PPRuNe Forums


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th Aug 2016, 14:05   #101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 304
alwazinit

Attacking the player instead of the ball is a very poor tactic, as well as breaking the rules you signed up to:

PPRuNe Forums - FAQ: PPRuNe Rules

And I notice you used the very same tactic instead of responding to the salient points in my post. Please try harder.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 14:22   #102 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 17
e(r) when you say
Quote:
Sue, the USA is a transfer Union, the Eurozone currently isn't, which is why it functions so poorly. However, if our mythical American Union became a transfer Union, the USA would have to make up the Argentinian budgetary shortfalls.
Am I correct in interpreting that to say that due to the large disparities in income levels (because it's NOT a Transfer Union) within the EU (some) people from lower wage countries will then move to work in higher paying countries thereby depressing wages in the higher paying countries? If so, there's some merit to that, though I'm not sure how many people actually move. I think you're saying that because the (existing) US is a more level playing field this causes less of a problem. That's probably the case with the additional fact (that applies to both situations) that were someone from say Alabama to move to San Francisco to get higher wages, most of those higher wages would be consumed by the associated higher cost of living.

Regarding the US making up Argentinian shortfalls; I see your point and it has some merit, though being theoretical is hard to fully appreciate. I understand your situation is different. In the US we move money around all the time (pork projects) and you just don't really notice it.
Sue VÍtements is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 14:39   #103 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 17
One more then I REALLY have to get to work

Quote:
Regardless of any review process, laws and directives can be foisted upon a country that has voted against them.
and
Quote:
Or more pertinently can be foisted upon a country regardless of whether such laws are favourable or beneficial to that country.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with this. There's a review process and also an electoral process built into the system. That part cannot be ignored. There'll always be someone who disagrees with a new law or indeed the result of any vote.

If it's valid to say 'This [law] was foisted up on me' then it's equally valid to say 'Brexit was foisted upon me'.
Sue VÍtements is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 15:20   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 75
Posts: 366
I currently live in France, therefore many will consider my views to be slightly biased. On the other hand, after retiring from a senior position in a British airline, I worked for five years in Brussels for IATA trying to influence the European Union to legislate programmes for an improved European Air Traffic Management System that would be more efficient for European aviation as a whole. As such, I took the trouble to find out how the processes of the European Union really worked. Thus, I was horrified to see some of the blatant lies expressed as facts by some of the Brexit politicians. My views are as follows:-

1. There of course many pros and cons of being in the EU but it is not as undemocratic as many people think. Contrary to popular opinion the EC does not legislate - it proposes legislation for the Council of Ministers (the elected representatives of each country) and the European Parliament (elected every 5 years) to decide. It is these two bodies which legislate. See these two links for the process:-
Legislative procedure
The Law Making Processes of the EU

2. When I was in Brussels it was DGTREN and therefore the Transport Ministers of the member states who decided the legislation based on proposals from the Commission, many of which we lobbied for. I know for a fact that if European ATM was organised on a more unified basis it would be very much more efficient than it is now. I would guess the same applies to many other areas across Europe - and we would all benefit.

3. There is no doubt immigration is one the main issues that touched the collective nerve of the electorate (see the link at the end of this para). But it is a complex issue with no simple answers, (a) a significant number of immigrants come from outside the EU, (b) the economy benefits from these immigrants (both from within the EU and from outside), and (c) they put more into the economy than they take out in benefits and remittances overseas.
Will Brexit Actually Curb Immigration to the U.K.? - The Atlantic

4. When it comes to the UK's legislative processes we must recognise that the UK is a representative democracy, therefore I believe the final decision on whether or not the UK should leave the European Union should be made by Parliament. A referendum, which is not part of our usual democratic process, should be advisory only.

5. The electorate, who must be listened to, can only make reasoned judgements and vote accordingly if they are correctly informed. In my view, the Brexit politicians campaigned using incorrect facts and, in several cases, downright lies. There was very little explanation to counter these views and to demonstrate how the EU actually works, and those arguments that were put forward, were not sufficiently persuasive.

6. No one spelt out the difficulties that will be faced when negotiating the exit processes and the new trade agreements that will be needed to safeguard the UK’s trading position in the world. Therefore many voters thought it would be a simple process. It is not.

7. I believe that Parliament should follow the following process:- (a) debate all these issues and spell out the consequences of the UK leaving the EU; then (b) Members or Parliament should consult their constituents, inform their electorate, and sound out opinions; and (c) only then debate and vote on whether or not to trigger Article 50.

The decision to leave the European Union is too important to be left to what I consider to be a flawed referendum. Parliament is sovereign.

Rant over!

Last edited by Bergerie1; 30th Aug 2016 at 08:13.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 15:44   #105 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
Sue, you are partially correct but it's not just a matter of wages, the individual countries in the Eurozone don't have control of the value of their currency and so are unable to stimulate their economy in the way the UK just has. The monetary tools do not allow a transfer of money only lending, so the poorer southern states have stagnant economies, high unemployment and no means of breaking that cycle. In the EU the Argentina equivalent is not theoretical.

In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:

https://europa.eu/european-union/law/legal-acts_en

In our theoretical American Union the Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for a law or directive and the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed.
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:11   #106 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: bath/bristol
Age: 61
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer(retard) View Post

In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:

https://europa.eu/european-union/law/legal-acts_en
Regulations are already EU Law (for instance aviation matters) and applied nationally by the courts.
Directives have to be turned into national law.
late-joiner is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:15   #107 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York, London, Paris, Munich...
Posts: 2,916
Then again there's always this option..whoopsies

IMG_20160829_160629.jpg
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:25   #108 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
Good rant Bergerie but given that the Remain campaign lied as well, would you have been so keen to have the referendum rerun if it had gone the other way. It was the responsibility of the government to be an honest broker and accurately explain the pros and cons of Brexit. The Remain campaign should have been separated from Government. There was a referendum for joining in the first place, that was not taken as advisory only, so a precedent exists for taking such an important decision as joining the EU, even though the facts were not well presented.

It was possible to find out the difficulties associated with leaving and the range of options but that involved not listening to politicians and doing some open minded research. Many of us did that and still voted to leave, th fact that you didn't find the argument persuasive is only your opinion.
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:27   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
Late joiner, the EU law is adopted wholesale into UK law, if it wasn't leaving would be much easier as there would be no laws to repeal
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:48   #110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 75
Posts: 366
E(retard)
Agreed - and we are both entitled to our opinions and, fortunately, are free to express them.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:52   #111 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
I'll drink to that Bergerie
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 16:52   #112 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 32
Posts: 396
If a referendum were to be held tomorrow to propose giving everyone a minimum wage of £1 Million for the next year than that would almost certainly provide a positive vote. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that the people who want it to happen understand the consequences to everyone getting £1 Million, what that might do to the economy, what it would do to the banks etc, but people would still want it. It would be a democratic vote, but a damn stupid one (although probably actually cheaper than brexit).

However in the real world, what the people want isn't always what they should get and this referendum is a classic example of that. Ok, fine, on 23 June 2016, 52% of British voters who bothered enough to go out and do so, said they wanted out of the EU. Is that really a good enough reason to massively change the future direction of the country and the relationship all future generations will have with our closest neighbours? It's madness to be honest. That such a huge thing, which was so much bigger than an in/out question, with ripple effects throughout the generations, should rest on how not even most of the population of the country felt on that day when they marked their paper, especially as the people who will be affected most were not even of voting age....hell most aren't even born yet. It's not like we get another go in 5 years time to reverse it and do it all again. This is it. The country is on it's way out.

For every generation of Brits now to grow up with the UK outside of Europe is just going to be socially damaging. They won't have that same freedom of the continent enjoyed up until now. I think with each generation that went by we became more and more European and that, in my view, wasn't a bad thing...but now it's all be ruined and the UK will certainly slide backwards into being in an empire state of mind, the idea that it's on it's own and proud, we don't need the others...it's sad really, you only have to look at Belarus or Russia to see why that way of thinking, casting yourself off from closest neighbours, is not a good way to be. Inevitably when the EU tells us to jog on with our petty demands, that is how we will end up and of course it'll be all the EU's fault for not giving in to whiney old Britain.

I dread to think how "foreign" Europe will seem to my grand childrens generation after the next 40 or so years of us being on the sidelines instead of playing a central role. We had a good thing going...why on Earth were we given the chance to screw it up? Cameron was totally reckless for doing things they way he did. I am one for democracy, but this vote was an affront to the word...a wholly uninformed, lie based campaign full of poison from the media and repeating of the same lies which have been debunked countless times. No one had any idea how to deal with the result or even any inkling as to the scale of enacting it. Our elected government has all but gone and we are stuck with a bunch of people who are now just assuming what the Leave vote actually meant...they have no mandate, no manifesto, they cannot even agree on what they want between them, the cabinet is split between soft remainders, committed Europeans, hard brexiters and those who sit on the fence and they don't know that what they want is even what the public want because we won't get asked again...it's all just soundbites of "brexit means brexit" and no one knows that that means. No one voted to leave EU nationals in limbo, leave the single market, crash the GBP, no one voted to make it harder for Brits to move around Europe in the future, no one voted for the EFTA or the EEA or a trade deal with Botswana, no one voted for the Human rights act to be scrapped, but shes' gone ahead and started that process already. It is only right that parliament take into account the views of the people but they seriously need to step in and just say no..we cannot simply remove ourselves from the EU without seriously messing up the country. No government should allow that to happen, yet this one seems quite content...indeed eager to do so! We need to face up to the fact that the country is in pretty good shape as an EU member and with the EU against us it's not going to be pretty for the UK.
edi_local is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 17:02   #113 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
Edi Local

I daresay that if the Scottish Independence referendum result had been different, you would have been horrified if it had been set aside as a stupid decision, even though history has shown that it would have been a stupid decision. Presumably you are also against a 2nd Scottish independence referendum for the same reason.
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 17:05   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Quote:
I dread to think how "foreign" Europe will seem

Europe will always be foreign if they all speak different languages. There is no proposal for everyone to speak Europanese. Yet.
This is one of the prime reasons the EU is a failed enterprise - different languages, different cultures, different histories, different societies, different aspirations despite all the endeavors by the EU junta to throw it all into one big blender.


Future British generations will be far better off with their own heritage and Europe at arms length but a (hopefully) nice place to visit (unless they re-elect mad merkels)
meadowrun is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 17:08   #115 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 75
Posts: 366
E(retard)
I didn't ask for another referendum, I asked for a vote in Parliament. And I'd be happy to join you in a good malt whisky!
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 17:20   #116 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilts
Posts: 638
Not a problem Bergerie, a malt would be most agreeable. What purpose could the parliamentary vote serve, unless it is to endorse the will of the people. In 1975, Tony Benn was on the losing Leave side but said "when the British people speak everyone, including members of parliament should tremble before their decision and that's the spirit with which I accept the results of the referendum."
engineer(retard) is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 17:28   #117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 143
Quote:
I believe that Parliament should follow the following process:- (a) debate all these issues and spell out the consequences of the UK leaving the EU; then (b) Members or Parliament should consult their constituents, inform their electorate, and sound out opinions; and (c) only then debate and vote on whether or not to trigger Article 50.
So should members of Parliament do this on all issues? if so we will soon have capital punishment back. But if they did as you said the vote would still be to leave as the majority of constituencies voted to leave. My MP did just that, he held numerous meetings and the issue was debated at length, he then took the same side as the majority of his constituents

Quote:
The electorate, who must be listened to, can only make reasoned judgements and vote accordingly if they are correctly informed. In my view, the Brexit politicians campaigned using incorrect facts and, in several cases, downright lies. There was very little explanation to counter these views and to demonstrate how the EU actually works, and those arguments that were put forward, were not sufficiently persuasive.
The facts were there for anyone interested in the subject, but consider the last referendum in 75. Then we were told that it was just a common market we were electing to stay in, there would be no loss of sovereignty and Britan would carry on as before. Some years later when someone confronted Ted Heath with these lies he stated that everything was written down and it was our fault if we hadn't read it. So the remain side lied to keep us in and have got away with it for 41 years.

As Cameron said there was only one vote and the UK would enact it, that it didnt go his or your way is unfortunate but we were lied to 41 years ago and have had to live with it, I guess you are going to have to do the same now
Rob Courtney is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 18:28   #118 (permalink)
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 813
Europe will always be foreign if they all speak different languages. There is no proposal for everyone to speak Europanese. Yet.

Ah, the voice of Little England then .....Just a few minor problems with the above however....first, the UK, on the basis of the above will be, erm, equally "foreign " to anybody not living in....the UK. That, and what, precisely, is a European language?.....given the many nationalities involved,


This is one of the prime reasons the EU is a failed enterprise - different languages, different cultures, different histories, different societies, different aspirations despite all the endeavors by the EU junta to throw it all into one big blender.


Lets start with the many and varied dialects across the counties of the UK, not to mention various cities andchuck in some Welsh and Gaelic for good measure...and then there's the equally diverse societies and cultures across....the UK.....all of which have been part of our society for centuries and are constantly developing thanks to immigration, in part, and also the fact that no society stagnates, or rather if it does, it's finished.

This is where it becomes confusing for those so obsessed with our less than glorious past and the delusion we all wish to regress to such times in our history.


Future British generations will be far better off with their own heritage and Europe at arms length but a (hopefully) nice place to visit (unless they re-elect mad merkels)

You may recall the lurid headlines from the 70's and the abuse of trade union influence by some, not all, unions. "the laughing stock of Europe" appeared frequently as a result.

Somewhat prescient would you not say when viewed from a future mainland Europe perspective.

Quite why anybody would wish to foist the detriments of our "glorious heritage "on future generations suggests a mind and body less travelled .

No doubt, like a BBC documentary / sit-com from the 60's / 70's...."of course, we're going abroad, to the Continent for our holidays...would you like to come round for cucumber sandwiches and watch our slide show one night ?" will be the happy refrain in so many households as the UK is transformed in to a 50's utopian theme park....

Thankfully, I get the distinct impression that when future generations have finished cursing the con merchants who deceived the UK population as to the rationale to leave, they will be more than educated enough to ignore the regressive society so many on here, and indeed in the real world, seem to pine for.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 18:40   #119 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,870
Dear heaven above KnC, please, please emigrate, leave this country you are so disdainful of.
Kitbag is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 18:43   #120 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 17
Thanks for the link defining Regulations, Directives etc. I was unaware of those distinctions.

Quote:
In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:
Well I would argue that point (as was done a couple of posts later) Regulations are binding legislative acts so must be added to the cannon of every member country but Directives really only set goals for the member countries, albeit that those goals must be achieved, however the individual member countries can make up their own laws to meet those goals.

Regardless, what I think has been continually overlooked in this thread is that the regulations, while mandatory for the individual member countries are created through a process that involves debate and input from the various member governments, ratification by the European Council (including amendment and possible veto), and then further ratification (again including amendment and possible veto) by the European Parliament. So to simply say they 'must be passed in to national law' of individual countries is really only part of the story.

I still disagree with the sentiment of your statement that
Quote:
Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for a law or directive and the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed
I can explain why this way: In November we'll vote for a new president and regardless of who wins, there will be a sizable part of the population who would disagree. In fact it will always be that way, but there was an election so their disagreement is of no consequence (for want of a better way to put it). If on the other hand it was a change in leadership like say North Korea or maybe England 600 years ago (The King is dead ... Long live the King) then yes I would agree that any dissatisfaction would be valid. Or to put it another way by paraphrasing your statement to read '48% of 72% can vote to leave Europe and Britain will have to enact that decision even though 52% of 72% plus the remaining 28% disagreed' (1)

I see your point about 'poorer Southern states' and again it has some merit, but I've not thought it through completely yet.



(1) although I would be remiss to fail to point out that it was a referendum not a binding vote ... but that's a different discussion and one that I could argue both sides of.
Sue VÍtements is offline  
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 16:06.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1