How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[JNW1]

Nickgnome said:

Unless you are a returnee, I suggest you read through 10 volumes of posts and see how many times the Eu are blamed for all manner of perceived problems.

So perhaps you need to look closer to home to learn a lesson or two. Or it could be of course you disagree with those posters and the EU has been on balance a significant benefit to the UK

I do agree that the EU sometimes gets blamed unfairly for things which aren't or weren't its fault; for example, the fact lots of immigrants were allowed into the UK from Eastern European in the early 2000's was a consequence of the policy of the UK government at the time - we had a right to temporary immigration control but chose not to apply it.

Whether EU membership has been a significant benefit to the UK is a matter of conjecture because we don't know what the UK would have looked like had we not been members. However, what drove many of us to vote Leave is we're not especially keen on where continued membership is likely to take us; that's obviously a matter of judgement as well but ever increasing integration and a move towards a European superstate isn't attractive to everyone (although I accept it is to some).

Also, the economics of the EU aren't especially robust and hence being a part of it if (when?) the wheels finally come off the wagon doesn't seem very appealing either; of course we won't be immune from the effects even if we've left but we'll be better off than if we were still members IMO.

[jshell]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

It is not for the EU to decide whether we can be members of EASA.

Indeed, even without being direct members, we can be aligned with EASA processes via associate membership.

Further, the CAA have representation on the ICAO panels - which create the regs which EASA then determines the compliant implementation requirements for.

So you are suggesting the EU cannot decide who can be a member of the EU aviation regulatory body?

Currently only EU members can be full members of the EASA. The EU has agreed the EFTA countries can be non voting associate members.

The EASA can only sign WA, BASA have to be signed by the EU.

The EU can just change the rules. Simples. It really must be as simple as that, or why not? Leaving Europe doesn't have to mean 'everything' is just cut off, we'll still measure in metres and centi-metres, the EU doesn't have to respond without mutually agreeable flexibility when it has to.

[Mr Penfold]

there is a very interesting report into why people voted leave and how leave voters understand remain voters better than remain voters understand leave. it is available to download here
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stat...

[p1stonhead]

Mr Penfold said:

there is a very interesting report into why people voted leave and how leave voters understand remain voters better than remain voters understand leave. it is available to download here
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stat...

Hmm

[Mrr T]

JNW1 said:

But it's a safety agency and surely the UK's continued participation can only be of benefit in that respect? Your arguments for exclusion appear to centre around economics despite the fact we're told time and time again the EU's about politics.....

While it's purpose is safety its really a regulatory agency. So to do almost anything in aerospace you need to have been approved and be regulated by them.
It's not just pilots and airlines, manufactures, maintenance companies, even individuals within those organisation are licenced.
The UK is not being excluded from EASA. As of brexit UK is no longer a member of the EASA. So without a BASA agreement all CAA licences have no value for any EU regulated entity.
The UK companies will have no option but to set up entities in the EU. That is good for the EU.
The EU has offered a dispensation on a no deal brexit of 12m for airlines on existing routes and 11m months for the rest of the industry.
The UK government has decided these businesses are not of importance.

[Mr Penfold]

p1stonhead said:

Mr Penfold said:

there is a very interesting report into why people voted leave and how leave voters understand remain voters better than remain voters understand leave. it is available to download here
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stat...

Hmm

You didn't even aim for the ball, you went straight fir the man

[Nickgnome]

psi310398 said:

Nickgnome said:

Perhaps you should read the posters position to which I responded. There is ample evidence here from brexiteers blaming the Eu for all kind of issues they perceive to be problems. They are normally easily dismissed.

Please no not delude yourself that there is such a thing as free trade. The very structure and tax systems of economies distort any real notion of free trade.

Progressive optimism is a phrase I’d expect to hear from Boris and is void of any substance.

When you grow a business it usually involves graft and then more graft. One day if you are lucky a small business becomes quite large. I’d say resilience is not a bad attitude and not sentimental.

I think the word graft has another meaning in the EU context...

Are you suggesting that New Zealand or Singapore or Hong Kong don’t live by their hard work and wits? Where is the protectionism they hide behind.

We we turned a small 13 person company into one that eventually had 1300 UK and 3000 global employees before we sold it. Many hours and hard work over the years. I call that graft.

The economy of Singapore has oft been discussed and is no way comparable with that of the UK. The percentage of population who are immigrants are massively higher than the UK. Additionally they have a very large migrant population. Their total population is tiny in comparison to the UK. New Zealand is also very different as is Hong Kong. They really are not very similar to us.

There are better informed posters here who could advise more accurately where the similarities and dissimilarities lay.

[Nickgnome]

Mr Penfold said:

ou didn't even aim for the ball, you went straight fir the man

Not in Rugger.

[p1stonhead]

Mr Penfold said:

p1stonhead said:

Mr Penfold said:

there is a very interesting report into why people voted leave and how leave voters understand remain voters better than remain voters understand leave. it is available to download here
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stat...

Hmm

You didn't even aim for the ball, you went straight fir the man

An article guy who over 500 of his peers wrote to condemn as they believed him to be a crackpot with ‘ethically suspect and methodologically flawed’ research and pedalling 'racist pseudoscience' isn’t worth reading.

https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-let...

[Dr Jekyll]

Nickgnome said:

The economy of Singapore has oft been discussed and is no way comparable with that of the UK. The percentage of population who are immigrants are massively higher than the UK. Additionally they have a very large migrant population. Their total population is tiny in comparison to the UK. New Zealand is also very different as is Hong Kong. They really are not very similar to us.

They really are not very similar to each other, yet the principles of free trade still work in all three.

[Nickgnome]

JNW1 said:

I do agree that the EU sometimes gets blamed unfairly for things which aren't or weren't its fault; for example, the fact lots of immigrants were allowed into the UK from Eastern European in the early 2000's was a consequence of the policy of the UK government at the time - we had a right to temporary immigration control but chose not to apply it.

Whether EU membership has been a significant benefit to the UK is a matter of conjecture because we don't know what the UK would have looked like had we not been members. However, what drove many of us to vote Leave is we're not especially keen on where continued membership is likely to take us; that's obviously a matter of judgement as well but ever increasing integration and a move towards a European superstate isn't attractive to everyone (although I accept it is to some).

Also, the economics of the EU aren't especially robust and hence being a part of it if (when?) the wheels finally come off the wagon doesn't seem very appealing either; of course we won't be immune from the effects even if we've left but we'll be better off than if we were still members IMO.

I agree with most of your post and the decision to remain or stay is not obviously clear cut.

We will never know for instance what would have happened if we’d joined the Euro. It would be pure conjecture to say either way.

I agree that the EUs economy is not very robust but I would argue if you looked at the constituent parts of the UK economy ours is not strong either.

There is a significant risk of contagion from us to them and them to us if we and they struggle after a No Deal Brexit. As part of The Eu our totally economy had a significant impact globally. We are both diminished by being separate. If the US starts to struggle it will be even more America first policy from them so expect no favours.

I’m pleased I no longer work I think we could be in for a few bumpy years.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

It is not for the EU to decide whether we can be members of EASA.

Indeed, even without being direct members, we can be aligned with EASA processes via associate membership.

Further, the CAA have representation on the ICAO panels - which create the regs which EASA then determines the compliant implementation requirements for.

So you are suggesting the EU cannot decide who can be a member of the EU aviation regulatory body?

Currently only EU members can be full members of the EASA. The EU has agreed the EFTA countries can be non voting associate members.

The EASA can only sign WA, BASA have to be signed by the EU.

You did see the bit in the post you quoted where I mentioned associate membership? Whilst also having voting rights on ICAO, which is above EASA?

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

JNW1 said:

But it's a safety agency and surely the UK's continued participation can only be of benefit in that respect? Your arguments for exclusion appear to centre around economics despite the fact we're told time and time again the EU's about politics.....

While it's purpose is safety its really a regulatory agency. So to do almost anything in aerospace you need to have been approved and be regulated by them.
It's not just pilots and airlines, manufactures, maintenance companies, even individuals within those organisation are licenced.
The UK is not being excluded from EASA. As of brexit UK is no longer a member of the EASA. So without a BASA agreement all CAA licences have no value for any EU regulated entity.
The UK companies will have no option but to set up entities in the EU. That is good for the EU.
The EU has offered a dispensation on a no deal brexit of 12m for airlines on existing routes and 11m months for the rest of the industry.
The UK government has decided these businesses are not of importance.

I speak from direct experience here - you're talking utter ste.

So much so, I can't even be bothered to debate with someone who will just rely on Google for answers they don't understand.

[s2art]

p1stonhead said:

Mr Penfold said:

p1stonhead said:

Mr Penfold said:

there is a very interesting report into why people voted leave and how leave voters understand remain voters better than remain voters understand leave. it is available to download here
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stat...

Hmm

You didn't even aim for the ball, you went straight fir the man

An article guy who over 500 of his peers wrote to condemn as they believed him to be a crackpot with ‘ethically suspect and methodologically flawed’ research and pedalling 'racist pseudoscience' isn’t worth reading.

https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-let...

For a bit of balance read https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/09/the-lynch...

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Nobody wish to comment upon good news?

It remains to be seen if the Greene King deal is "good news"....

Doubt you'll get too much comment - leavers know the world keeps turning regardless. Remainers are too busy buying up stocks of peanut butter and tena. Thus also proving the world keeps turning

[psi310398]

Nickgnome said:

We we turned a small 13 person company into one that eventually had 1300 UK and 3000 global employees before we sold it. Many hours and hard work over the years. I call that graft.

The economy of Singapore has oft been discussed and is no way comparable with that of the UK. The percentage of population who are immigrants are massively higher than the UK. Additionally they have a very large migrant population. Their total population is tiny in comparison to the UK. New Zealand is also very different as is Hong Kong. They really are not very similar to us.

There are better informed posters here who could advise more accurately where the similarities and dissimilarities lay.

They are also not very similar to each other and yet they manage to trade perfectly well on the world stage. I’m not quite sure what the level of immigration or migration has to do with the price of fish, except to the extent that a growing economy needs a bigger workforce and will need to import it if necessary.

Anyone would be forgiven for thinking you were coming up with reasons why the country can’t flourish - the sad thing is that if everybody here had your attitude it probably wouldn’t. The good news is that there are plenty who can see the opportunities.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

It remains to be seen if the Greene King deal is "good news"....

Doubt you'll get too much comment - leavers know the world keeps turning regardless. Remainers are too busy buying up stocks of peanut butter and tena. Thus also proving the world keeps turning

He’s had comment.

It’s just “news” and undeserving of being heralded as a touchstone for Brexiteers. I wouldn’t expect much more on it as it doesn’t warrant it from a Brexit debate perspective.

[Nickgnome]

Dr Jekyll said:

They really are not very similar to each other, yet the principles of free trade still work in all three.

What do you mean by free trade? Do those economies have tax regimes, influence their currency valuation, possibly minimum wages?

[Dr Jekyll]

Nickgnome said:

Dr Jekyll said:

They really are not very similar to each other, yet the principles of free trade still work in all three.

What do you mean by free trade? Do those economies have tax regimes, influence their currency valuation, possibly minimum wages?

I mean not relying on protectionist tariffs.

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

JNW1 said:

But it's a safety agency and surely the UK's continued participation can only be of benefit in that respect? Your arguments for exclusion appear to centre around economics despite the fact we're told time and time again the EU's about politics.....

While it's purpose is safety its really a regulatory agency. So to do almost anything in aerospace you need to have been approved and be regulated by them.
It's not just pilots and airlines, manufactures, maintenance companies, even individuals within those organisation are licenced.
The UK is not being excluded from EASA. As of brexit UK is no longer a member of the EASA. So without a BASA agreement all CAA licences have no value for any EU regulated entity.
The UK companies will have no option but to set up entities in the EU. That is good for the EU.
The EU has offered a dispensation on a no deal brexit of 12m for airlines on existing routes and 11m months for the rest of the industry.
The UK government has decided these businesses are not of importance.

I speak from direct experience here - you're talking utter ste.

So much so, I can't even be bothered to debate with someone who will just rely on Google for answers they don't understand.

I see so you are the resident experts on borders and aerospace regulation. You do seem to make a lot of claims of expertise which is never backed up by evidence.