signed by all 27 EU countries. And without a solution for the Norther Ireland/Republic of Ireland border problem there will be no signed deal.
Any suggestion on a way forward? It can't be linked with a possible future deal between us and the EU for trading because that may never get accepted. So far we have alignment of the Irelands and a border in the Irish Sea which would now be illegal.
May seems to suggest the EU needs to be more flexible. It is for the Government to come up with a solution not the EU. It is us who want to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was only possible because we were in the EU at the time and there didn't need to be any border of any kind.
|
It is now fight of ego. Both sides want to win (or perceived as winner).
These arguments are not based on laws of physics but on whims of whoever on power on either side.
The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc etc. He must have gone mad because Ireland would be more harmed than UK after hard Brexit.
>> May seems to suggest the EU needs to be more flexible.
What flexibility EU has shown so far?
|
The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc etc.
>> He must have gone mad because Ireland would be more harmed than UK after hard
>> Brexit.
Of course it's nonsense and he knows that. It's just a bit of hyperbole not overly helpful though.
|
>> What flexibility EU has shown so far?
They don't need to. Why should they? It us that is leaving and grasping at lifebelts.
|
>> The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc etc
We might not be able to fly anywhere after March 2019 until agreements are in place.
|
>> >> The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc
>> etc
>>
>> We might not be able to fly anywhere after March 2019 until agreements are in
>> place.
>>
In which case the reverse would be true, or almost, iirc ~90% of flights leaving Ireland cross UK airspace. They could fly around but would be impractical in most cases without huge knocks ons.
Strip out the Irish PM's hyperbole and it's just as important for them as it is for us to get an agreement on airspace transiting.
|
>> Strip out the Irish PM's hyperbole and it's just as important for them as it
>> is for us to get an agreement on airspace transiting.
The Irish have got themselves into a mess over this border. They thought it would be a great bargaining chip, instead its turned into a noose round their necks.
The matter is simple, Hard Brexit = Hard border. Hard border means an instant 4% drop in Irish GDP.
|
>> The matter is simple, Hard Brexit = Hard border. Hard border means an instant 4% drop in Irish GDP.
Why EU can't allow UK & Ireland to reach mutually acceptable solution without specifying whether it is hard/soft/no border?
So rather than it is between problem between 2 parties, it is now problem among 3 parties viz UK, Ireland & EU.
|
>> Why EU can't allow UK & Ireland to reach mutually acceptable solution without specifying whether
>> it is hard/soft/no border?
Like many of your contributions on this subject that comment demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the issues.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 12:12
|
>> Like many of your contributions on this subject that comment demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the issues
If you know the answer please explain. I don't think even the prime minister understands all the issues. It is not a crime not to know everything.
|
>> >> Like many of your contributions on this subject that comment demonstrates your total lack
>> of understanding of the issues
>>
>> If you know the answer please explain. I don't think even the prime minister understands
>> all the issues. It is not a crime not to know everything.
Several points you miss, one of them every time you comment. You have no idea what the EU is or how it operates. You seem to think its 30 countries. ie 29 member states plus the EU, and the evil EU country is stopping brexit.
|
Why EU can't allow UK & Ireland to reach mutually acceptable solution without specifying whether
>> it is hard/soft/no border?
>>
>>
real reason they don't want the UK leveraging and isolating the irish government and therefore do an end run around the eu negotiation team. Think of it as a chaperone.
|
>> real reason they don't want the UK leveraging and isolating the irish government and therefore do an end run around the eu negotiation team. Think of it as a chaperone.
That's a good answer. So effectively it is EU's bully boy tactics.
Assuming a hard border would reduce Ireland GDP by 4% (say), why Ireland can't recover that from EU's fund saying "because of your policy my economy suffered - so compensate me accordingly?".
Well, Ireland would poisslbly not have courage to challenge EU but if they say that EU might be flexible as they may not want another country to leave EU. The problem with EU that it only wants to dictate others and not listem to them. They never thought any country could leave now they are desparate to portrait their supremacy as a deterant to anyone else who dares to leave.
|
>> Assuming a hard border would reduce Ireland GDP by 4% (say), why Ireland can't recover
>> that from EU's fund saying "because of your policy my economy suffered - so compensate
>> me accordingly?".
QED.
When in a hole........
|
>> >> real reason they don't want the UK leveraging and isolating the irish government and
>> therefore do an end run around the eu negotiation team. Think of it as a
>> chaperone.
>>
>> That's a good answer. So effectively it is EU's bully boy tactics.
There you go again. can you not understand that the EU is Ireland. The EU is NOT a bully boy, its not a separate entity, it does not exist as a country, it is the other 28 nations. Its merely a voice for all of them. The EU border issue is because Ireland insisted its inclusion was in the agreement.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 12:51
|
That's a good answer. So effectively it is EU's bully boy tactics.
>>
Hmm possibly or a guarantor. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
>> Assuming a hard border would reduce Ireland GDP by 4% (say), why Ireland can't recover
>> that from EU's fund saying "because of your policy my economy suffered - so compensate
>> me accordingly?".
Possibly so, economically disadvantaged areas receive extra EU funding. So they may well but it wouldn't be dressed up in such terms.
|
>>economically disadvantaged areas receive extra EU funding.
Didn't stop 'em voting for Brexit tho, did it?
At least the Govt will replace the lost investment...
Bwahaahahahaha
|
> The Irish have got themselves into a mess over this border. They thought it would
>> be a great bargaining chip, instead its turned into a noose round their necks.
>>
>> The matter is simple, Hard Brexit = Hard border. Hard border means an instant 4%
>> drop in Irish GDP.
>>
As a follow on from that i found this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44657460
i thought the numbers of containers going across and to GB were interesting.
|
As much as they dislike it, the Eire economy and well being is fundamentally linked to ours.
Which is probably why they wanted us to be invaded by the Germans, they would be sitting pretty now.
|
>> The matter is simple, Hard Brexit = Hard border. Hard border means an instant 4%
>> drop in Irish GDP.
Much as I often disagree with you our difference isn't usually about facts so much as their interpretation. Not so here.
I'm pretty sure the last thing the Irish Govt want is Hard Brexit. Their red line is border controls in place of the current Schengen analogous arrangement between Republic and NI. But if Republic/NI Border is frontier of two different customs/regulatory regimes (ie UK/EU) then their need to be, unless agreements can be made, controls.
How do you square that circle?
|
>> How do you square that circle?
We dont need to square it, the Irish do.
|
>> We dont need to square it, the Irish do.
Ahh we're back to interpretation again.
|
>> >> The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc
>> etc
>>
>> We might not be able to fly anywhere after March 2019 until agreements are in
>> place.
We will, thats not an issue. Plenty of other real issues to look at.
|
It's my understanding that it has nothing to do with membership or not of the EU.
Airspace rules are governed by the International Air Services Transit Agreement signed by 133 nations.
Pat
|
I'm afraid your understanding is wrong. This FT article explains the complex issues involved.
www.ft.com/content/57c0c01c-ef9c-11e6-930f-061b01e23655
|
>> I'm afraid your understanding is wrong. This FT article explains the complex issues involved.
>>
>> www.ft.com/content/57c0c01c-ef9c-11e6-930f-061b01e23655
PAywalled
|
Google "Will Brexit complicate landing rights for UK flights?"
click on the link.
|
I can't click on that lin, but I think you are wrong.
It's scaremongering as usual.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 17:33
|
>>It's scaremongering as usual.
Yes, that'd be it. The ostriches have it right, huh.
|
>> I can't click on that lin, but I think you are wrong.
>>
>> It's scaremongering as usual.
>>
>>
the main issue pat is internal eu flights. Only eu companies can fly internally in the eu. But of course as in many of these things the reverse is true although harder for the UK. Mainly because we don't have that much experience or not recently.
Of course countries and organisations except each others rules all the time. Boeing most follow eu rules to allow aircraft to operate internally in the eu as must faa operated airlines.
The question isn't if but when we can operate this set of rules on our own.
|
[skip to the TL:DR at the end if you like]
Look, I am no expert on this, I worked for Delta for a while in Atlanta, but not in Europe and it was a long time ago. But to try to explain the magnitude of this.....
According to the FT, approximately 60% of all UK flights land in Europe. I am willing to bet that 60% of EU flights do not land in the UK. For the UK the EU is on they way to loads of places and is somewhere we would like to fly around within. For the EU the UK is on the way to nowhere and is not somewhere they want to fly around within. With the exception of the Irish airlines I guess.
There is a thing called the European Common Aviation Area, and you need not be part of the EU to be a member of that, but it still requires acceptance of all EU aviation laws AND the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Again Teresa May says that is a red line.
There are 9 Freedoms of the Air
1) The right to fly over another country without landing
2) The right to refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreigner country without taking on or letting off passengers
3) The right to fly to any country from one's own.
4) The right to fly from another country to one's own
5) The right to fly between two other countries or between two airports in another county on a flight which originates or finishes in one's own country
6) The right to fly between two other countries stopping your own en-route
7) The right to fly between two foreigner countries without stopping in your own
8) The right to fly between airports in another country and then continue to your own country
9) The right to fly within a foreign country
Any modern shorthaul airline relies on 5), 6), 7), 8) 9) since they all impact additional revenue. Easyjet, for example. Or RyanAir.
1) & 2) are granted by membership of IASTA which covers most of the world but not all of it. I think China is not part of it, and so individual agreement is necessary.
3), 4), 5), 7), and 9) are rights that we currently have within the EU (ECAA, EASA) and that must be renegotiated.
We also have those rights with a lot of other places, but as part of ECAA, not in our own right. So many of those would need to be renegotiated.
Switzerland has the sort of agreement that you might think we should aim for, but they had to agree to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and were not granted 7) and 9). WE could not conceivably complete that negotiation in time. Aside from anything else, it includes the approval of maintenance procedures, oversight and control mechanisms and nobody is going to rush that.
Even the US only has 5), not 6), 7) or 9).
In order to achieve any of that we will have to significantly increase the size of UKCAA AND convince all the other regulators to recognise it and accept its standards, regulations and procedures.
And it's not just flying, it's maintenance and repair as well.
EasyJet is building a European base because of this. British Airways is protected by its ownership structure to an extent, but will need to fly more Iberia and less BA.
TL:DR starts here...…
Can this all be done? Of course it can. Absolutely. It'll cost an absolute fortune mind and countries such as Spain will be seeking to take advantage. And the airline industry is a bit booggered until it's done. We haven't ever done it, and the world has moved on massively since we last did anything similar. Bear in mind all those old agreements are pretty much defunct.
Can it be done by March? Not a cat's chance.
So, a short cut is needed;
What's that then?
- We continue with the current arrangements in the meantime? Teresa May says we will not accept the ECJ even in the short term.
- We renegotiate everything and achieve the same rights? Well, I doubt it. Doesn't seem likely, does it?
- The EU comes up with a massive change and says that members of the ECAA do not have to accept the ECJ. Not a chance in hell.
So, you tell me. What's the alternative in the timeframes?
Seems to me the only possibility is to live with the jurisdiction of the ECJ for the foreseeable future.
But firstly that is a massive climb down on the part of the Government. And secondly it would open the floodgates for all the rest of the ECJ issues.
Who knows what will happen, I don't have a clue. Not my subject area at all.
But damn.
And perhaps Bromp or Zero or others will spot something that has changed since my last involvement, but it's still a b***** great problem.
And if you think that's bad, try Telecoms, pharmaceuticals, finance...……..
Still, worth the price, no doubt.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 23:06
|
|
Sorry Pat, scaremongering again.
|
If we ignore all these small issues like flights, aircraft maintenance, agriculture. pharmaceuticals, etc. until say March 28th 2019 the EU will come up with the deal we wanted all along. Worth a gamble?
The border in NI and the peace agreement is a red herring surely? ;-) Not.
|
>>And perhaps Bromp or Zero or others will spot something that has changed since my last >>involvement, but it's still a b***** great problem.
Any change since your last involvement is detail and is likely to make untangling more rather than less difficult.
But any of us with knowledge/capacity understands Brexit isn't like leaving the gym or golf club; it's a gazillion times more difficult.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 23:14
|
|
I don't think we'll see responses from Pat and Movilogo and Roger to respond to this. They know better. Super intellects as they are. They made valued judgements in June 2016 and thought through all the implications of a vote to leave the EU. It's just a shame they don't share their views with the government.
|
>> I don't think we'll see responses from Pat and Movilogo and Roger to respond to this. They know better. Super intellects as they are.
Alas! Already responded :-)
Typical remainer response since 2016.
1. Say leavers are stupid, half-wit, haven't got any clue, uneducated.
2. Brexit it too complex - let's not attempt it.
3. There will be disaster (sky is going to fall on our head).
4. Go back to step 1.
|
>>Typical remainer response since 2016. blah blah.
OK, so you tell me the answer then, because I don't know.
You seem to have little knowledge in how this structure works, your only concern seems to be yanking up the drawbridge.
Fair enough, you voted in accordance with your desires which is what we all are entitled to do. But please, for all of our sakes, stop pretending you have the first clue about how to fix this.
As you said the other day "why does the voter need to understand this?" and obviously you don't. You are a complete, weapons-grade, spoon.
You illustrate 1), I believe in 2 and fearfully worry about 3).
Tell you what, let's go for a challenge. My industry experience is pretty broad. You tell me honestly what industry you work in and I'll try to tell you honestly the issues that it may face.
Got the balls?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 23:34
|
>> Got the balls?
No. Usually those who have fewer balls are more capable. Example: Farage
Goodnight
|
I have no idea what that means. Farage has fewer balls? Than whom?
However, I note that you were unprepared to face my challenge and name the industry you work in. To be honest I didn't think you'd be that yellow, I just thought you'd lie.
|
Farage is a joke though. And will have a gold plated EU pension. He did nothing for the UK when representing us in the EU apart from playing the 'fool'.
He'll only come back in UK politics if we don't leave the EU because of the incompetence of those in charge for the last 2 years.
I'm not sure they could organise a drinks party in a brewery. I know of a project manager who tried to arrange a drinking party at the Strangeways Brewery before it closed.... it was a failure.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 23:46
|
Farage's balls and pension to one side, he is symptomatic of our problem.
For years we took no interest. We sent rubbish politicians, on all sides, paid no attention to what they were up to, gave them no support, never held them to account. laughed occasionally when newspapers made up stories about bananas and then decided we didn't like where it was going.
The one thing that the leave side is most certainly correct about is that the EU was not in a good place and was not going in a good direction.
If only we had taken an interest and sent competent grown ups to represent us, it would all have worked out very differently.
We could have fixed it, but instead we ran away. Fixing it would have been hard, but this is just awful.
Really awful.
|
Some think the EU were un-elected and against us. We had MEPs like Farage representing us.
Nice pension he gets.
|
Spot on Movilogo.
At the point where it becomes patronising, as it has to you, I walk away because as I have said before, there is no discussion to be had.
Personal insults have no place on here and I do hope you're not upset by them.
No doubt, like me, over the years you've got used to them but it doesn't mean they are any more acceptable.
Pat
|
I've been watching this thread and by our standards it has barely registered on the patronising/insulting ometer so so far I haven't really felt the need to moderate it, though it has come close. No other mod has felt the need either so far, and to a large degree we work pretty much independently.
I would say that the posters who have probably come closest to causing offence has also written some lengthy, detailed and interesting posts in response to points you raise Pat, and others have also made very insightful contributions.
I, for one, appreciate these kinds of posts (even though I don't necessarily always agree with, or believe everything in them) much more than those encouraging people to walk away the minute the going gets tough in a discussion. That's an action which in itself could be seen at best as stifling discussion, but on the other hand it could be seen as a bit insulting to someone's knowledge and their effort in writing the post.
I do accept that people ought to avoid getting personal so, speaking for myself as a mod, I would ask that posters save themselves and me some time by refraining from being unnecessary insulting or patronising.
|
Stop being such a pessimist.
In one fell swoop the electorate have sorted the 3rd Heathrow runway issue:
We don't need it after March.
|
So, a short cut is needed;
What's that then?
- We continue with the current arrangements in the meantime? Teresa May says we will not accept the ECJ even in the short term
Something like this will happen. However as it's the red line they'll be a fudge under some dry technocratic/legal language where we follow the judgements but technically aren't bound by them. Or some such as it's in all interests to make it work.
Plus for me it's not a massive issue we're hardly been taken to court over aviation matters on a weekly basis.
Not something to die in a ditch over.
|
"we follow the judgements but technically aren't bound by them"
I would think that is an unacceptable outcome for many.
|
>> "we follow the judgements but technically aren't bound by them"
>>
>> I would think that is an unacceptable outcome for many.
>>
Quite probably. But we now not everyone will be happy about everything anyway.
|
Sure, but I wasn't just thinking of UK population.
There's not many clubs you can leave yet continue to cherry pick facilities which you want to carry on using for a bit solely for your own convenience. Not for free anyway.
EDIT: I'd imagine that you'd really need to be bound by the law you are following anyway, otherwise what's the point of it?
Last edited by: smokie on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 09:39
|
>> There are 9 Freedoms of the Air
>>
>> 1) The right to fly over another country without landing
>> 2) The right to refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreigner country without taking
>> on or letting off passengers
>> 3) The right to fly to any country from one's own.
>> 4) The right to fly from another country to one's own
>> 5) The right to fly between two other countries or between two airports in another
>> county on a flight which originates or finishes in one's own country
>> 6) The right to fly between two other countries stopping your own en-route
>> 7) The right to fly between two foreigner countries without stopping in your own
>> 8) The right to fly between airports in another country and then continue to your
>> own country
>> 9) The right to fly within a foreign country
The fifth one was fairly common even 40years ago. Aer Lingus used to fly Copenhagen to Dublin via Manchester and conveyed pax MAN>CPH and vice versa. Air India and pre revolution Iran Air flew from their own country via Heathrow to New York.
Singapore Airlines currently fly SIngapore>Manchester>Houston and offer very good fares between Manchester and Houston.
Use of the 7th and 9th is a much more recent, EU facilitated, and is a significant enabler of the incredibly high airframe utilisation that makes LoCo operation economic.
On another tack we're currently at the height of the UK holiday season. All the big holiday carriers, Thomas Cook, Jet2 etc are leasing in aircraft and flight crews from other EU countries, particularly the Baltics. Typically the flight crews are foreign and cabin crew British. Two on the ground at Birmingham right now: one Lithuanian, one Latvian.
Wonder how that will work next year?
EDIT: Here's the official line from the EU:
ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-air-transport.pdf
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 15:46
|
Well the idiots running Exiting the EU including Rees Mogg are ignoring things other than trade of goods. So that's okay then. He thinks WTO will be okay. It might for trade but not anything else impacted by leaving the EU without a deal.
Which is probably why we'll end up mostly in the EU with a softer exit which does us more harm than simply staying in the EU.
|
I must say if anyone doesn't deserve to be called an idiot its Rees-Mogg. I ended up watching loads of "politics" Youtubes the other day as a result of a post here and he seems to me a really clever bloke, articulate, with his finger on the pulse and understanding matters better than many other so-called experts in some discussions.
He is mocked for his style and appearance, and some of his views are not as modern as one might hope (due to his beliefs). And of course is on the wrong side of the BREXIT fence for me, but I'd be much happier with him as next PM than many of those in the Houses of Parliament.
Last edited by: smokie on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 16:49
|
|
I met him very briefly once, two things I remember distinctively, he's very polite and well mannered. He's also very tall!
|
>> I must say if anyone doesn't deserve to be called an idiot its Rees-Mogg.
He's got a confidence and knowledge consistent with his background as son of editor of the Times schooled at Eton and Oxford. Because of that he looks and sounds clever just like Boris, David Cameron and the late Tam Dalyell.
On Brexit he's either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. Pretty much any reputable economist says a crash out on WTO terms will be a disaster for ordinary people's jobs and living standards. He flies in face of accepted scientific fact on climate change so it's no real surprise when he does so in other areas.
My own take is that he wants a much more vigorous form of capitalism where workers' rights are reduced, there is at best only a minimalist safety net for health or social security and taxes, at least for the better off, are dramatically lowered. His own class benefits and the rest can lump their lot.
He and many of his ERG compatriots think hard Brexit will make their Utopia look like some sort of recovery.
In a darkly ironic sort of way there's an analogy with revolutionary Communism.......
|
>>the main issue pat is internal eu flights.
Would that were true. Any agreement we've signed in the last 20 years has included EU regulations and clauses. It would almost certainly need to be renegotiated as well.
Non-passenger revenue flights and stops are different in some significant ways so Boeing do not face the same issues. Same for technical emergencies, technical requirements and similar.
|
Don't worry Pat and Theresa have all the answers.
LL should plan for a worse case scenario of a long walk and swim home next March.
|
Would that were true. Any agreement we've signed in the last 20 years has included
>> EU regulations and clauses. It would almost certainly need to be renegotiated as well.
I meant in the narrow examples/arguments used up thread rather than the wider brexit issue. Apologies for not making that clear.
>> Non-passenger revenue flights and stops are different in some significant ways so Boeing do not
>> face the same issues. Same for technical emergencies, technical requirements and similar.
>>
Non passenger revenue flights, you mean cargo flights? Boeing themselves follow the same rules as airbus for eu sales. In the sense they have to meet easa safety rules they same as anyone. Or have I grabbed the wrong end of the stick?
|
>> Non passenger revenue flights, you mean cargo flights?.......
>>. Or have I grabbed the wrong end of the stick?
No, sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear.
I meant non-revenue flights in their entirety. There's a whole set of exceptions and differences for technical, maintenance, sales and logistical reasons.
It's in everybody's interest to make those as open as possible. As soon as revenue is involved everybody wants to have as much access to other countries as possible whilst giving away as little access to their own as possible.
Then those countries also have build, sales or maintenance activities so eant to be attractive. Also their airports need as much traffic as possible.
And we think we're going to renegotiate 40 odd entire agreements and goodness knows how many amended agreements with 120 odd countries before March.
Right.
|
No, sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear.
>>
>> I meant non-revenue flights in their entirety. There's a whole set of exceptions and differences
>> for technical, maintenance, sales and logistical reasons.
>>
>>
Right I know what you mean now, positioning, maintenance etc flights.
|
I can't click on that link, but I think you are wrong.
Pat
|
The European regulator is the EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency.
That oversees all these rules governing flight and landing as well as all maintenance protocol recognition.
The EASA is overseen by the European Court of Justice.
A country cannot accept part of the EASA rules and regulations they must accept all or nothing, including the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
New agreements could be made, but Spain has said that it will veto any such agreements if they include Gibraltar.
That's not going to work out well.
Still, a price worth paying, no doubt.
|
A country cannot accept part of the EASA rules and regulations they must accept all
>> or nothing, including the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
I think most likely is to copy across easa rules then modify over time.
|
>> A country cannot accept part of the EASA rules and regulations they must accept all
>> >> or nothing, including the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
>>
>>
>> I think most likely is to copy across easa rules then modify over time.
And that we could copy across the EASA stuff, but the *only* thing we would want to change would be any reference to the EU or ECJ. How do you see partly accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ working out?
And what about Spain stating it will veto anything involving Gibraltar?
Bearing in mind we have 9 months to sort it out.
If there is a likely solution other than remain part of EASA I cannot see what it is. But to do that we'll need to accept ECJ justice. Which the Government has said is a red line.
As have a whole bunch of other people who have no real idea what the implications of that is.
|
And that we could copy across the EASA stuff, but the *only* thing we would
>> want to change would be any reference to the EU or ECJ. How do you
>> see partly accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ working out?
I mean if we had a set of rules acceptable in the same way FAA operated airlines are accepted but I don't think they have to accept jurisdiction of the ECJ?
>>
>> And what about Spain stating it will veto anything involving Gibraltar?
>>
I'm sure they say that, but if an acceptable solution is provided across the EU countries, the negotiation team etc. I think they might well have a good rethink.
|
>> New agreements could be made, but Spain has said that it will veto any such
>> agreements if they include Gibraltar.
Thats BAU, I worked in Gib for a year when the Spanish blocked off Airspace for Gib flights and we were both in the Eu at the time...
The approach and departure were hairy, but workable for UK and North Africa flights.
|
|
Try this . It sets out The issues quite well.
|
>> www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/european-common-aviation-area-ecaa-brexit-explained
>>
The comments about Ryan air is quite interesting in there. I didn't know post brexit they would only have 40% eu share holders.
|
>>I can't click on that link, but I think you are wrong.
>
>Pat
Here's what I think you don't get Pat. You think it is an argument about whether or not we are going to leave. It's not.
Forget whether or not we will leave the EU. Let's take it as 100%, no argument, we are leaving and that is it.
The issue is that amount of change that needs to happen to make that work.
Telecommunications, Air travel, NI border, healthcare in other countries, passports, Utility company regulation, broadcast regulations, food regulation, financial and banking regulation, insurance regulation, drug and medical treatment, immigration, police authority, port authority, vehicle regulation and so on and so on.
I've got you, you voted leave, you will accept nothing other than leave. Fine. Not arguing with you.
But I am telling you now, this Government, the Labour party, The t*** Farage, in fact anybody else you can think of currently involved in this is screwing it up.
And nobody, most certainly not the electorate or the media have the first clue what to do about it.
Even if you put the world's experts on this and motivated the hell out of them they still could not get this done properly by March 2019. If ever.
There is only one thing that can be achieved by that date, and that is that we will not be called members.
Every other damn thing will continue as it is now for the foreseeable future.
It's a screw up and it's getting worse.
|
>>There is only one thing that can be achieved by that date, and that is that we will not be called members.
I expect that will also be the case in March 2010
and 2011
....
|
|
We do get the new blue passports by then though.
|
... 2020 and 2021 surely?
But if we leave in name only - there really is no point as we have to follow rules we have no control over.
The EASA example is just one example and No2FMR lists many more. We had 2 years after triggering article 50 to sort this out. We've got nowhere. We should have triggered article 50 after we knew what we wanted and how to do it. Which with NI and Gibraltar issues is practically impossible to achieve without crossing our own red lines.
|
>> Forget whether or not we will leave the EU. Let's take it as 100%, no argument, we are leaving and that is it.
Great - finally a positive thinking :-)
>> The issue is that amount of change that needs to happen to make that work.
Does it mean due to such complex changes, it is actually never be possible to leave EU and hence no such attempt should be made?
Does it mean that UK is effectively a slave of EU?
Does it vindicate the conspiracy theory how EU secretly created the noose around member countries' necks so that no one could ever leave EU?
When EU wrote about Article 50, why these steps were not listed? May be EU never thought anyone would dare to leave?
Wondering what would have happened if UK were using Euros!
|
>> Does it mean due to such complex changes, it is actually never be possible to leave EU and
>> hence no such attempt should be made?
Due to the complexities the timing of leaving and creating new agremements was always going to be an issue. The Conservative Government still do not agree on what we want for the leave agreement so why did we trigger Article 50?
>> May be EU never thought anyone would dare to leave?
Never thought anyone would be stupid enough to do this voluntarily for sure. Article 50 is a fairly recent thing.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 20 Jul 18 at 23:29
|
>> >> The issue is that amount of change that needs to happen to make that
>> work.
Know, it means what it says. Read it slower, concentrate.
>> Does it mean that UK is effectively a slave of EU?
Do you actually know what the EU is? Seriously? Do you know what it actually is?
>> Does it vindicate the conspiracy theory how EU secretly created the noose around member countries' necks so that no one could ever leave EU?
Only and complete and utter t*** with no understanding of what the EU is and how anything has happened over the last 20 years could even imagine that. Your idea was it?
>> When EU wrote about Article 50, why these steps were not listed? May be EU
>> never thought anyone would dare to leave?
Do you think the EU is like this third party evil genius plotting to capture European states?
WE are the EU. Us! It's US, WE ARE THE EU. Anything done by the EU was done by US. We have now voted to stop being part of it, but up until now we have been and are part of it.
How long have you been here? Presumably not all that long. You need to read up on this stuff before trying to make statements.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 03:08
|
>> >> >>
>>
>> WE are the EU. Us! It's US, WE ARE THE EU. Anything done by the
>> EU was done by US.
She shrieked hysterically.
If there were but one thing that finally convinced me we must leave this organisation as soon as possible then it would be rants such as yours from its supporters. :)
Sorry, but really, I don't think you have appreciated just how much the debate has moved on. To a great many people this is now an emotional rather than a rational issue. It wasn't, to start with, but the responses of many in the anti-Brexit camp have stoked this change in attitudes.
Presumably unwittingly, but the fact of having achieved that change without even having been aware of doing so just shows that they no longer sense the popular mood.
|
>> Sorry, but really, I don't think you have appreciated just how much the debate has
>> moved on. To a great many people this is now an emotional rather than a
>> rational issue. It wasn't, to start with, but the responses of many in the anti-Brexit
>> camp have stoked this change in attitudes.
>> Presumably unwittingly, but the fact of having achieved that change without even having been
>>
...I can't help but agree that much of the argument (from both sides) is emotional, but that doesn't mean to say it is irrational. From the anti-Brexit side on this thread at least, entirely rational argument has been put forward to explain their feelings and concerns. What I do find irrational is the general response to these that we should cut the Gordian Knot by simply walking away (into a hard Brexit). That simply demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the complexities and the chaos that would ensue, and isn't a viable possibility even if we had spent the intervening years up to now planning for it (though, I suspect there are some in parliament who are just reckless enough to consider it).
The reality is that the major suspect in the emotional stance is the (so-called) main-stream media, who continually stoke the anti-EU fires (and coincidentally, when it suits them, the anti-establishment fires ("traitors")) in an entirely one-sided and irrational manner.
Just this morning, two headlines from the worst perpetrators were throwing shade on the EU with "In the most predictable response of the year, EU's top negotiator scorns Mrs May's Chequers Brexit blueprint NOW THERE'S A SURPRISE!" and BREXIT PLAN SAVAGED BY EU 'MAFIA'".
Of course, they conveniently forget the machinations of the last couple of weeks where Mrs May's Chequers Brexit plan has also been savaged and scorned by their own hero Brexiteers in parliament who have described it as deficient and unworkable. It's all the EU's fault!
With this level of debate going on in the MSM headlines, it's no wonder emotions are high. I won't go as far as saying some posters on here are influenced by such substandard editorial practice (even if I might have some suspicion that it is so), but I am entirely clear that a significant proportion of the populace are.
|
Sorry cliff pope, you simply dont appreciate I was trying to communicate to a fool who thinks the EU was not it's member states, instead being some alien race forced upon us by another planet to enslave us.
And anyway you are plain wrong, the arguments have changed fundamentally fromm we should not leave to how do we get out without commuting suicide.
We all agree now we should leave, our relationship with Europe is irreconcilably destroyed.
|
>
>> Does it mean that UK is effectively a slave of EU?
There you go again claiming the EU is a separate thing, an entity on its own with special powers
WE, THE UK, WERE THE EU WE CANT HAVE BEEN SLAVES TO OURSELVES
>> Does it vindicate the conspiracy theory how EU secretly created the noose around member countries'
>> necks so that no one could ever leave EU?
WE WERE THE EU, WE HELPED AND DRAFTED THE RULES. ITS NOT A SECRET SOCIETY.
>When EU wrote about Article 50, why these steps were not listed? May be EU never thought >anyone would dare to leave?
When WE the UK helped draft OUR Article 50, WE THE UK, never thought we would be leaving.
>>Wondering what would have happened if UK were using Euros!
We were not using the Euro because we chose not to. Yes weird that slaves to a secret society with a noose round our necks let us off from a.fundamental part of the economy isn't it.
|
>>It's my understanding that it has nothing to do with membership or not of the EU.
Absolutely and completely wrong.
Even our agreements with non-EU countries include EU clauses and conditions and will need to be renegotiated.
Of course, we could remain a member of these EU organisations but to do so we would have to follow all the aviation rules & regs. And that is one of Teresa May's "red lines".
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Open_Skies_Agreement
Read this Pat.
Ironically the Irish Government have an agreement in place where the RAF will use their air-space to intercept suspect aircraft. So civil airlines won't be able to enter Irish airspace but military aircraft will. Madness.
|
....well, at least we'll be able to bomb the b@st@rds.....
;-)
|
> Ironically the Irish Government have an agreement in place where the RAF will use their
>> air-space to intercept suspect aircraft. So civil airlines won't be able to enter Irish airspace
>> but military aircraft will. Madness.
>>
A couple of points spring to mind, I don't think it's automatic. The RoI government have to request it on a case by case basis. How often does this happen, once a week or once every decade?
|
>> > The RoI government
>> have to request it on a case by case basis.
>>
That doesn't make sense. You just said the RAF have an agreement that they can use Irish air space. Surely it's the RAF who would be requesting it, not RoI?
Or does the RoI really have a sophisticated tracking and interception system which they call the RAF in to action?
|
That doesn't make sense. You just said the RAF have an agreement that they can
>> use Irish air space. Surely it's the RAF who would be requesting it, not RoI?
Which bit do you find confusing? The irish have qra aircraft so have to use ours, we wouldn't enter their airspace without permission. To do so there is a set lay down procedures.
>> Or does the RoI really have a sophisticated tracking and interception system which they call
>> the RAF in to action?
>>
They have air traffic control.
|
The irish have qra aircraft so have to use
>>
Should say don't have qra aircraft
|
>> It is now fight of ego. Both sides want to win (or perceived as winner).
>>
>> These arguments are not based on laws of physics but on whims of whoever on
>> power on either side.
What does that actually mean? Are you talking about leave/remain, UK/EU or the factions in the cabinet?
>> The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc etc.
>> He must have gone mad because Ireland would be more harmed than UK after hard
>> Brexit.
it's part of taking back control. If sovereign states want to link fishing rights worth money to them with overflight rights worth money to us that's what happens.
|
> it's part of taking back control. If sovereign states want to link fishing rights worth
>> money to them with overflight rights worth money to us that's what happens.
>>
See above it's just as valuable to both. I think it's best to see his comments as playing the hardman not overly helpful.
|
>> > it's part of taking back control. If sovereign states want to link fishing rights
>> worth
>> >> money to them with overflight rights worth money to us that's what happens.
>> >>
>>
>> See above it's just as valuable to both. I think it's best to see his
>> comments as playing the hardman not overly helpful.
He cant be a hard man, he has no clout. Hard Brexit = Deep doo doo for Eire.
|
He cant be a hard man, he has no clout. Hard Brexit = Deep doo
>> doo for Eire.
>>
Like i said he's playing it, whether he can play it is another matter entirely.
|
This is an interesting article from Harvard Business Review. Though 5-yr old, still valid points.
hbr.org/2013/06/the-european-union-a-failed-ex
I think the main issue here is that EU was founded as a trade organization wheras it is now trying to govern the member nations.
|
>> I think the main issue here is that EU was founded as a trade organization
>> wheras it is now trying to govern the member nations.
The governance issues in that article arise because the so called peripheral countries concerned are in the Euro and are therefore unable to address their problems by devaluation or other aspects of financial/monetary policy. They chose to join the Euro and lived high off the hog while they could.
Like an indivudual living on credit the debt comes back to bite.
|
>> I think the main issue here is that EU was founded as a trade organization
>> wheras it is now trying to govern the member nations.
There you go again, the EU - IT. It didnt suddenly take over the member nations, its not trying to govern them, its member nations dictated its future direction. And those nations included US, the UK.
|
>> This is an interesting article from Harvard Business Review. Though 5-yr old, still valid points.
>>
>> hbr.org/2013/06/the-european-union-a-failed-ex
No its not. Its 5 years old and the points in it have been proven to be false.
Check out what it says about the Portugese economy then, and `Check out what it is now.
All you do is search for usualy false articles that back up your prejudies, not actually examine the basis for your prejudices.
|
The Government cant even trust themselves now...
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/20/breaking-vote-pairs-dire-consequences-michael-heseltine-jo-swinson
This is unfortunate to say the least. I was always brought up to be honest and this seems totally underhanded.
|
>> The Government cant even trust themselves now...
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/20/breaking-vote-pairs-dire-consequences-michael-heseltine-jo-swinson
Although I remember the reports of Heseltine's Tarzan act with the mace in 1976 (i was in midst of O levels) I didn't recall the cause was Labour chicanery with pairings.
|
|
I think Movilogo is mixing up the EU and the Galactic Republic in Star Wars (which of course became the Empire). ;-)
|
>> Hard Brexit = Deep doo doo for Eire.
And therefore why Eire will not allow the EU to give us a good deal. We'll be forced into a status quo deal.
|
Here's our PM telling a Parliamentary Committee how it will work:
twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1020000084287803393
Boris would have looked better because he's a weapons grade liar and bullshiner whereas Theresa is not. His answers though would be fundamentally the same.
We're flying towards a cliff while the crew wrestle with each other and Rees-Mogg's band of hi-jackers.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 10:10
|
Destination UK! Brexit fuels record tourist boom as more than 25 MILLION people visit from the rest of the EU
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5976569/Brexit-fuels-record-tourist-boom-25-MILLION-people-visit-rest-EU.html
|
>> Destination UK! Brexit fuels record tourist boom as more than 25 MILLION people visit from
>> the rest of the EU
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5976569/Brexit-fuels-record-tourist-boom-25-MILLION-people-visit-rest-EU.html
Part of your difficulty comprehending the issues related to EU may be down to treating the Daily Mail as a reliable source of news.
The only thing Brexit has done to fuel a tourist boom is devalue the pound against the Dollar and Euro.
Unless they're coming here in droves to laugh at us........
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 11:50
|
>>Part of your difficulty comprehending the issues related to EU may be down to treating the Daily Mail as a reliable source of news.
A detestable rag Brompton, but where *is* the thoughtful person (such as yourself) to turn for reliable reports and commentary?
|
"Unless they're coming here in droves to laugh at us........"
Ah, that would explain why only yesterday a chap asked me something like 'Kannst du mir sagen, wo Brompt lebt, bitte?'
|
....yeah, something like, but actually...
'Kannst du mir bitte sagen,warum Brexit noch läuft?'
;-)
|
www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/20/weak-pound-helps-lure-record-number-of-overseas-visitors-to-uk
Same news from a remoaner friendly tabloid.
UK newspaper circulation metrics
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
Leavers might be reading from wrong sources but remainers are simply not even reading. That’s what low circulation of remain backing newspapers suggest :-)
Last edited by: movilogo on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 12:22
|
>> www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/20/weak-pound-helps-lure-record-number-of-overseas-visitors-to-uk
>>
>> Same news from a remoaner friendly tabloid.
Except the Guardian attributes the rise to the falling pound.
>> UK newspaper circulation metrics
>>
>> en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
>>
>> Leavers might be reading from wrong sources but remainers are simply not even reading. That’s
>> what low circulation of remain backing newspapers suggest :-)
Smiley noted but IIRC Metro and Standard are both remain as is Mirror, Times and IIRC I.
What that chart shows is that pretty much every paid for paper is in a circulation slide. The Independent has abandoned print altogether and it's a waiting game as to which paper will be next. The Guardian has been in a parlous financial state but is beginning to pull back. It's subscriber/supporter model seems to be a paving a third way to monetise web news without either a paywall or clickbait.
|
@ Movi - both articles agree that the BREXIT fuelled weak pound is a major cause.
So what's your point?
Your last para is simply a daft conclusion to jump to. Maybe the circulation figures just mean that Remain voters have been quicker than Leave voters to realise that all newspapers are not to be trusted. Maybe Remain voters are more adept at getting their info from more reliable sources. Or maybe more Leave voters have outside toilets and need a steady supply of newspaper for the hook. :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 13:02
|
>> Destination UK! Brexit fuels record tourist boom as more than 25 MILLION people visit from
>> the rest of the EU
>>
....last chance to see.............
;-)
|
>> Brexit in action for farmers
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-44884882
Flip side of the tourist boom.
Euro or Dollar earned abroad buys more here; tourists rush in.
Pound earned here buys fewer Euro so work done here buys less back home; migrant workers go elsewhere.
|
>> The Irish PM speaking bonkers eg UK planes can't fly over Irish airspace etc etc.
Now looks as though he said something more measured along usual line of having cake and eating it. The usual suspects in UK right wing press put their own anti EU/anti foreigner spin on it.
www.thejournal.ie/article.php?id=4137889
The press spun message was then reported by the BBC - an example of how Mail/Sun etc untruths can set agenda.
|
>> The press spun message was then reported by the BBC - an example of how
>> Mail/Sun etc untruths can set agenda.
There is a spin on it, but for a bit of balance he's clever enough to leave plenty of room to read between the lines.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 19:31
|
Brexit - Roger.
