As for Ryanair, various agreements on trade, business etc between Ireland and the UK pre date the EEC or EU. One has never needed a passport to travel between the 2 countries, nor has there evere been full border checkpoints between The Republic and Northern Ireland. This may change if the UK leaves the EU however, as one of the main reasons to leave is more control of immigration. If the UK leaves the EU then EU citizens can travel freely to Ireland and hop across the border. Introducing a full border would give Republican extremists an excuse to start bombing again sadly.
The Common Travel Area has existed since 1922 and has nothing to do with the EU. Nothing will change with Brexit. The border between Norway (non-EU) and Sweden (EU) is open, and was for many years before Sweden joined the EU. Why should it be any different for UK-Ireland?
All been tried before in the 1980's - it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now. BA moved all its Canada, Spain and various other routes from Heathrow to Gatwick. The reciprocal airlines simply stayed put at LHR and made a killing until BA had no choice but to move back again. Any move to oust foreign carriers from LHR could be expected to be met with reciprocal action or trade sanctions against UK carriers at the other end of the route.
Governments getting involved (interfering) in what should be airline business decisions rarely turns out well.
The current supply versus demand for LHR slots already ensures that new airlines or extra frequencies have to go to other airports - unless the airline concerned has a bottomless pit of money to buy the slots it wants at LHR from another airline (usually its an airline going through hard times and selling off the family silver !). Hardly fair on the smaller guys - but that's the way it is in the absence of LHR R3.
Indeed, and before the 1980s. The destructive "second force" policy also required the public UK longhaul carriers to be at LHR (BEA BOAC and later British Airways) and the private UK longhaul carriers to be at LGW (Laker, BUA, BCAL and Virgin). All the LGW-based carriers went bust except VS which survived as it was able to move to LHR in the 1990s.
All this nonsense was instituted as a substitute for a third rwy, which at that time would have cost government money (LHR was nationalised).
The UK will, on Brexit, need to be an open outward-looking trading nation. As such, the current open skies arrangements will be retained. I agree that the greatest impact, in due course, will be on WZZ whose market will shrink as the right to settle by EU citizens will cease.
Exactly.
When we're out any new agreement will have to be ratified by ALL those still in - and I can see a few people holding a teensy-weensy grudge against the UK for putting them through this ridiculous fandango
Plus the likes of Air France & Alitalia will be looking to knock back every UK LCO........
Individual agreements? An openskies arrangement with the EU? Everything is reciprical.
Look there are two options:
A) the UK stays in and is part of the negotiations to improve the EU and clean up area's that need improvement
B) the UK leaves and all the EU countries will do their utmost to:
-get the companies to move their capitols (Frankfurt and Paris will try to get the financials)
-There is NO incentive to be nice to England
-Wales as net recipient of funds from the EU will be worse off
-Northern Ireland might be better off joining the southern part of the island
-Devolution for the Scots will make even more sense and they WILL be welcome
(A) does not apply, the EU cannot be reformed. Everyone knows that, even Call-me-Dave knows it now. That's why his so-called substantial root and branch reform became an insignificant play on words, and even that was watered down and he came back with nothing. Was reminiscent of Chamberlain lending back at Heston with a piece of paper in 1938.
(B) is nonsense. London is the world financial capital and no one is going anywhere.
If you are arguing that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are recipients of EU largesse, consider this. Westminster could replace that largesse and still have loads left over, if/when billions no longer has to be poured into the EU blackhole.
Far too pessimistic. There is one key factor to bear in mind in all this: the EU bloc exports more to the UK than we export to them. The trade balance is very much in their favour. Given that the UK is displaying little or no inclination to introduce tariff barriers or initiate a trade war, why should we suppose that the EU bloc would themselves act to jeopardise their already favourable position? Apart from which, the UK public appear favourably disposed towards the Single European Market (including many pro-BREXIT folks) ... other issues / concerns are driving the debate.
I expect a continuing torrent of scaremongering as referendum day approaches, but little change in trading agreements thereafter. Our based carriers can relax and chill!
Spot on Shed ..Business in Europe will want trade agreements with the 5th largest economy in the world, why would they walk away from that kind of money?...What will be of interest though, is how will the EU replace the contributions made by the UK, which are currently in the region of £55 million (sterling) per day??..
As for the Polish plumbers, well, we`ll just have to try to get by without them
Correct, and UK secondary schools will have to start teaching the "trades" again as was the case before the UK joined the EU.
In the event of a Brexit, you can expect other countries to question their membership of the EU. There are currently serious campaigns for referenda in France and Holland, the Czech Republic has suggested it too will leave.
That implies that EU membership is not advantageous to many other countries as well.
As a committed democrat, I can only hope that as many countries as possible leave this undemocratic monster sooner rather than later.
"Hear hear hear hear hear" (as they say in the House of Commons)
Oh, and if we stay, we will be bailing Greece (and perhaps Italy) out again in 2017.
Without any doubt whatsoever!
The "Common Market" is the entity we originally signed up for. "Undemocratic Federal Superstate" is what we're wary about.
No, this is wrong!
The "Undemocratic Federal Superstate" is what Heath signed up for in 1971 - it's all there in the 1957 Treaty of Rome: ever closer union, and in the European Communities Act 1972.
The "Common Market" is just another name for SINGLE market. British voters were lied to by mainstream establishments of both parties in the 1970 election and there was no separate referendum to join (Heath knew he would lose it).
It was sold to voters as a free trade area. The truth was that we had left the free trade area (EFTA) to join the "economic community (EEC)".
The Labour party was later divided on the EU (as the Tories are now) and the 1975 referendum was a device to put the issue to bed, just like the 2016 one. It didn't, and this one won't. The 1975 referendum was based on the same pack of lies as the 1970 election.
It was only later on, when integration started in earnest with the Single European Act (Thatcher), Maastricht (Major), Amsterdam and Nice (Blair), and the Lisbon constitution (Brown), that people became aware of the scale of the duplicity.
My one concern about leaving the EU is that we could get Boris Island, aaaaaggggggbhhhhhh!
Why? Certainly not in any of our lifetimes: if it takes 50 years
NOT to get a third LHR rwy, it could take several centuries to get an entire airport!
Chill, relax.
Stuart Rose rather foolishly (as a Remainian) said that British wages would increase on Brexit. He's right, but that would mean better incomes, lower unemployment, a larger tax take, higher productivity and ultimately more
investment. What's not to like?
Exactly, the uncharismatic Rose is right: mass immigration, especially
unskilled mass immigration drives down wages, that's why big business loves the EU.
Higher wages, particularly at the lower end, means more spending and that gives a massive boost to the economy. More disposal income means, potentially, more flying. Good for the aviation industry!
Back to aviation, and again, Ryanair (a non UK business) would be badly affected by Brexit, with so much of their business being UK based, but also EZY may find life hard, operating as they do within EU, between France and Germany and other EU countries. Similarly, but to a much lesser extent FlyBe and bmi Regional. I've got a feeling that carriers such as Transavia, Air Berlin and Wizz would be lobbying their respective governments pretty hard for a tough deal with UK to allow our (much more advanced) aviation industry unfettered access to the intra EU market - without signing up to the EEA, with all that that entails.
O'Leary's no fool, FR-UK anyone? Everything else is reciprical!
will duty free shopping be back at airports etc if we do leave the EU?
Naturally. Another massive boost for the aviation industry.
You conveniently neglect to mention that the UK is quite capable of retaliation if forced into a corner by the imposition of tariffs etc. And the EU has much more to lose. Tell us again why either side would want this outcome? Trade with Europe didn't start in 1973. It won't end in 2018 (after the two year adjustment period). Life as we know it will continue. FEAR is indeed the apt word in this context.
Yes, Shed, fear is the greatest motivator of all. See all general election campaigns for examples.
Don't think anything headed by Iain duncan smith, Gove, George galloway & Farage is going to get anywhere in the grand scheme of things despite how vocal some people can be on social media. Infact having someone like Farage who blames everything single last negative thing that happens on the planet on the EU actually pushes me slightly in the other direction.
Deja vu all over again. The same was said in 1975 when Tony Benn and Enoch Powell found themselves on the same side (leave) against the "establishment".
When it's the people v. the vested interests, the latter
always wins. Was so in 1975, will be in 2016.
Tragic, because the UK will find the way out of a burning building and refuse to use it,
again.
I'm off to have some Lebanese food
Good idea, bon appetit!
The point is that this is all academic, we're not leaving, or do you know different?
Rather than speculation of what may be, what do you
think the outcome will
ACTUALLY be, and by what margins, as opposed to what we would
LIKE it to be?