Brexit and the 5th?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

the EU could, and I fear, would play hardball with UK

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.

Remember, if 60 million idiots chose to leave the EU

IDIOTS ... Defined as people who don't agree with the political views of AT Notts. Respectful.

Mods. Please consign this thread to JB

Translation: Mods - Please suppress this (very worthwhile) debate.

Let's face it, many millions of people don't really understand the issues and will simply vote through fear and prejudice!

I do completely agree with this, though probably from the other side of the fence from yourself. Coverage of the issues has been very narrow and ill-informed from the mainstream media. Discussion appears to focus on benefit entitlements for East European guestworkers (very distasteful sideshow of negligible consequence) and a succession of CEO's talking their book. Commentators appear keen to imply that those in favour of BREXIT are motivated by Little Englander racism rather than the core issues which get scarcely a mention. One hopes that the standard of debate will rise and embrace the real issues as referendum day approaches.

As for the airline industry, I'm confidently predicting "as you were" whatever the outcome of the referendum. Disruptive change doesn't hold any attraction for either party.

will duty free shopping be back at airports etc if we do leave the EU?

Great question!!! I hadn't even thought about that one. Maybe airports and airlines should lobby for BREXIT! ;-)

[runway08]

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.

Myself I am still neither here nor there but am probably shifting towards remain. I am not pro eu or pro exit. The cons, instability and isolation attached to leave while achieving pretty much nothing seem a huge waste of time. I dont think anything will change voting to leave. The main focus seems to be immigration and leaving the EU all you will do is exchange "pesky" Polish people (i love them) for Pakistani folks from the commonwealth. So I guess the irony complaining about masses of "unchecked" Muslims from Turkey who would be vetoed from 1 end of Europe to the other (Cyprus/Hungary/France/etc) joining seems a bit silly when they tend to be far more moderate than Pakistanis. The influx of people will never stop, Maybe it is time we started creating jobs by building and providing services for all the people here already.

It's all geuinely a bit meh to me... I'm off to have some Lebanese food.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

A very illuminating reply there, Runway 08. It is indeed reflective of the campaign so far that race / immigration /guestworkers are widely perceived to be the only issue of consequence in the light of media coverage to date. That particular debate is a pure sideshow for me.

The cons, instability and isolation attached to leave while achieving pretty much nothing seem a huge waste of time

It is not surprising that voters like yourself believe that there is "pretty much nothing" to be achieved by leaving, given the negative emphasis and scaremongering of the campaign so far. The selling-points of BREXIT include: democratic self-determination and accountability; no obligation to underwrite / support / join / bail-out the ill-conceived construct that is the Euro currency; no (eventual) obligation to share open borders with other EU nations; savings on very high membership costs, partially driven by waste, excess (and some would argue, corruption); the return of direct accountability of politicians towards the voters who elect them; elimination of excess bureaucracy and red-tape; the opportunity represented by improved access to global markets beyond the EU. The EU as an institution has a shameful track record of abusing the democratic process and overriding the expressed wishes of its electorate, routine decision-making by unaccountable 'tsars' behind closed doors, and a relentless march towards a federal superstate.

Some voters may approve of the EU's position on the issues outlined above. But my point is that I am not hearing these topics debated or highlighted as part of the referendum process. It's all turgid borderline-racist negativity instead, or scare-stories about jobs being exported to never-neverland. I look forward to hearing the mainstream media address these real core issues (but I may face a very long wait!).

By the way, I love the diverse nations of Continental Europe and visit other EU member states as an enthusiastic tourist as frequently as possible. But do not confuse that admiration for the cultures which share our continent with a desire for subservience to an oppressive, undemocratic federal superstate.

[ATNotts]

will duty free shopping be back at airports etc if we do leave the EU?

I would imagine it would, however that would make your average traveler to most EU countries worse off.

Why? I hear you ask. Well, one consequence of a Brexit would be that we will be back to the good (?) old days of the duty free allowance (200 fags, a pittance of wine, fortified wine and spirits, and a maximum duty free value of other "gifts". Since most EU countries (Scandinavia aside) have lower rates of excise duty on tobacco and alcohol, this would increase the cost of living for smokers and drinkers (I am one, but not the other) as they would be forced to buy more of their fags and booze in UK. Very good however for the UK tax take, and also, pretty good for airports and duty free outlets.

This would be particularly bad for people who takes their cars to EU, rather than flying. I can't see Ryanair being too happy with me turning up at the baggage drop with 50 bottles of Bordeaux! - and I can't see many of them getting home in one piece either!

Curiously, apart from the threat of job loss, higher interest rates, higher food costs and all the other claims made by the "remain" lobby, this one thing would probably have a greater, obvious. and immediate impact on your average voter than anything else - and is far more likely to happen than many of the more frightening claims that are being made.

[runway08]

For me shed the problem is...

I have a pretty decent job, decent house, wage.. nothing spectacular but life is fine. I dont mind the "foreigners" I find most of them that arent overly religious or from the dark ages tend to integrate perfectly well and add to the area.

We probably piss away far more money taking part in unecessary wars following the USA around the globe then anything the EU could cost us. I am also uneasy with this assumption the commonwealth nations are waiting for us with open arms. Its a colonial past with lots of blood and dictating. Most of them dont adore us, Quite the contrary.

So why am I voting to change a decent life, again.. I just don't see the appeal or massively overiding benefit.. If anything, everytime I debate it I come up with more of a feeling that I just want things to stay as they are. But the debate by the politicians either way is indeed mind numbingly meeeeeeeeeeh.... zzzz

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I dont mind the "foreigners" I find most of them that arent overly religious or from the dark ages tend to integrate perfectly well and add to the area.

Completely agree. The referendum process should not become a vehicle for racial prejudice. I want to hear the real issues debated.

We probably piss away far more money taking part in unecessary wars

Arguably true, but wasting taxpayers' money in one area does not make it OK to waste money elsewhere as well.

I am also uneasy with this assumption the commonwealth nations are waiting for us with open arms

My reference was deliberately access to global markets beyond the EU. The commonwealth countries form a part of that opportunity but not the entirety of it. There is no need to feel uneasy about trading with other countries. Fair reciprocal trade agreements are mutually beneficial, not the road to exploitation. BTW, whilst we are encouraged to feel guilt over Britain's colonial past, don't forget that many positives grew from that era as well as the questionable stuff. The legacy isn't all bad.

I just want things to stay as they are

Fair enough. But remaining within the EU does not mean staying as we are. A re-affirmed UK membership will increase pressure to sign up for the Euro for one thing. And a federal European state will be very different from the arrangement we see today. It is coming. If you want those things by all means vote accordingly, but I hope that the media will present the facts such that all concerned can make an informed choice.

[Fairdealfrank]

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?

[SWBKCB]

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.

Yes, they COULD. I'll not be holding my breadth...

Correct, and UK secondary schools will have to start teaching the "trades" again as was the case before the UK joined the EU.

Did they? remind me how this worked again?

A re-affirmed UK membership will increase pressure to sign up for the Euro for one thing. And a federal European state will be very different from the arrangement we see today. It is coming. If you want those things by all means vote accordingly, but I hope that the media will present the facts such that all concerned can make an informed choice.

I thought "Project Fear" was the other guys?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I thought "Project Fear" was the other guys?

Yes, it is. My version is "Project Open Your Eyes"! :-)

[Heathrow Harry]

Frank

is there any evidence that British students want learn "trades" in school or anywhere else??

everything I've seen is that they want to be computer geeks, or designers or work in TV.............

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

Yes, they COULD. I'll not be holding my breadth...

Maybe, maybe not, but if Westminster and the devolved executives don't deliver, they can be voted out. The EU institutions cannot be.

Correct, and UK secondary schools will have to start teaching the "trades" again as was the case before the UK joined the EU.

Did they? remind me how this worked again?

How it worked: there was the 11+ exam at age 11 which was in effect a primary school leaving exam (think today's equivelant is called "key stage 2" now).

Academically inclined kids went to grammar school and did GCEs, while vocationally inclined kids went to secondary modern school and did CSEs including subjects such as plumbing, carpentry, technical drawing, bricklaying, cooking, home economics, hairdressing, etc., (subjects often deremined by sex in those days), which prepared kids for apprenticeships.

If such a system existed today it would probably be necessary to supplement "academic" and "vocational" with "technical/IT" and "business/enterprise" schools as well, as is the case in Germany and some other countries.

From 1970 to 1974, Heath's education secretary, Margaret Thatcher, started the process of shutting down grammar schools. Education secretary Shirley Williams continued the process in the 1974-1979 Wilson/Callaghan government.

Only a handful of grammar schools survived to this day, and as a result, have become highly elitist with parents moving house to be within a catchment area or shelling out for private tuition or both. These are likely to be richer parents.

There is a perception that grammar schools are as good as or better than top "public" schools at no cost, and that comprehensive schools are not up to the mark. League tables appear to bear this out.

True or not? Who knows, ask a teacher, parent, student, university lecturer, employer, etc.. In truth it's probably highly variable geographically.

Frank

is there any evidence that British students want learn "trades" in school or anywhere else??

everything I've seen is that they want to be computer geeks, or designers or work in TV.............

This is the problem, but education needs to provide for all sorts, especially for what the economy needs.

Pushing 50% of students off to university to massage the youth unemployment figures downwards only serves to devalue degrees.

If the UK needs skilled labour from abroad, than a points-based immigration seems a sensible way forward, but it is impossible as long as the UK remains in the EU.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Good points, Frank. Excellent post.

[LGS6753]

Frank,

The destruction of the grammar schools started under Labour in the 1960s. I know, I suffered in their orgy of destruction!

[Heathrow Harry]

I passed the 11+ but I remember that the standard of teaching in sec mods was truly abysmal - basically aimed at turning out people fit for production lines or shop counters with few or no "skills"

The hope was that reform would pull them up - instead it pulled the academic schools down

[Fairdealfrank]

Good points, Frank. Excellent post.

Thanks Shed!

Frank,

The destruction of the grammar schools started under Labour in the 1960s. I know, I suffered in their orgy of destruction!

Actually in the late 1940s/1950s as well, but on a very small scale (was reading up on it), it was a decision for individual county councils. It got going on a large scale in the 1970s when both Labour and Tory governments started pressurising county councils to "go comprehensive".

The result is clear for all to see, "county" schools have become "state" schools. The wholesale nationalisation of education will allegedly be completed by 2022 when all schools will be "academies" (sic), directly run from the ministry of education in Whitehall, and no longer anything to do with local government.

So much for "localism", ho hum.

I passed the 11+ but I remember that the standard of teaching in sec mods was truly abysmal - basically aimed at turning out people fit for production lines or shop counters with few or no "skills"

The hope was that reform would pull them up - instead it pulled the academic schools down

That was the hope, but regretably reform pulled it all down not up.