Possibly although pre 1973 isn't the same as 2002 which is when easa was set up. Also who would it need to be acceptable to if we set up our own version, and I am sure we could find already suitably trained staff that would come work for us.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit - Deal or No Deal?
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
- Status
Possibly although pre 1973 isn't the same as 2002 which is when easa was set up. Also who would it need to be acceptable to if we set up our own version, and I am sure we could find already suitably trained staff that would come work for us.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Air traffic between EU countries grew over 46% between 1995 and 2015 (the last year with complete records). Had the 2009 credit squeeze and subsequent recession not happened the growth would be even higher. See:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/passenger-transport-demand-version-2/assessment-9
It's not as if there weren't crowded skies before 1995 but managing such an increase with each of (eventually) 28 nations operating its own airspace fiefdom would hardly be easy.
NSEFAN
Established Member
Most problems can be overcome given sufficient time or money. It still takes time to set up such organisations, and will still be a cost, deal or no deal. One particularly enfuriating thing about Brexit is that nobody in charge seems to have considered these more subtle but important details before launching into a referendum and triggering article 50. It's almost as if they thought enough bluster and waffle would make the difficulties go away.
nlogax
Established Member
Still, it's nice to see that the highly likely drop in employment due to a loss of financial services business will be partially offset by, er, the extra thousands of civil servants that'll be hired at DExEU to try and make this sense out of this sorry mess. Good work, everyone.
Of course EU immigration is beneficial for low-pay employers. I don't think anybody has ever questioned that. But where these jobs exist only because of immigration, it is not unreasonable to question whether those jobs are of net benefit to the wider economy.
Basically the sum is:
Pros
Corporation tax / business rates from Pret, Starbucks etc
Income tax / NI from workers
Spend from workers into economy
Saving (if any) on lunch costs of customers
Cons
Tax credits for workers
Benefits for workers
Pressure on housing
Pressure on wages
Pressure on commercial rents
Public services used by workers
Money remitted out of economy
Clearly for high paid jobs made possible by immigration it's a no-brainer. Less sure about Pret et al.
But the Pret job only exists because of and in response to that high-paying job.
It would need to be acceptable to the civil aviation authority in any country that our airlines wished to operate to. In much the same way that airlines from several countries aren't allowed to operate to EU airports because their oversight isn't acceptable to ESAS standards.
And those qualified people already have jobs - it wouldn't be cheap to get them to relocate to work in the UK.
This interests me because I am told by many people that London is a truly global city which is why we need to keep investing in infrastructure there, yet you say people want to leave because of all the Europeans? What is it that people want? A massively strong economy that is influential on the global stage, but no foreigners involved?
dcsprior
Member
I actually did hear a friend of a friend explain quite well why he was voting leave. He works in an area which means he deals closely with politicians and civil servants, and has spent time in Europe dealing with politicians and civil servants there. He said that although the idea and aims of the EU were good, it was in many ways a quite disfunctional organisation that often made doing the right thing harder. He also believed that this was not something that would likely be fixed if we remained. I don't know how correct this position was, but it did strike me as a well thought out, coherent reason from an intelligent person. Of course, I've heard/read other people's reason for voting the same way, and would not apply this description.
I still believe that leaving was the wrong decision, but I'd like to focus on the silver linings - eg things that could become possible due to brexit, even if overall it isn't great. One big example here is that's a universal income becoming feasible could be a silver lining of the loss of freedom of movement.
No, around a third think that No Deal is the likely outcome, around double that number think that some deal is more likely.
More likely that everyone will get a free unicorn, given the current government (and opposition).
The Daily Telegraph is this morning reporting legal obstacles to a free trade agreement along the lines of the suggested Canada Plus model
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/31/theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-hits-legal-minefield/
"Theresa May’s quest for a “Canada plus” deal in Brexit talks has run into serious legal obstacles and may ultimately prove impossible, risking bitter disappointment and a political crisis next year as reality hits home.
Trade lawyers and European officials warn that even if the EU wants to grant the UK a bespoke deal that preserves unfettered access for goods and services, it cannot do so without granting parallel concessions to Canada, South Korea, and other countries that have free trade agreements. This would open up a Pandora’s Box.
“It is a minefield. Financial institutions are fully of aware of the problem but we have not yet heard anything from the Government,” Chris Bryant, an EU expert at lawyers Brewin Leighton Paisner."
The rest of the article is behind a paywall but the gist is that lawyers are saying if the EU grant us more favourable terms, clauses in other trade agreements mean these would also have to be upgraded to better terms without the EU getting anything in return and this could cause ratification problems.
The article goes on to say that assuming the difficulties are chiefly political and can be overcome by political finessing is a recipe for a rude awakening next year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/31/theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-hits-legal-minefield/
"Theresa May’s quest for a “Canada plus” deal in Brexit talks has run into serious legal obstacles and may ultimately prove impossible, risking bitter disappointment and a political crisis next year as reality hits home.
Trade lawyers and European officials warn that even if the EU wants to grant the UK a bespoke deal that preserves unfettered access for goods and services, it cannot do so without granting parallel concessions to Canada, South Korea, and other countries that have free trade agreements. This would open up a Pandora’s Box.
“It is a minefield. Financial institutions are fully of aware of the problem but we have not yet heard anything from the Government,” Chris Bryant, an EU expert at lawyers Brewin Leighton Paisner."
The rest of the article is behind a paywall but the gist is that lawyers are saying if the EU grant us more favourable terms, clauses in other trade agreements mean these would also have to be upgraded to better terms without the EU getting anything in return and this could cause ratification problems.
The article goes on to say that assuming the difficulties are chiefly political and can be overcome by political finessing is a recipe for a rude awakening next year.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,797
Q for both sides of the argument.
Assuming the current government is still in place March 2019 - could the Tories survive a "no deal" outcome?
Q2 then if the answer's no - then what? What would happen post-Brexit under a no-deal Labour/anyone else coalition? What about the input from the SNP if they are in coalition - would they demand another indyref?
Assuming the current government is still in place March 2019 - could the Tories survive a "no deal" outcome?
Q2 then if the answer's no - then what? What would happen post-Brexit under a no-deal Labour/anyone else coalition? What about the input from the SNP if they are in coalition - would they demand another indyref?
bramling
Veteran Member
I think anything on Scottish independence depends on whether she thinks she has a chance of winning. Given the knocking back suffered by the SNP earlier this year I think it is much more unlikely than it was.
As for a no-deal scenario, yes I think the Conservatives could survive, especially with Corbyn in opposition. How could anyone trust Labour when no one really knows what his and their position actually is? And this assumes people don’t freak at the thought of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott being in power. Funnily enough I was discussing this yesterday with a life-long Labour who said she would rather vote for Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg than risk Corbyn.
I would also vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg - he strikes me as the type of person who would act based on what he feels to be right, rather than pandering to special interests. I might not agree with his actions but I could respect his reason for acting.
I have to say that while I don't like a lot of his views, he IS someone who stands by his conviction. I do wish we had more people like that in politics.
Agreed.
Mhairi Black MP was quoted as saying: “Tony Benn once said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts. Weathercocks will spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them. And then there are signposts, which stand true, and tall, and principled. And they point in the direction and they say, This is the way to a better society and it is my job to convince you why. Tony Benn was right when he said the only people worth remembering in politics were signposts.”
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Q1: Yes the Tories could survive that. It is, after all, what many of the crusty old kipperish buffers who make up many of their supporters want.
Q2: who knows. I do know that I am certainly never, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever voting for a clown like Rees-Mogg. A man who has no connection with the real world or the challenges facing real people but will stand by his conviction that helping rich twits like him get richer is what politics is all about. Eton,Trinity and the City really help one understand the pressures of the real world. Berk.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,797
I seriously want to correct that SO MUCH....
DarloRich
Veteran Member
the rules of this board often prevent me expressing myself in the manner I would in real life.
Of course Corbyn is no 'man of the people' either. Grew up in a large country home, went to an independent prep school, got a grammar education, did a little bit of trade union repping and then slipped into life as a career politician, mostly in a safe metropolitan seat in Islington. Most of that time as a career politician was spent as a back-bencher with forays into his pet projects. There are lefty equivalents of the JR-M life.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
don't get me started on Clownbyn. I will have a seizure.
bramling
Veteran Member
But if the choice is between Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott and Johnson/Rees-Mogg, which is the least worst option? Personally I’d be happy for RM but less keen on Johnson, and I agree with what others have said that at least RM comes over as a conviction politician.
In the same way that I detest both Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khan, but can have a (very small!) element of respect for Ken for at least doing what he believed to be right. Khan is just a self-interested re-election politician.
More importantly, he doesn't appear to be an ideologue.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Can I vote for the other guy?
My principles mean I would rather vote for Corbyn than principled man of the people Joey Mogg. He is a clueless, posh, uppercrust clown. His much vaunted principles don't extend to common decency such as allowing the victims of rape to have an abortion should one be the wish of the victim.
I wonder when the last time he had to decide between putting the light on or putting the heat on in his one bed flat or worrying how he was going to put a meal on the table for any of his 6 kids or where the money to buy shoes for little Sixtus will come from. He campaigned in Scotland with his bloody nanny in tow and driving his Bentley ffs! ( although he says it was only a Mercedes) Does he know how much milk costs or eggs or bread or does one of his domestics deal with all that?
BTW - I agree with him on one thing: That the best way out of poverty is through employment. I just doubt he knows what employment for real people actually is or what happens when his chums take that work away.
(Deep cleansing breath.)
bramling
Veteran Member
Page 2 of tonight’s Evening Standars talking about a stall in house price growth in London, partly due to “less demand from Europeans after Brexit”. Considering rising house prices are generally being considered a bad thing, especially in the London area, this has to be seen as a good thing.
We're not the USA, so can't we have a third option?
Personally, I don't see why Nick Clegg got so much hatred for forming a coalition that seemed to keep the Tories under a fair level of control and seemed like a rather good compromise. But, student loans.. and that's it - he's as bad as Hitler (Sorry Godwin).
Now we have to choose from, to quote South Park, a douche or a giant turd. Corbyn has got support from an awful lot of people who are surprisingly similar to the far-right, in that they won't accept any differences of opinion, have little desire to compromise and always want to shut down debate. Plus we have nothing but political point scoring and trying to undermine the opposition, while we sit around wondering exactly what is going on in politics these days - given you'd be allowed to assume that there's NOTHING on the agenda other than poxy Brexit.
In the US , the " third option in the 2016 election was Gary Johnson and the Libertarians.
Johnson seems to be a skilled international diplomat , as when he was asked How he'd deal with Aleppo , the man himself responded with " Aleppo ? , What is Aleppo ? "
Means all the people who lose their jobs after brexit and the great exodus will have cheaper prices , hooray
bramling
Veteran Member
Try making a peak-time journey by road or rail round the home counties, then come back and say the south-east is not crowded.
As for London, not long before the referendum we did a little poll in a London train-crew depot as to voting intentions. I forget the exact figure, but the result was something along the lines of around 90% definitely planning to vote leave. The weekend after the referendum there was also a well-attended celebratory barbecue IIRC.
I certainly remember it being suggested in various analysis that the untypically (untypical compared to the rest of England) high pro-remain vote in London may have been influenced by a disproportionately high percentage of ethnic minority voters. Does anything think this may or may not be true? Going back to the mess-room poll above, it didn't seem to make much difference.
It was the poll I speak of above, combined with being on holiday in Darlington at the time where pretty much *every* house had a "vote leave" poster displayed, which made me think leave might actually be the verdict.
- Status