Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like Boris wants Fish v Financial Services to be an early battleground in the trade discussions. As FS is worth 200 times more than fish to the UK economy and FS exports to the EU are 20 times higher than fish it's easy to see who has more to lose in this negotiation. Fish will have a long way to go to make up for any downturn in FS exports. I'm sure Boris knows what he's doing though.
https://www.ft.com/content/445ee944-480f-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
 
BobKowalski said:
Perhaps before replying you should have read the article. There was a lot to mock.

And it wasn’t just something ‘I found on the internet’. It was an article in the Daily Telegraph written by the chairman of the Brexit Party making absurd military comparisons, something we are in the habit of doing, about the future negotiations. It wasn’t some obscure blog post written by a nobody getting off on some fantasy Brexit porn. It was the chairman of the Brexit party in the Daily Telegraph getting off on some fantasy Brexit porn.

For me it’s the anguish of people who cannot comprehend how the world has changed and where we fit in that world. You can hear the outrage of Andrew Neill proclaiming how much better we are on this regulation or state aid or whatever and Europe should be following our lead not the other way round. We joined the Common Market with the avowed intention to lead the way in Europe and we left the EU to lead Europe out of it not to get told what we can and cannot do or get slapped around by the bloody Irish. Since when did these other countries, smaller countries, have agency? Why does no one listen to us anymore? Well they probably stopped listening because they too can read the Daily Telegraph.
Click to expand...
I have since read the article and I agree that it is easy to mock the person referenced in the article - but, IMO, you only prove my point.

My first reply asking why you had posted the article was somewhat rhetorical - as you had answered it your first line:

"This is why we mock Brexiteers..."

So yes, as I was observing - it is true that you had joined, hopefully only temporarily, the group that just trawl the internet (that is where most people get there newspaper articles from - and you do not come across as a regular Daily Telegraph reader) looking for something to bring back and use to mock Brexit supporting posters on this forum. I acknowledge that 'trawling' is perhaps OTT and you just came across it.

TBF - you have a previous history of adding more value than just doing that - which is perhaps why I so quickly expressed my disappointment - others simply post links to articles that they have clearly not really read - let alone assessed and added comment to.

The actions of those others I refer to really does damage the threads - they are doing nothing more than baiting/goading/trolling IMO - and it has become the prevailing style.

As I accepted in my earlier posts - it then spirals with Leavers, including myself, dropping down to behave in like manner.

Re the substance of your post above...…"For me it’s the anguish of people who cannot comprehend how the world has changed and where we fit in that world..…."

I will reply to this separately rather than drag this post out.
 
Len Rum said:
French 'bird'.
Won't report your post on this occasion George.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux should be informed though

Ifwecouldjust....... said:
You spell 'Misogynistic ' like this George.
Click to expand...

Alas another unfamilar with first form French
French-Rotisserie-Ham-character-image.png
1fd77159a7dd542ac907def256749c43.jpg
 
mcfc1632 said:
I have since read the article and I agree that it is easy to mock the person referenced in the article - but, IMO, you only prove my point.

My first reply asking why you had posted the article was somewhat rhetorical - as you had answered it your first line:

"This is why we mock Brexiteers..."

So yes, as I was observing - it is true that you had joined, hopefully only temporarily, the group that just trawl the internet (that is where most people get there newspaper articles from - and you do not come across as a regular Daily Telegraph reader) looking for something to bring back and use to mock Brexit supporting posters on this forum. I acknowledge that 'trawling' is perhaps OTT and you just came across it.

TBF - you have a previous history of adding more value than just doing that - which is perhaps why I so quickly expressed my disappointment - others simply post links to articles that they have clearly not really read - let alone assessed and added comment to.

The actions of those others I refer to really does damage the threads - they are doing nothing more than baiting/goading/trolling IMO - and it has become the prevailing style.

As I accepted in my earlier posts - it then spirals with Leavers, including myself, dropping down to behave in like manner.

Re the substance of your post above...…"For me it’s the anguish of people who cannot comprehend how the world has changed and where we fit in that world..…."

I will reply to this separately rather than drag this post out.
Click to expand...

I follow several journalists whose output I rate on Europe and Brexit. One is Foster of the Telegraph (albeit he has now been poached by the FT which is attests to his quality) which is why I often post links from the Telegraph and why this article caught my eye. The other is (wait for it) Gutteridge of The Sun. And yes I know it’s The Sun but he is a very good Brussels correspondent. I can’t stand either of these publications but if staff are providing good insight and commentary then I’ll read it.

As for the baiting/goading/trolling well it’s a two way street and it will only stop if everyone - and I mean everyone - is honest with themselves about their own output or style of posting and are willing to engage in dialogue rather than talking past each other. A lot of the time I think we do engage in dialogue, but we are only human and the opportunity to wind up someone who is getting on your tits is sometimes too tempting to resist.

There were plenty of examples yesterday of leavers trolling as well as me taking the piss out of the chairman of the Brexit Party and painting all leavers with that particular brush. But scoffing at Remainers concerned over Ryan Air by pointing out we were in transition and then chortling five minutes later that planes haven’t fallen out of the sky the day after Brexit as if transition wasn’t a thing is pretty much text book baiting.

I don’t think it’s going to stop entirely but I’m happy to try.
 
BobKowalski said:
I follow several journalists whose output I rate on Europe and Brexit. One is Foster of the Telegraph (albeit he has now been poached by the FT which is attests to his quality) which is why I often post links from the Telegraph and why this article caught my eye. The other is (wait for it) Gutteridge of The Sun. And yes I know it’s The Sun but he is a very good Brussels correspondent. I can’t stand either of these publications but if staff are providing good insight and commentary then I’ll read it.

As for the baiting/goading/trolling well it’s a two way street and it will only stop if everyone - and I mean everyone - is honest with themselves about their own output or style of posting and are willing to engage in dialogue rather than talking past each other. A lot of the time I think we do engage in dialogue, but we are only human and the opportunity to wind up someone who is getting on your tits is sometimes too tempting to resist.

There were plenty of examples yesterday of leavers trolling as well as me taking the piss out of the chairman of the Brexit Party and painting all leavers with that particular brush. But scoffing at Remainers concerned over Ryan Air by pointing out we were in transition and then chortling five minutes later that planes haven’t fallen out of the sky the day after Brexit as if transition wasn’t a thing is pretty much text book baiting.

I don’t think it’s going to stop entirely but I’m happy to try.
Click to expand...
A noble offer. I think it will last only until the first reference to "EU sycophants".
 
BobKowalski said:
I follow several journalists whose output I rate on Europe and Brexit. One is Foster of the Telegraph (albeit he has now been poached by the FT which is attests to his quality) which is why I often post links from the Telegraph and why this article caught my eye. The other is (wait for it) Gutteridge of The Sun. And yes I know it’s The Sun but he is a very good Brussels correspondent. I can’t stand either of these publications but if staff are providing good insight and commentary then I’ll read it.

As for the baiting/goading/trolling well it’s a two way street and it will only stop if everyone - and I mean everyone - is honest with themselves about their own output or style of posting and are willing to engage in dialogue rather than talking past each other. A lot of the time I think we do engage in dialogue, but we are only human and the opportunity to wind up someone who is getting on your tits is sometimes too tempting to resist.

There were plenty of examples yesterday of leavers trolling as well as me taking the piss out of the chairman of the Brexit Party and painting all leavers with that particular brush. But scoffing at Remainers concerned over Ryan Air by pointing out we were in transition and then chortling five minutes later that planes haven’t fallen out of the sky the day after Brexit as if transition wasn’t a thing is pretty much text book baiting.

I don’t think it’s going to stop entirely but I’m happy to try.
Click to expand...

the Ryanair debate was a response to someone saying they would not take new pilots on unless they had free access across Europe which was clearly bollox and a stunt by O’Leary to take the focus away from a critical story of Ryanair that day.

I don’t want you to try, nor do I want others. Free speech in this country is becoming an endangered species and people should be able to express what they want (within the obvious boundaries) but this constant sanitising and diluting of speech is causing wider problems in society .

People should be able to disagree with each other without it being censored or shut down. I don’t always agree with you but I enjoy reading your contributions.
 
BobKowalski said:
I follow several journalists whose output I rate on Europe and Brexit. One is Foster of the Telegraph (albeit he has now been poached by the FT which is attests to his quality) which is why I often post links from the Telegraph and why this article caught my eye. The other is (wait for it) Gutteridge of The Sun. And yes I know it’s The Sun but he is a very good Brussels correspondent. I can’t stand either of these publications but if staff are providing good insight and commentary then I’ll read it.....
Click to expand...
and you rate the output of these individuals because they share your own views on the desirability of UK membership of the EU & the folly of Brexit?
 
west didsblue said:
For someone who works in the industry you're not demonstrating much knowledge of how it works. EASA took over the function of the CAA Safety Regulation Group and many SRG employees were seconded into EASA. Many of the regulations generated by SRG were incorporated with EASA regulations and aligned with regulations from other national bodies. If we don't remain members of EASA as a result of the deal, the SRG would have to be reconstituted and I assume it would adopt all EASA regulations rather than start writing equivalents. It is then likely to adopt all rule changes generated by EASA as they happen so we will end up being a rule taker like we will be in all other areas, rather than having a say in their creation. We will of course be able to not incorporate new EASA regulations but that could prevent UK operators from flying into EU countries so it's more than likely we'll stay aligned with EASA. EASA regs are already closely aligned with FAA regulations and most countries use one or the other as the basis for their own regulations as will we. The upshot is that we will have the overhead of having a new organisation to replicate EASA's function in the UK for no additional benefit.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree everything you have said is true, I still think it is alarmism. It's almost like saying we are going to smash up aviation regulation and start again but why and who is proposing it?

We won't be a ruletaker. The FAA co-operates with EASA but it isn't a ruletaker as whilst US organisations have to align with EU rules, EU organisations have to align with FAA rules as well.

This is why the FAA has agreements and technical co-operations with EASA but it doesn't have to align regulation unless there is a need for it and that is where you have a conversation rather than an argument about who has the biggest shoes....

EASA is not the ultimate authority on aviation in the world, it didn't even exist until 20 years ago and all regulatory functions were made by independent countries and aligned mutually via a conversation through JAA.

The rest of the world and its aviation regulatory system manages to operate without being in a political union so why is it going to be a problem and why would we ever seek to make problems?
 
inbetween said:
Whilst I agree everything you have said is true, I still think it is alarmism. It's almost like saying we are going to smash up aviation regulation and start again but why and who is proposing it?

We won't be a ruletaker. The FAA co-operates with EASA but it isn't a ruletaker as whilst US organisations have to align with EU rules, EU organisations have to align with FAA rules as well.

This is why the FAA has agreements and technical co-operations with EASA but it doesn't have to align regulation unless there is a need for it and that is where you have a conversation rather than an argument about who has the biggest shoes....

EASA is not the ultimate authority on aviation in the world, it didn't even exist until 20 years ago and all regulatory functions were made by independent countries and aligned mutually via a conversation through JAA.

The rest of the world and its aviation regulatory system manages to operate without being in a political union so why is it going to be a problem and why would we ever seek to make problems?
Click to expand...
I think you may have missed my point.

JAA was the predecessor of EASA and you are correct that individual countries set their own regulations and within Europe they were generally aligned via JAA. When EASA took over from JAA, it also took over rulemaking responsibility from each individual country which meant the biggest players had the most influence on setting the rules which was ourselves, France and Germany.

By departing from EASA (if that happens as a result of Brexit), we will no longer have influence in setting EASA regulations, and CAA SRG will have to be reconstituted to set regulations for the UK. It is highly likely we will stay aligned with EASA because, like in every other non-aviation field, if we diverge too much we may lose market access, and because EASA is the dominant organisation in Europe it their rules that we will align to rather than the other way round.

As you have said EASA and the FAA work closely together to maintain alignment and most countries in the world follow one or the other to a large extent. We will be no different. In reality it won't make a huge amount of difference but the upshot is that we will have less influence in rule making and we will most likely adopt EASA regulations without much of a say. So although theoretically we are taking back control, in practice it is exactly the opposite. This also applies to nearly every other pan-European joint body, with the only exceptions being in areas where we are practically a monopoly.

Of course the Brexit deal may leave us in EASA in which case it will be as before, but that's not our government's stated position.
 
west didsblue said:
I think you may have missed my point.

JAA was the predecessor of EASA and you are correct that individual countries set their own regulations and within Europe they were generally aligned via JAA. When EASA took over from JAA, it also took over rulemaking responsibility from each individual country which meant the biggest players had the most influence on setting the rules which was ourselves, France and Germany.

By departing from EASA (if that happens as a result of Brexit), we will no longer have influence in setting EASA regulations, and CAA SRG will have to be reconstituted to set regulations for the UK. It is highly likely we will stay aligned with EASA because, like in every other non-aviation field, if we diverge too much we may lose market access, and because EASA is the dominant organisation in Europe it their rules that we will align to rather than the other way round.

As you have said EASA and the FAA work closely together to maintain alignment and most countries in the world follow one or the other to a large extent. We will be no different. In reality it won't make a huge amount of difference but the upshot is that we will have less influence in rule making and we will most likely adopt EASA regulations without much of a say. So although theoretically we are taking back control, in practice it is exactly the opposite. This also applies to nearly every other pan-European joint body, with the only exceptions being in areas where we are practically a monopoly.

Of course the Brexit deal may leave us in EASA in which case it will be as before, but that's not our government's stated position.
Click to expand...
So lots of money spent on the CAA having its own licensing / regulatory body which will follow EASA to the letter. About a third of EASA income is EU subsidy so we will save something toward that but I assume we may also be paying EASA some "third country" contributions.

The bottom line is that this is going to be similar elsewhere. Missing out on economy of scale EU bodies and spending on our own systems which will just mimic what we've left (or spend even more money tweaking stuff just so we can say we're doing our own thing).
 
BobKowalski said:
Talking of the Telegraph there is ‘eye popping’ fury at the £1 billion Brexit tab we ran up at the bar. Apparently the EU Securities watchdog is also set to fine us for regulation breaches.

‘Fury as EU confirms £1bn bill it sent on Brexit Day - and says timing was 'pure coincidence'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...mand-britain-pays-1-billion-bill-sent-brexit/
Click to expand...
Is this one of those occasional 'surcharges' that the EU issue whenever they need more money - based on which economy is seen to be doing better than others.

It may not be, but if so - I welcome it.

If that is the case it will be one of those 'clauses' from the Lisbon Treaty (I think - maybe Maastricht) - where the UK has signed over to the EU the right to levy a charge for further payments without any notice or say in the demand from the UK.

I welcome it for a few reasons:

1/ It is a timely reminder of how the UK has been the milch cow (not used that for a good while - but it remains a very apt description) and that the amount that we are normally hear quoted as being our contribution - is often actually higher.

2/ It is also a good reminder of the arrogance that I find to be inherent within the EU 'Rules' - why the fuck do they need to bother working within a budget when they can just levy surcharges as and when reuiqred

3/ This happened in the Autumn of 2015 - and on that occasion was particularly helpful.

I am sure that many voters missed it - but I am also sure that many others noted it and it will have swayed some to vote to Leave. The arrogance of the EU when Cameron questioned the amount and its timing was the sort of anti-EU publicity that money cannot buy.

This will hopefully be the last such levy, although I bet they screw us for a further withdrawal from the teat at the end of the year. But that will then be it - these levies were only ever going to get larger in value and more frequent - so all good.

Which economy will they go to for such levies in the future? Or perhaps the EU will change to plan and manage within a designated budget - you think?.
 
Vic said:
So lots of money spent on the CAA having its own licensing / regulatory body which will follow EASA to the letter. About a third of EASA income is EU subsidy so we will save something toward that but I assume we may also be paying EASA some "third country" contributions.

The bottom line is that this is going to be similar elsewhere. Missing out on economy of scale EU bodies and spending on our own systems which will just mimic what we've left (or spend even more money tweaking stuff just so we can say we're doing our own thing).
Click to expand...
What's your view of the solution - apart from remaining in the EU or in a BRINO outcome?

We are Leaving the EU - there will be a lot of things to be managed - it is just a natural consequence of respecting the democratic determination of the UK electorate.

Some stuff will be easy some stuff will be hard. Some situations will be to our benefit and others will have an associated cost - but it is just stuff to be managed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top