PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th Aug 2016, 14:00   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 392
There appears to be a massive misinterpretation of what and was not promised or suggested by the Brexit campaign.
As others have mentioned the Brexit Campaign had just ONE goal, to put forward the pros for leaving the EU. Not to make policy.
What has peed off many is the complete lack of planning by those sitting in Government not to cover the Brexit vote.
Cameron, Osbourne and what appears to be the entire structure of Government made no contingency plans, this an historical state of denial and group think, bordering on criminal.
Personally I believe the pea sized snowball of the June 23rd vote has only just started rolling down the slope, building up mass and momentum as it goes.
When it arrives at the bottom of the hill who knows where the EU will be.
Interesting times ahead.
alwayzinit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 14:41   #42 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,233
Quote:
There appears to be a massive misinterpretation of what and was not promised or suggested by the Brexit campaign.
Not really, most of it was perfectly clear:


(1) £350m/week for the NHS instead of being paid to the EU. (The fact that it wasn't being paid in the first place didn't seem to matter.)


(2) "Take back control" - WTF that might mean in practice is as clear as mud, but the bit that was clear during the campaign is that the EU shouldn't set any of our rules any more.


(3) Reduced immigration from the EU. (OK, so the people who thought that the day after the election British-born people with brown skins should be on their way "home" must have misunderstood this one somewhat.)


Of these, (1) is undeliverable because there never was any £350m/week in the first place, and (2) and (3) are perfectly deliverable ... at a price, which includes loss of access to European markets for British businesses on current terms, loss of ability to hire staff (across industry, not just in the NHS) from EU countries without insane hassle and cost, loss of freedom of movement of British people to go to EU countries (apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports), etc.


So the government can't deliver (1), for the same reason as no government can ever deliver anything that breaks the laws of physics, but can deliver (2) and (3) if it's prepared to face the electorate after paying the price. There may or may not be enough people in government and parliament prepared to commit political suicide and destroy the country's economy just in order to be able to spend their retirements (on the bread line, if they're lucky, and already have quite a bit stashed away) going round muttering "told you so".
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 14:58   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Quote:
Of these, (1) is undeliverable because there never was any £350m/week in the first place, and (2) and (3) are perfectly deliverable ... at a price, which includes loss of access to European markets for British businesses on current terms, loss of ability to hire staff (across industry, not just in the NHS) from EU countries without insane hassle and cost, loss of freedom of movement of British people to go to EU countries (apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports), etc.
I believe the true figure was £190 million once you had taken out what the EU gives us back, but of course they decide where to spend the £160 million not us so you had no chance of it going to the NHS and every chance of it being blown on vanity projects.
Re European markets, are you claiming we will no longer be trading with the EU once we leave? Also cheap labour from the EU has driven down the average wages across the low to semi skilled industries so maybe we will see some wage growth in those areas as well. The NHS has been recruiting staff from the rest of the world years before the EU so no real change there except they can now insist staff from the EU can speak good English. I can well remember travelling across Europe before the EU, the only difference was you spent 5 mins on the aircraft filling out a immigration card hardly insane hassle, if it was nobody would travel outside the EU would they.

So here we are 2 months after the vote, no emergency budget, no stock market crash, no hordes of asylum seekers shipped across from Calais, no plagues of Locusts oh and World War 3 hasnt started yet. All in all everything's looking great
Rob Courtney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:05   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 670
Quote:
(apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports)
How many millions have applied:

Number of Irish passport applications rises by 70 per cent after Brexit | Europe | News | The Independent
Quote:
British enquiries have spiked to 7,321 in July – up from 4,242 at the same point last year
Good job we can trust the Remain campaign facts

The rest of your post was even worse tripe
engineer(retard) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:26   #45 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,233
Quote:
hardly insane hassle
The "insane hassle" is getting tier 2 visa sponsorship paperwork done for hiring a non-EU employee. If we have to do the same for EU hires in the future I can see the owners throwing in the towel and simply offshoring the business.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:27   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwayzinit View Post
What has peed off many is the complete lack of planning by those sitting in Government not to cover the Brexit vote.
Cameron, Osbourne and what appears to be the entire structure of Government made no contingency plans, this an historical state of denial and group think, bordering on criminal.
Apparently Cameron refused point blank to allow the civil service to make any contingency planning for Brexit. He reasoned that to do so might imply that a vote in favour of Brexit was a possibility, and he didn't want anyone to form such an impression.
Andy_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:28   #47 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,233
Quote:
How many millions have applied
"Scrambling for" and "have applied" are not quite the same - in many cases, including ours, there are months of paperwork to go through before an application can be filled in, and most of those involve no contact with the Irish government. For example in our case the first step was getting hold of a copy of a marriage certificate from the 1950s from a small village in Austria - that won't appear in your figures.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:50   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 17
I can't really think of any pros and have yet to hear of any other than a general undercurrent of dislike of foreigners and immigrants, 'laws' that are supposedly foisted on us by 'unelected' people. Yet I still haven't seen a list of any of these unwanted laws, nor have I seen any names of any of the 'unelected' people who created them. My understanding is that the European Parliament is in fact made up of elected MEPs, though whether or not anyone bothers voting for them is perhaps a different story. Furthermore that the three largest representations in the European Parliament are Germany, France and Britain, so if that's the case any decisions made there must be made in large part by British interests.

My understanding also is that Britain like every other country in the EU is still a sovereign nation with an European umbrella above it. Meaning that British people are only subject to British laws and the fact that these laws might start in Europe is not the point, that British people become bound by them only after the British government has ratified them and added them to the British legal system.

I also don't see how the dislike of immigrants differentiates between those from the former Commonwealth and those from Europe. I can't see how leaving Europe will have any effect on the first group and afaik the second group is limited to people legally resident in Europe, AND has a two sided effect that travel (and work and residency) from Britain to Europe is now much easier that it was in my youth. Furthermore there is still passport control into and out of Britain so what kind of immigration are we talking about anyway?

The Cons? Well I'm not sure if anyone watched the TV about a week after the referendum, but it was the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. Compare THAT Europe to the current one and it's impossible to argue that we haven't progressed. The First World War was really the First European Civil War and the Second was the Second Plus Japan. Hopefully there'll never be a Third.

I'll freely admit that I look at this through an American perspective: fifty 'countries' connected through a federal government. Lots of friction there, but where would America be in the world today if it had remained fifty independent countries? Certainly not in the position of global dominance it currently has. So this desire to split off makes no sense - and where does it stop? It's not like the North and South of England get on all that well, so why not spin off the House of York and the House of Lancaster? The we can go back to Wessex and Mercia as well.
Sue Vêtements is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:51   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 670
"Millions" and "7,321" are quite some way apart and typical of Remain hyperbole. When are you leaving?
engineer(retard) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 15:58   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 670
Sue Vetements, the whole USA and Europe comparison has been done to death. When the USA has open borders with Mexico and gets its laws set in Toronto and pays for the Privilege then you might have a valid point. Your understanding of EU laws and directives is also incorrect.
engineer(retard) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 16:01   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 670
There's a good article in the FT today about how the Remain campaign having lost the referendum are also going to lose any opportunity to influence the Brexit terms because they are too busy navel gazing at the result and trying to get another vote
engineer(retard) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 17:15   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,012
I have to say I am concerned with the immigration reduction which as I feared appears to be a window dressing exercise by the
TM government
It appears to be directed at ex eu immigrants and tightening up on legitimate immigrants who the country should want while ignoring illegals and doing anything about EU freedom of movement
My guess is that other than tinkering at the edges nothing much will change as was indicated by her refusal to give any target figures

Uncontrolled immigration of the wrong types was the main reason for the Brexit vote!
If the government cannot come up with a fair immigration policy which stops economic and benefits immigration then we have been sold a dud by both sides and maybe it should go back to a vote
The leave camp shouldn't fear that as it would purely reinforce the vote leave decision or do they fear that ?
Pace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 17:15   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 17
I don't understand that response. If a comparison between USA and Europe has been made repeatedly, it's probably because there's some merit to it.

Also the comment about opening borders with Mexico doesn't make sense because Mexico is not part of the USA, so that would be like Europe opening its borders with Russia or Africa. And the comment about our laws being set in Toronto doesn't make sense for the same point. We have state laws and federal laws and the Federal laws are made in Washington, not outside of the country.

And I still haven't heard of a list of laws that must be obeyed by British people that are not part of the British legal system.

How is my understanding of EU laws and directives incorrect? It probably is because I don't live there any more but it would be nice to have things explained.
Sue Vêtements is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 17:50   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 670
The response has been made repeatedly through a misguided logic, the USA is not 50 different countries, with seperate legal systems, different languages and seperate currencies. It has full fiscal, political and strategic integration, the EU does not. If NAFTA became a political union there is a parallel with the EU.

Adopting EU laws is not a matter of choice, it is mandatory. It is also mandatory to implement directives into law, although there is some flexibility in how it is done provided the intent is met.
engineer(retard) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:15   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Sue:
It does not work that way
The EU issues a directive to member states and they are then obliged to enact that as a local law.
So we HAVE to enact in UK law issued by the EU whether we like it or not.
So there cannot by definition be any law we have to obey not part of the UK legal system.
The law courts are also required by law to regard EU law as superior to and over riding UK law where they may be any differences
Getting the picture?

It does not matter whether we in the UK want it or our parliament voted against it- we are required by EU law to change our laws to comply.

Recent such directives which have caused anger in the UK
The infamous vacuum cleaner reduced power rating law which made it illegal to sell or bring in any such unit over a certain wattage in the EU. The UK has more carpets than the rest of the EU which prefer wooden floors so we like and need higher power vacuum cleaners - do the EU care? not one jot.
The proposed (and hurridly dropped as the EU referendum approached) similar reduction on the max power permitted of toasters, kettles and hair driers.. Well it was just going to take longer to make the tea wasn't it. The UK likes tea while the continent prefers coffee and for tea we need BOILING water so again a proposal almost deliberately designed to annoy us in the UK.
Then there is the certain garden pond plant ban put into force recently. This pond species is a menace in Spain and rightly should be banned there where it grows and grows and is highly invasive. In the UK it is not a problem and is a well loved plant. What happens? The EU ban it! So it is now banned in the UK - well isn't that nice? - errr not.

How about an aviation example?
The EU have declared all UK glider pilot licences null and void for EASA listed aircraft as of 2018. UK glider pilots will be required to get a pan EU glider pilots licence at a cost of course(!) and be subjected to a more strict medical examinations more often (yet more cost). Even if such a pilot never flies outside the UK he/she is required by EU directive/law to do this.

Now you see why people like me voted out.
The EU is a menace
dsc810 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:23   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Quote:
can't really think of any pros and have yet to hear of any other than a general undercurrent of dislike of foreigners and immigrants, 'laws' that are supposedly foisted on us by 'unelected' people. Yet I still haven't seen a list of any of these unwanted laws, nor have I seen any names of any of the 'unelected' people who created them. My understanding is that the European Parliament is in fact made up of elected MEPs, though whether or not anyone bothers voting for them is perhaps a different story. Furthermore that the three largest representations in the European Parliament are Germany, France and Britain, so if that's the case any decisions made there must be made in large part by British interests.
Your understanding of the European parliament is adrift Im afraid. The EU parliament has NO law making powers. That lies within the EU commission made up of 27 unelected commissioners who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the EU.
Lets have a look at a few of those laws as well this thread is probably a good place to start Barking EU rules - perhaps we can lose some of them
Rob Courtney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:28   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Quote:
I'll freely admit that I look at this through an American perspective: fifty 'countries' connected through a federal government. Lots of friction there, but where would America be in the world today if it had remained fifty independent countries? Certainly not in the position of global dominance it currently has. So this desire to split off makes no sense - and where does it stop? It's not like the North and South of England get on all that well, so why not spin off the House of York and the House of Lancaster? The we can go back to Wessex and Mercia as well.
Hardly a good comparison, the USA is fifty states with a common language and traditions where as the EU is 27 states, problably double that in languages and traditions that are as alien to us as Mexican is to you.

Would you be happy to sign up to a Pan American superstate where your interests are decided by an unelected clique and pay £17 billion for the privilege
Rob Courtney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:31   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
A
Quote:
lso the comment about opening borders with Mexico doesn't make sense because Mexico is not part of the USA, so that would be like Europe opening its borders with Russia or Africa. And the comment about our laws being set in Toronto doesn't make sense for the same point. We have state laws and federal laws and the Federal laws are made in Washington, not outside of the country.
At least Mexico has a land border with the USA as does Canada, re laws so does the UK but the EU can and does override those laws, now imagine your laws being overridden by a court in Mexico comprised of judges some of whom have no law qualifications at all and you may understand why we voted to leave
Rob Courtney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 18:33   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Quote:
The "insane hassle" is getting tier 2 visa sponsorship paperwork done for hiring a non-EU employee. If we have to do the same for EU hires in the future I can see the owners throwing in the towel and simply offshoring the business.
So why did it not happen pre EU then?
Rob Courtney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Aug 2016, 19:01   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: bath/bristol
Age: 62
Posts: 57
quote
"So there cannot by definition be any law we have to obey not part of the UK legal system."

I think that aviation law is is an example of directly enacted legislation at European level rather than being a Directive implemented here in UK.
late-joiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 20:06.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1