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

[Burwood]

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 don't know why you waste your time on a Mr T dialogue. He has zero knowledge on these matters and gets his info from a pro Remain propaganda site.

[jonnyb]

maybe some of the more astute political brains amongst you could tell me something. Because as far as I understand it Boris Johnson, with a majority of 1, has absolutely no chance of getting any deal, with or without backstop, through Parliament.

The ERG have already stated that they would vote against any dal with the EU, wether it contains a back stop or not. So Boris would need about 60(?) opposition votes to get any deal thorough.

Is that ever likely to happen? Even if the EU roll over on the backstop tomorrow, what’s the chances of getting an agreement through Parliament? Very, very slim I think.

[crankedup]

Brooking10 said:

crankedup said:

Who’s arguing ?

Within a few years the business may have moved again!
The share price dropped over recent years but this lift has brought it back to levels not seen for a number of years. However for the buyers recently this is of course very welcome.
Sitting back and watching for a few years is a luxury only the pensioners may indulge. Personally I see it as an interesting development in my local area.
Together with CLAAS investment it is great news for our local economy nd a nod that brexit is not all bad news as some predict.

The acquirer is buying every last share in the business, it won’t be tradeable any more after that. The share price bounce reflects the price that is going to be paid for the business as a whole. The transaction is structured in such a way that the major shareholders by value (I believe 75%) will dictate that it goes through even if retail investors disagree.

GK is a good business, it’s not particularly diverse but it’s at the top of its game and represents a steady income stream as one of the last men standing in a significantly reshaped industry. The acquirer loves property assets and so sees realisable value even if there is a downturn in the pub trade.

I would agree with you that the Claas investment is good for the region and likely to have more obvious direct positive impact than the GK transaction.

Admit I hadn’t realised earlier the Greene King shareholders had agreed to a 100% share sale.!I wonder how many private investors will hold onto thier shares? Yes I understand that GK is a solid good business, and I trust that Greene King will be in good hands. After a run of about 220 years in one way it’s sad to see it go into usiness from abroad, but that’s the nature of Global business and it won’t change anytime soon.

[crankedup]

Nickgnome said:

crankedup said:

Who’s arguing ?

Within a few years the business may have moved again!
The share price dropped over recent years but this lift has brought it back to levels not seen for a number of years. However for the buyers recently this is of course very welcome.
Sitting back and watching for a few years is a luxury only the pensioners may indulge. Personally I see it as an interesting development in my local area.
Together with CLAAS investment it is great news for our local economy nd a nod that brexit is not all bad news as some predict.

Like everything in life it is on balance. I do not expect Brexit to instantly bring mass unemployment but it will be a gradual eroding of our position in the world, just like the medium size business that try to live off past glories and watches others grow, merge and benefit from scaleability.

In just a few decades we will have slipped down the global economies scale, which is inevitable due to our population limits.

The Great in Britain was pure luck in geographical size and the vast majority of the brexit voters here are nowhere near influencing our economy in any way. They will in a few years time need someone else to blame for their lot.

The ever weakening pound is looking good though for some of us.

We will have to disagree regarding our pov regarding the U.K. growth for the future. Sure the first few years will be bumpy but I see our new trade in the World position growing with new independant trade deals.

[Nickgnome]

psi310398 said:

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.

We the UK already trade globally.

As a company we did as well. Free movement assisted us greatly, but at no time did we have problems recruiting globally albeit more time consuming and with additional cost.

We were able to undertake contracts with the Eu which my ex company could have been barred from had they not moved people into the Eu and set up offices.

However you wrap it up the vast majority of Brexit voters will not be the ones having to figure out new procedures, or what happens to existing contracts, movement of people and goods issues. The list of additional overhead activities is large and a complete distraction from the core business aims.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

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.

You want to see my CV? Learn my name, and look on linked in...

There are a fair number of posters who do know me in real life (including some on this thread on the "other side" of the debate) more than capable of calling me out if it were bullst. Funnily enough - they haven't. Think on that.

Suffice to say, I've worked across a number of sectors.

From manufacturing in many guises, through services/FS, and now into a blend of both highly complex JIT manufacturing across a global supply and customer base, and an equally sized (in revenue - triple the EBIT) service delivery - in aerospace...

We aren't opening a single EU based entity irrespective of what happens with Brexit, you'd think from your post it's an absolute must - yet our compliance and risk guys are entirely comfortable not doing so risks nothing in the context of our billion in revenue per year business operating in 9 countries under EASA oversight, including in non-EASA member nations...

The issue is, I've spent more than three years debating on logic, example, reasoning - only for your sole answer to be "computer/Google says no".

So I'm not anymore. You're talking ste, if what you said was fact there'd be hundreds of companies like mine screaming about it, the Exchequer would be screaming about it, and the Europeans would be gloating about it...

But no, as far as you're concerned, no EU signature, no fly (or operate). bks, and thrice bks.

[Mr Penfold]

jonnyb said:

maybe some of the more astute political brains amongst you could tell me something. Because as far as I understand it Boris Johnson, with a majority of 1, has absolutely no chance of getting any deal, with or without backstop, through Parliament.

The ERG have already stated that they would vote against any dal with the EU, wether it contains a back stop or not. So Boris would need about 60(?) opposition votes to get any deal thorough.

Is that ever likely to happen? Even if the EU roll over on the backstop tomorrow, what’s the chances of getting an agreement through Parliament? Very, very slim I think.

A lot of MP's will consider it the last chance saloon on the way to boris's no deal and will vote for any deal to prevent the alternative

[Nickgnome]

crankedup said:

We will have to disagree regarding our pov regarding the U.K. growth for the future. Sure the first few years will be bumpy but I see our new trade in the World position growing with new independant trade deals.

Nice sentiment but my experience cautions otherwise.

We are unlikely to see the rosy upsides in our lifetime.

We haven’t even managed to get back real wages to the level pre the financial crash. Those of us that are better off are in the minority. That cannot be allowed to continue.

[psi310398]

Mr Penfold said:

A lot of MP's will consider it the last chance saloon on the way to boris's no deal and will vote for any deal to prevent the alternative

I’m not so sure. Many MPs (Conservative and Labour) are petrified of the consequences of any choice they now make. Some won't be bothered but it will be those not standing again and possibly the odd deluded one - I imagine Grieve standing as an independent for example.

[Sway]

Nickgnome said:

crankedup said:

We will have to disagree regarding our pov regarding the U.K. growth for the future. Sure the first few years will be bumpy but I see our new trade in the World position growing with new independant trade deals.

Nice sentiment but my experience cautions otherwise.

We are unlikely to see the rosy upsides in our lifetime.

We haven’t even managed to get back real wages to the level pre the financial crash. Those of us that are better off are in the minority. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Funny how a few weeks ago, when I explained quite why control of our inward tariff regime was both more immediate and more important than the focus on export trade for a nation significantly net importers, you went quiet...

In light of your comments on "real wages", that's rather critical...

As an aside, which equivalent economies have done much better than us in wage recovery post 08?

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

You want to see my CV? Learn my name, and look on linked in...

There are a fair number of posters who do know me in real life (including some on this thread on the "other side" of the debate) more than capable of calling me out if it were bullst. Funnily enough - they haven't. Think on that.

Suffice to say, I've worked across a number of sectors.

From manufacturing in many guises, through services/FS, and now into a blend of both highly complex JIT manufacturing across a global supply and customer base, and an equally sized (in revenue - triple the EBIT) service delivery - in aerospace...

We aren't opening a single EU based entity irrespective of what happens with Brexit, you'd think from your post it's an absolute must - yet our compliance and risk guys are entirely comfortable not doing so risks nothing in the context of our billion in revenue per year business operating in 9 countries under EASA oversight, including in non-EASA member nations...

The issue is, I've spent more than three years debating on logic, example, reasoning - only for your sole answer to be "computer/Google says no".

So I'm not anymore. You're talking ste, if what you said was fact there'd be hundreds of companies like mine screaming about it, the Exchequer would be screaming about it, and the Europeans would be gloating about it...

But no, as far as you're concerned, no EU signature, no fly (or operate). bks, and thrice bks.

Once again lots of claims. Telling us you know people on PH who can vouch for you. The last time you did that I asked the poster you claimed you knew he did not confirm it.

I did say I would ignore your rubbish I should have remembered that.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

You want to see my CV? Learn my name, and look on linked in...

There are a fair number of posters who do know me in real life (including some on this thread on the "other side" of the debate) more than capable of calling me out if it were bullst. Funnily enough - they haven't. Think on that.

Suffice to say, I've worked across a number of sectors.

From manufacturing in many guises, through services/FS, and now into a blend of both highly complex JIT manufacturing across a global supply and customer base, and an equally sized (in revenue - triple the EBIT) service delivery - in aerospace...

We aren't opening a single EU based entity irrespective of what happens with Brexit, you'd think from your post it's an absolute must - yet our compliance and risk guys are entirely comfortable not doing so risks nothing in the context of our billion in revenue per year business operating in 9 countries under EASA oversight, including in non-EASA member nations...

The issue is, I've spent more than three years debating on logic, example, reasoning - only for your sole answer to be "computer/Google says no".

So I'm not anymore. You're talking ste, if what you said was fact there'd be hundreds of companies like mine screaming about it, the Exchequer would be screaming about it, and the Europeans would be gloating about it...

But no, as far as you're concerned, no EU signature, no fly (or operate). bks, and thrice bks.

Once again lots of claims. Telling us you know people on PH who can vouch for you. The last time you did that I asked the poster you claimed you knew he did not confirm it.

I did say I would ignore your rubbish I should have remembered that.

Crack on poppet. I'll carry on knocking down your chicken little screeching. Note, I'm not the only one taking the piss out of your googled arguments.

Misrepresenting though - I never asked for vouches. I merely pointed out, as I've just done, that they'd be more than able to refute any false claims to expertise and experience.

[Nickgnome]

Sway said:

Funny how a few weeks ago, when I explained quite why control of our inward tariff regime was both more immediate and more important than the focus on export trade for a nation significantly net importers, you went quiet...

In light of your comments on "real wages", that's rather critical...

As an aside, which equivalent economies have done much better than us in wage recovery post 08?

I’m not sure joe bloggs gives a toss about what wages are in other countries. All he knows is he and his family is still worse off than before the recession.

When you’ve actually been a director for a few years with all the fun that goes with that come back and give your opinion then.

As I understand it, currently you are still a consultant/contractor so it’s not your business at risk.

Feel free to enlighten us if I’m mistaken and you now do run some rapidly growing enterprise.

[JNW1]

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.

I rather suspected so but thanks for confirming!

[DeepEnd]

p1stonhead said:

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...

He shares the same crowd funder as that kipper muppet Sar of Akkad.

[DeepEnd]

crankedup said:

Admit I hadn’t realised earlier the Greene King shareholders had agreed to a 100% share sale.!I wonder how many private investors will hold onto thier shares? Yes I understand that GK is a solid good business, and I trust that Greene King will be in good hands. After a run of about 220 years in one way it’s sad to see it go into usiness from abroad, but that’s the nature of Global business and it won’t change anytime soon.

Like fishing quotas then.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Admit I hadn’t realised earlier the Greene King shareholders had agreed to a 100% share sale.!I wonder how many private investors will hold onto thier shares? Yes I understand that GK is a solid good business, and I trust that Greene King will be in good hands. After a run of about 220 years in one way it’s sad to see it go into usiness from abroad, but that’s the nature of Global business and it won’t change anytime soon.

Re shareholders the answer is none.

They won’t be able to.

[p1stonhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Do you find it odd how ‘academics’ i.e those with in depth knowledge of their respective fields rather than only having conjecture and nonsense, lean left according to you?

Brainwashed by knowing too much stuff eh.

[Nickgnome]

Just heard Chichester district council intend to purchase a filling station to secure fuel supplies for the council vehicles to protect in the event of a No Deal Brexit.

Surely that has to be bonkers. What happens when the fuel runs out?

[Sway]

Nickgnome said:

Sway said:

Funny how a few weeks ago, when I explained quite why control of our inward tariff regime was both more immediate and more important than the focus on export trade for a nation significantly net importers, you went quiet...

In light of your comments on "real wages", that's rather critical...

As an aside, which equivalent economies have done much better than us in wage recovery post 08?

I’m not sure joe bloggs gives a toss about what wages are in other countries. All he knows is he and his family is still worse off than before the recession.

When you’ve actually been a director for a few years with all the fun that goes with that come back and give your opinion then.

As I understand it, currently you are still a consultant/contractor so it’s not your business at risk.

Feel free to enlighten us if I’m mistaken and you now do run some rapidly growing enterprise.

You're calling out pessimism in the UK's prospects, and citing poor wage recovery as an indicator to back that up - so it's entirely pertinent to ask how do we compare?

Your assumption is wrong - am a consultant, haven't contracted for quite some time. When I did, renumeration want always in money...

We've grown organically at 12% average for the last five years, which is when a loss making, declining revenue business was acquired. The growth in EBIT is rather greater, which has allowed us to grow through acquisition to become the only fully vertically integrated player in the market.

I was headhunted six months after that acquisition to lead strategy, change and delivery - and have plenty of skin in the game.

I also live less than ten miles from you - more than happy to meet for a beer.