INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2541 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 11:13 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Hostile Conservative rebels force No 10 to delay flagship Brexit bill
No 10 has been forced to delay its flagship Brexit bill after Conservative rebels backed a series of hostile amendments.

Ministers had planned to push the EU Withdrawal Bill, which has passed its second reading in the House of Commons, through to committee stage next week.

But the timetable has slipped after the Tory whips decided they needed more time to strike compromises with rebel MPs in order to avoid a series of damaging defeats.

In total 300 amendments and 54 new clauses have been tabled to the bill, which transfers European law onto the domestic statute book after Brexit, underlining the resistance within the Commons from both opposition parties and some Conservative MPs.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2542 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 12:01 pm

Brexit is failing because it's being negotiated in the interests of the Conservative Party
But the difficulty is that the loss of political sovereignty this involves is unsatisfying to the Brexit elite – perhaps 1 or 2 per cent of the population at best – who are in the main unworried about immigration, inoculated from economic harm, but obsessed with sovereignty and free trade. (They are also boosted by a small but significant chunk of pro-Remain politicians who dislike the idea of being subject to European rules they can’t shape any more.)

There is the potential for a settlement in December. But we shouldn’t forget that the reason why the Brexit talks are unlikely to deliver what the bulk of voters, Remain or Leave, want is because they are being shaped not by the interests of the 52 per cent who wanted to leave or the fears of the 48 per cent who opted to stay, but by the minority interests of a small group of Brexiteers, largely concentrated within the Conservative Party.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2543 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 12:25 pm

WE'RE SAVED!!!! Brexit: Ministers try to push through plans for £100m royal yacht as EU talks remain deadlocked
Senior Conservative Ministers have reportedly endorsed the prospect of a new royal yacht, just as the European Union has warned the UK that Brexit talks are deadlocked.

Pro-Brexit politicians believe commissioning a £100m boat, ostensibly a “floating palace” for the Queen but also to be used to showcase the “best in Britain”, at the same time as the Royal Navy is facing severe cuts.

The privately funded “Brexit-annia” would be employed in a bid to secure the numerous trade deals the UK must win after leaving the EU.

It would display “the soft power of our nation around the world,” Northern Powerhouse minister Jake Berry told The Daily Telegraph.

The minister said he and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox thought the boat would be a “great thing”.

While the money for its construction will come from private donors, there are anticipated to be around £10m in annual running costs.

The previous royal yacht, HMY Britannia, was decommissioned under the Labour government in 1997.

It required hundreds of Royal Navy personnel to crew and a platoon of Royal Marines for security when the Queen was on board.

Government financial difficulties mean the prospect of cutting 1,000 marines and two amphibious assault ships has also been raised in recent days.

But Mr Berry said: “It would be a fantastic opportunity to show the best of British manufacturing on a global scale.

“Anything we can do to support the conception of global Britain, do free trade deals, support businesses across the north of England and elsewhere, I do think we should give consideration to.”

Senior ministers have been touting the prospect of a new royal yacht since last year’s vote to leave the EU.

In March, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told the newspaper: “It is my view that it would indeed add greatly to the soft power of this country, a soft power which is already very considerable.

“The new Britannia should not be a call on the taxpayer, if it can be done privately I am sure it would attract overwhelming support.”

Critics have called it a “colossal waste of money”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2544 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 12:32 pm

Heidi Alexander: Brexit bill failure shows PM is being held hostage by fanatics
Imagine the scene. It’s spring 2016. The Vote Leave campaign is feverishly telling the electorate that a sovereign parliament is a mere distraction. The object of prime importance is that we leave the EU – and that also means leaving the single market, leaving the European Economic Area (EEA) and leaving European-wide customs arrangements. This has to happen by fair means or foul. Power must leave Brussels, bypass parliament, and reside with a Whitehall elite. Ministers may or may not reinstate the rights and protections conveyed either by membership of the EU or the EEA, but we can all agree in any event that our jobs, rights and prosperity are of lesser importance than the British dream of rule by ministerial decree.

This counterfactual account – the true face of an honest Leave campaign – would have been dismissed as reckless by voters and would have lost a referendum. This recklessness though is no longer counterfactual, but actual, and is being debated in parliament as a result of the EU Withdrawal Bill.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2545 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 1:20 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2546 Postby animist » October 13th, 2017, 3:16 pm

trying to ponder ahead to next year on the assumption that there'll be no significant agreements between Britain and the EU. Britain presumably will start to invest in technology and infrastructure to avoid chaos at the ports - unless of course it does do the sensible thing and abandon leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market. Will the EU be forced to do the same for the smaller volume of goods moving from Britain to the Continent? Or will some sort of policy develop of encouraging companies in the EU to switch from both customers and suppliers in the UK in advance of both tariffs and customs point problems?

A relevant article to the last sentence: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/03/3 ... diversion/

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2547 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 7:20 pm

animist wrote:trying to ponder ahead to next year on the assumption that there'll be no significant agreements between Britain and the EU. Britain presumably will start to invest in technology and infrastructure to avoid chaos at the ports - unless of course it does do the sensible thing and abandon leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market. Will the EU be forced to do the same for the smaller volume of goods moving from Britain to the Continent? Or will some sort of policy develop of encouraging companies in the EU to switch from both customers and suppliers in the UK in advance of both tariffs and customs point problems?

A relevant article to the last sentence: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/03/3 ... diversion/
I don't think we should underestimate the possibilities for a political compromise to give rise to political solutions to save political skins. And we should be under no illusion that any deal struck would be for the benefit of the Tories and not for the UK. Those compromises might make some ongoing trade possible but there seems to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever it will be a worse trade deal than what we have now.

As for the infrastructure, it cannot be at all likely that any paper-based system could ever cope, even if it was possible to have a load of forms printed... But can anyone seriously think that the new HMRC system that's due to be up and running just a couple on months before it is tested to the max will work? And that's even before realising it currently does not have the capacity. Then there's the systems the EU have to put in place. That's why, of course, May wants to somehow or other defer Brexit - whether in name only or otherwise. Even the most narrow-minded Tory Brexiter must realise some things are just not possible, regardless of how much you huff and puff and blame everyone but theirselves.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2548 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 8:29 pm

Wales not willing to pay for Brexit, new poll shows
More than three-quarters of people in Wales have stated they would not be willing to lose any money at all in order for the UK to leave the European Union.

That is the key finding of a poll commissioned by Wales For Europe and carried out by YouGov. The poll published, today (13 October 2017) shows that 76% of respondents would not be willing to pay a penny to achieve Brexit.

Among respondents who voted Leave in the 2016 referendum, 55% are unwilling to forgo any money (including income, taxes and prices).

Fewer than one in five people would be willing to sacrifice between £10 and £50 a month. And only 6% would be prepared to lose more than £100 a month – all of them Leave voters in June 2016.

People aged between 25 and 49 years are most resistant to shouldering any cost, with 83% unwilling to surrender any money at all, compared with 64% of those aged 65 plus.

Yet the economic repercussions of the Europe referendum last year and now Brexit preparations are already costing Welsh people dearly, with the average family paying £11 a month more in food prices alone than at the start of the year. The fall in the pound meant those longed-for summer holidays abroad soared in price, and consumer spending in general is in decline.

Helen Birtwhistle, Director of Wales For Europe, said: “These results demonstrate that the commitment of Leave voters to Brexit is not deep, and may well be changing as the full economic effects of Brexit become clearer. As the cost of living rises for families in Wales, we are all feeling the pinch. At the same time, the confusion over next steps in the Brexit process, combined with a growing realisation of the EU membership benefits Wales stands to lose, mean that people are reassessing their commitment to Brexit.

“These poll figures warn us that many Welsh people who backed Brexit could feel intensely disillusioned in the coming months as the cost mounts,” she added.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2549 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 11:57 am

Brexit is becoming a battle for Britain's political soul
As the complexity and chaos of Brexit become increasingly clear, the behaviour of Brexiters is becoming correspondingly unhinged and dangerous. This is most obviously manifest in calls for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be charged with treason or at least to be sacked for ‘sabotaging’ Brexit. His heresy is not to have questioned Brexit or even hard Brexit. It is simply that he is resisting spending money on preparations for a ‘no deal’ Brexit – preparations which would in any case be pointless even if the catastrophe of such a Brexit were something any sane politician would countenance as a possibility. For some Brexiters his ‘crime’ is the even more trivial one that he does not show enough positive enthusiasm for Brexit.

More insidious than, although part of, this Brexit McCarthyism is the re-writing of history which is going on apace. Examples include airbrushing out assurances given by Theresa Villiers (then the Northern Ireland Secretary) and Boris Johnson that the Irish border would be unaffected by Brexit; or the impossible promises by the Leave campaign that a new deal with the EU would be negotiated before even beginning the legal process to leave. Most fundamentally, all those Brexiters who assured voters that an advantageous Brexit deal would be easy, quick and inevitable are now insisting either that they always knew it would be hard or, even, that no deal has always been the most likely outcome. The latest offender is Nigel Lawson, but as I have catalogued elsewhere there are numerous other examples, including Peter Lilley, Peter Hargreaves, David Davis and Liam Fox.

This matters hugely not in order to hark back to the Referendum campaign but in terms of what happens now. Because it is becoming ever clearer that nothing that the Leave campaign promised voters was true and that had they told the truth about what leaving the EU meant then far fewer people would have voted for it. What this means now is that the lies told are coming back to haunt them and in particular to fatally undermine what has been their most effective line since the vote: that Brexit is the “Will of the People”. Manifestly that falls apart if what people who voted leave were promised turns out to have been a lie. There’s nothing new about that insight, of course, it has been the case since the very first hours after the Referendum but it can only become more obvious as the situation unfolds. It is not just that people will change their minds – as they are beginning to do – it is that the very legitimacy of the result is discredited in a way it could not be had Leave won on the basis of an honest campaign.

It is because of this that Brexiters are so desperate to conceal what they promised, and so viciously turning on those, such as Hammond, who are not “true believers”. That now even extends beyond the re-writing of the past to a demand that evidence about the present and future be falsified. Thus John Redwood this week called for the Treasury to revise its economic forecasts so as to be more ‘realistic’ and ‘optimistic’ about Brexit (quite how they could be both is an absurdity in itself). Forecasts are not facts, but that they are forecasts is a fact and to imagine that standard models of forecasting (for all their imperfections) be doctored to fit in with Brexiter faith is ridiculous.

It is crucial that we do not think of this as just the normal business of politics, with protagonists putting the best gloss they can upon their positions. What is underway is something much more fundamental, in a sense even more fundamental than Brexit. The hardcore Brexiters of both the political Right and Left think of themselves – correctly, in my view – as enacting a revolution, and in pursuit of that they are not just willing to risk economic disaster but actually hope to destroy liberal political discourse in its broadest sense. The sinister language of traitors, sabotage and loyalty tests is not the last desperate throw of the dice as Brexit goes wrong; it is the beginning of what they want to be the normal terrain of politics. Similarly, the re-writing of history and of facts is not just a tactical gambit, it is part and parcel of their desired form of politics as decoupled from evidence, logic and rationality.

This won’t go away if and when Brexit is shown to fail. The Brexiters will not take that to show they were wrong but will say that it re-affirms they are right, as we are already seeing is the case. Nor will it go away by conceding to their demands about what form Brexit will take, since we have already seen that each concession made to them only brings forth an even more extreme demand. In a way, the Brexiters’ growing immoderation is doing us a favour in giving a warning as to what kind of country they want whilst there is still the outside chance of avoiding the Brexit which would allow them to create it. For whatever else may have been the ‘will of the people’ it was not the Jacobinism that the Brexit ultras are now revealing to the public.

In this sense, there is a battle underway which is not just about Brexit but about the political soul of the nation. And if this is so, it becomes vital that all of us, but politicians especially, recognize and respond to what is at stake. It goes beyond political party loyalties and cuts across them. There can really be no case, now, for politicians to enact or support the enactment of Brexit when – as seems to be the case for May, Hammond and Damian Green amongst many others – they not only do not believe in it but actually know it is hugely damaging. If they fail to act on that knowledge they will not only be complicit in that damage but in the even greater disaster of taking the British polity down a toxic path that leads inexorably to dark, dangerous and violent places.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2550 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 12:56 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit: it’s already too late
As things stand at the moment, eighteen months from now the UK will leave the EU without any agreement on trade regulation or tariffs, either with the EU or any of the other countries with which it currently has trade agreements. The arrangements which assure the smooth running of 60 percent of our goods trade will disappear. Once we are outside the regulatory framework, many products, particularly in highly regulated areas like agriculture and pharmaceuticals, will no longer be accredited for sale in Europe. Aeroplanes will be unable to fly to and from the EU to the UK. Those goods which can still legally be traded with the EU will face lengthy customs checks. Integrated supply chains and just-in-time manufacturing processes will be severely disrupted and, in some cases, damaged beyond repair. Unless politicians do something, that’s where we are heading.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2551 Postby animist » October 14th, 2017, 1:34 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit: it’s already too late

"Aeroplanes will be unable to fly to and from the EU to the UK." I might disagree here at least. Surely the relatively simple and cheap things WILL be sorted out, and I am assuming that Open Skies falls into this category (but of course I could be wrong). Probably too the foreign residents issue will be sorted out - it really should have been done so by now. For the rest, anything which involves lots of expenditure by either side is highly likely to a be big problem, and of course the sheer number of different problems makes any smooth Brexit very unlikely.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2552 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 2:31 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit: it’s already too late

"Aeroplanes will be unable to fly to and from the EU to the UK." I might disagree here at least. Surely the relatively simple and cheap things WILL be sorted out, and I am assuming that Open Skies falls into this category (but of course I could be wrong). Probably too the foreign residents issue will be sorted out - it really should have been done so by now. For the rest, anything which involves lots of expenditure by either side is highly likely to a be big problem, and of course the sheer number of different problems makes any smooth Brexit very unlikely.
But it's not a simple and cheap thing! It's not just a tick box in a list of countries allowed to enter EU states' airspace and land there, it's about the whole regulatory framework covering safety, pilot training, maintenance, etc. Without that - and without the regulatory oversight which we abandon on 31 March 2019 - it cannot be assumed planes are safe to fly or land or carry EU passengers. Yes, it's likely that many airlines will continue to be compliant with all the relevant rules, but there will be no guarantee they will. The Brexiters seem to think that some kind of good will or 'gentleman's agreement' will suffice. It cannot. Maybe a handshake from an old Etonian will suffice?

In a speech titled The future of open skies post-Brexit given by Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, last December, he said:
Let’s just imagine the UK was to withdraw from EASA altogether and adopt our own framework – although I’m yet to meet anyone of substance that supports that approach. It is of course theoretically possible and let’s just suppose we established the best aviation safety regimes in the world, It would mean a major increase in UK regulatory regime, potentially represent a major barrier to track increased costs and yet we would also risk becoming a backwater in terms of wider impact.
That was before the A50 notification, but I think it's certain that in leaving the EU, we would also be leaving EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency) and therefore the Open Skies Agreement.

Then there's the problems caused by the fact that many other countries have flight agreement with the EU through EASA, such as the USA. We would need to have new agreements in place for all of them as well. Is that all possible? No doubt. Can it be signed, sealed and delivered by 31 March 2019?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2553 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 10:13 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? PM’s former security adviser warns of Brexit defence cuts
Britain’s plans for a new defence armoury of jet fighters, attack helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft risk being derailed by the economic fallout from Brexit, Theresa May’s former security chief has warned.

Mark Lyall Grant, who served as the prime minister’s national security adviser, said that a Brexit downturn would have a knock-on “impact on UK security” and force the military to rethink ambitious spending projects drawn up in the past two years.

Writing in the Observer, he also warns ministers that they may have to accept some kind of role for the European court of justice (ECJ) to clinch a security deal that allows Britain to benefit from EU programmes.

The prime minister has repeatedly suggested that the ECJ can have no influence in Britain as part of a future relationship with the EU.
Remind me again why we're doing this?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2554 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 10:42 pm

This Brexit thingy... <yawn> No-deal Brexit ‘to trigger a new vote on Union’, says Scotland’s leading EU expert
A SECOND independence referendum will surge on to the agenda if Britain plunges to a disastrous “no-deal” Brexit, according to Scotland’s leading EU expert.

Kirsty Hughes, director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations (SCER), believes First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would be forced to rekindle her own exit plan as the UK “descends into ever more chaos”.

Her remarks in a new paper by her organisation came as opposition MPs criticised the UK Government for refusing to reveal any research on the impact of Brexit on Scotland.

Earlier this year, James Chapman, a former aide to David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, claimed the department had undertaken such analysis, which showed Scotland and the north-east of England would be worst hit by leaving the EU.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2555 Postby animist » October 15th, 2017, 10:53 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit: it’s already too late

"Aeroplanes will be unable to fly to and from the EU to the UK." I might disagree here at least. Surely the relatively simple and cheap things WILL be sorted out, and I am assuming that Open Skies falls into this category (but of course I could be wrong). Probably too the foreign residents issue will be sorted out - it really should have been done so by now. For the rest, anything which involves lots of expenditure by either side is highly likely to a be big problem, and of course the sheer number of different problems makes any smooth Brexit very unlikely.
But it's not a simple and cheap thing! It's not just a tick box in a list of countries allowed to enter EU states' airspace and land there, it's about the whole regulatory framework covering safety, pilot training, maintenance, etc. Without that - and without the regulatory oversight which we abandon on 31 March 2019 - it cannot be assumed planes are safe to fly or land or carry EU passengers. Yes, it's likely that many airlines will continue to be compliant with all the relevant rules, but there will be no guarantee they will. The Brexiters seem to think that some kind of good will or 'gentleman's agreement' will suffice. It cannot. Maybe a handshake from an old Etonian will suffice?

In a speech titled The future of open skies post-Brexit given by Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, last December, he said:
Let’s just imagine the UK was to withdraw from EASA altogether and adopt our own framework – although I’m yet to meet anyone of substance that supports that approach. It is of course theoretically possible and let’s just suppose we established the best aviation safety regimes in the world, It would mean a major increase in UK regulatory regime, potentially represent a major barrier to track increased costs and yet we would also risk becoming a backwater in terms of wider impact.
That was before the A50 notification, but I think it's certain that in leaving the EU, we would also be leaving EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency) and therefore the Open Skies Agreement.

Then there's the problems caused by the fact that many other countries have flight agreement with the EU through EASA, such as the USA. We would need to have new agreements in place for all of them as well. Is that all possible? No doubt. Can it be signed, sealed and delivered by 31 March 2019?
OK, thanks for all this. In that case, surely the likelihood is that Britain will not leave the EASA despite its being an agency of the EU - but who knows? I see from the WIki article that the hated European Court of Justice does not seem to figure largely in EASA, which might be a good thing, since the ECJ seems to be focus of doctrinaire Europhobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ety_Agency

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2556 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2017, 11:37 am

animist wrote:OK, thanks for all this. In that case, surely the likelihood is that Britain will not leave the EASA despite its being an agency of the EU - but who knows? I see from the WIki article that the hated European Court of Justice does not seem to figure largely in EASA, which might be a good thing, since the ECJ seems to be focus of doctrinaire Europhobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ety_Agency
If only someone in authority could give us all certainty and stability we need by making it clear we were not leaving EASA... May must be aware that many are saying no planes will fly on 31 March 2019, so why has she not said anything if we are not leaving?

ETA: But wait:
The ECAA was created in 2006 as an extension of the Single Aviation Market and is overseen by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), with its legislation enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Source
That's why we have to leave the EASA.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2557 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2017, 12:24 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? What the grim reality of a ‘bad-tempered’ Brexit means
A little over a year ago, David Davis was confident that Brexit Britain would soon strike new trade deals across the world. They could be negotiated and agreed without the difficulties and delays of which Remainers warned. All parts of the global trade jigsaw would fall quickly and neatly into place. “So be under no doubt,” the Brexit secretary wrote in an article for the ConservativeHome website in July 2016, “we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly... I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others.”

Around the same time, international trade secretary Liam Fox predicted that a free-trade deal with the EU, giving us continued access to EU markets after Brexit, “should be one of the easiest in human history”. His fellow Tory, the hardline Eurosceptic John Redwood, also saw no problems in realising this great reconfiguration of British interests around the world. “Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation,” he declared.

This weekend, 16 months on from Leave’s narrow referendum win, the talk is no longer of quick deals, or smooth routes out. Instead, Theresa May and her cabinet are preparing the country for the possibility of “no deal” at all being reached with Brussels before the UK leaves at the end of March 2019. No deal would also mean no two-year transition of the kind that May said would be so important in her recent Florence speech. Many of the hardline Brexiters have changed their tune, and now cheer on the prospect of “no deal” as the only way to break free. None of the trade deals they envisaged have been done and none are in sight. (It is not possible to enter into them until we leave the customs union).
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2558 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2017, 12:29 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:OK, thanks for all this. In that case, surely the likelihood is that Britain will not leave the EASA despite its being an agency of the EU - but who knows? I see from the WIki article that the hated European Court of Justice does not seem to figure largely in EASA, which might be a good thing, since the ECJ seems to be focus of doctrinaire Europhobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ety_Agency
If only someone in authority could give us all certainty and stability we need by making it clear we were not leaving EASA... May must be aware that many are saying no planes will fly on 31 March 2019, so why has she not said anything if we are not leaving?

ETA: But wait:
The ECAA was created in 2006 as an extension of the Single Aviation Market and is overseen by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), with its legislation enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Source
That's why we have to leave the EASA.
From that last article:
Will planes still fly?
Ask Ryanair’s chief executive, Michael O’Leary, and the answer will be no. He says that without a deal at least six months before the March 2019 deadline, there will be chaos at British airports.

O’Leary said at best he would need to place “health warnings” on flights. At worst he will be forced to rejig routes so that they bypass UK airports altogether.

“If Britain gets pushed out of the EU, it is absolutely the legal position that flights must stop. You’ve got to negotiate that bilaterally,” he has said. “If we don’t know the legal basis for which they’re being operated, we’ll be forced to cancel those flights by December 2018, so we can put those flights on sale in Europe.”

There are Tory backbenchers who treat his comments as scaremongering, but the recent collapse of Monarch is held up as a good example of the threat to aviation when the paperwork and legal niceties get in the way of business.

Monarch passengers asked why the collapsed company’s grounded planes couldn’t take them home from their holiday destinations. The answer was that they were in the hands of administrators, and legal flight information on them was therefore invalid.

O’Leary is saying that without a reciprocal deal, a flight from the UK to France would be in breach of French and EU rules, leaving itself open to being sued by the authorities and passengers.
The whole article makes for grim reading.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2559 Postby animist » October 15th, 2017, 12:31 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:OK, thanks for all this. In that case, surely the likelihood is that Britain will not leave the EASA despite its being an agency of the EU - but who knows? I see from the WIki article that the hated European Court of Justice does not seem to figure largely in EASA, which might be a good thing, since the ECJ seems to be focus of doctrinaire Europhobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ety_Agency
If only someone in authority could give us all certainty and stability we need by making it clear we were not leaving EASA... May must be aware that many are saying no planes will fly on 31 March 2019, so why has she not said anything if we are not leaving?

ETA: But wait:
The ECAA was created in 2006 as an extension of the Single Aviation Market and is overseen by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), with its legislation enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Source
That's why we have to leave the EASA.
OK again! But look, FWIW I think that the whole Brexit project will collapse next year. The only way to "save" it will be for Brexiters to "sacrifice" leaving these less central bits of the EU structure like EASA and Euratom (refresh me on what the situation is here :smile: ) which AFAIK do not involve things like free movement of labour or expenditure greater than that involved in recasting them outside the EU framework. (This reasoning on my part is a bit like a doctor assessing that a lunatic, which this country now is, MAY not be capable of a certain degree of insane behaviour - I do realise this!)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2560 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm

MPs move to block Theresa May from signing ‘no deal’ Brexit
A powerful cross-party group of MPs is drawing up plans that would make it impossible for Theresa May to allow Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal in 2019. The move comes amid new warnings that a “cliff-edge” Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy.

One critical aim of the group – which includes the former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke and several Conservative ex-ministers, together with prominent Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs – is to give parliament the ability to veto, or prevent by other legal means, a “bad deal” or “no deal” outcome.

Concern over Brexit policy reached new heights this weekend after the prime minister told the House of Commons that her government was spending £250m on preparations for a possible “no deal” result because negotiations with Brussels had stalled.

Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament.

If passed, this would give the majority of MPs who favour a soft Brexit the binding vote on the final outcome they have been seeking and therefore the ability to reject any “cliff-edge” option.

A separate amendment tabled by Clarke and the former Labour minister Chris Leslie says Theresa May’s plan for a two-year transition period after Brexit – which she outlined in her recent Florence speech – should be written into the withdrawal bill, with an acceptance EU rules and law would continue to apply during that period. If such a transition was not agreed, the amendment says, exit from the EU should not be allowed to happen.

With a sense of crisis engulfing the government and whips fearing a series of Conservative rebellions and defeats over the bill, ministers have been forced to postpone the committee stage of the legislation, which was due to start this week.
This gives some hope, at least.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2561 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2017, 1:00 pm

A thread on Twitter by Tony Nog:
1) strong message here for remaining #Brexit supporters

You were lied to, you are led by chancers, get a grip
The British right’s propaganda is an affront to democracy | Nick Cohen
The campaign’s propagandists have nothing to offer besides a vision that is pure fantasy
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... acy-brexit


2) Yes, ok, Remain ran a terrible campaign & Cameron was an arrogant fool.
Yes #Brexit sounded easy & even exciting
But, enough's enough

3) whatever happened in the campaigns, this is the reality.
There is no £350 M, #Brexit will cost far more than our membership

4) there are no magic trade deals that will make up for our losses in trade with the EU, the free trade argument is a nonsense

5) Davis & Fox championed Brexit trade freedom whilst having no clue whatsoever how international trade worked.

6) instead of boosting our international standing it's being trashed. Absolutely no-one in the world outside the UK is impressed

6) The world looks at the UK with distain
We thought we could bully the EU into a deal, we can't, and now we're crying about it.
Ridiculous

7) a few of you will be convinced that Hammond is a traitor, the EU are bullies, but travel 200 miles in any direction & no-one will care

8) Why do you think Davis said he hadn't planned for a no deal, and now refuses to release the 50 reports?
David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact
Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of impact on industry
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-impact


9) do you think anyone outside the telegraph/express readership gives a croissant about "ball's in EU's court" nonsense?

10) many of you Brexit supporters are self sufficient, secure & think you won't be affected.
Brexit at any cost, for other people.

11) the rest of you #Brexiters, wake up! Look at your leaders for goodness sake. I wouldn't trust them to plan a tea party

12) Brexit had 1 plan. The EU would cave. There was no plan B.
Get a grip, #Brexit is foolish & damaging.
Find your patriotism
End/
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest