PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   BREXIT (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/619673-brexit.html)

Snyggapa 27th Mar 2019 08:12

In which case I apologise for the tone. I had misinterpreted your wording of "I'm looking forward to a remainer explain" as "I already know the answer and am looking for a fight with a certain group of people".

Perhaps "could someone please explain" might have been seen as less confrontational in this clearly emotional topic.

Pontius Navigator 27th Mar 2019 08:46

Internet copyright
 
I see the Government plans to introduce laws alongside EU law after Credit as we helped design the law. So much for freedom after exit.

wiggy 27th Mar 2019 09:10


Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 10431105)
I see the Government plans to introduce laws alongside EU law after Credit as we helped design the law. So much for freedom after exit.

The following may or may not be posted due to the influence of confirmation bias, :cool: but I'll offer it anyway..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...under-eu-plans


All new cars sold in the UK and Europe are to be fitted with devices to automatically stop drivers from exceeding the speed limit under sweeping changes to vehicle safety rules provisionally agreed by the EU.

Although Britain may no longer be part of the EU when the rules come into effect, the UK regulator, the Vehicle Certification Agency, has said it will mirror safety standards for vehicles in the UK.


NoelEvans 27th Mar 2019 10:09


Originally Posted by Buster11 (Post 10430536)
Hmmm, interesting how few of the 36 posts since my #175 have actually mentioned any aspect of Britain's EU membership that has personally adversely affected them. Plenty of the usual noises, but precious little to suggest that leaving the EU will have a positive effect on their lives (apart from on their ideas of Britain's "regained sovereignty").

The UK's excellent and well researched and updated Flight Time Limitation (FTLs) have been vandalised and trashed with the imposition of the EU's 'political fix' FTLs. There was huge opposition from the UK, but the fully justified UK concerns were brushed aside by the European Parliament. UK Flight crew fatigue now no longer has the same, much better, protection that it did under the old UK's FTLs. Hopefully the damage done isn't irreparable and that the UK could return to it's far superior FTLs once free from the EU.

MOSTAFA 27th Mar 2019 10:45

Snyggapa "I had misinterpreted your wording of "I'm looking forward to a remainer explain" I certainly never said any such thing, perhaps you should read things before you TYPE.

wiggy 27th Mar 2019 11:26


Originally Posted by NoelEvans (Post 10431192)
The UK's excellent and well researched and updated Flight Time Limitation (FTLs) have been vandalised and trashed with the imposition of the EU's 'political fix' FTLs. There was huge opposition from the UK

There was certainly opposition from pilots' associations, from both sides of the channel. OTOH do you think airlines the likes of BA and Easyjet opposed the move from UK FTLS?.


. Hopefully the damage done isn't irreparable and that the UK could return to it's far superior FTLs once free from the EU.
..Right....now I've stopped laughing.....We leave the EU, hand rules and regs over into the hands of the free marketers ("Singapore on Sea?" ring a bell /ERG) and you are hopeful we can step back to old style UK FTLs..:rolleyes:

Bob Viking 27th Mar 2019 11:28

Buster11
 
I will admit to losing interest in this thread once the Ďweirdnessí started but Iíll answer your question.

Maybe I will not benefit personally at all but thatís not why I voted for Brexit.

I voted leave because I detest multiple levels of government. Each level requires staff, buildings and associated costs. The EU parliament annual budget, just to exist, is roughly Ä1.5B.

I live in Wales so I have an extra level again of government than many on here. I donít love that either.

I call it the Ďprocess of being governedí. It all costs money and ultimately they are all tinkering with the same thing.

Also, I donít like the idea of being a member of a club where the membership fees and rewards are radically different for each member. Despite massive differences in benefits to member states, each receives an equal vote. Why do we allow Latvia (often the lowest contributor), for example, to veto something that affects Germany (the highest contributor)? I donít see this as fair. Maybe a sliding scale of influence (like electoral College votes or whatever the Americans call them) to ensure bigger contributors have more say would have been better.

I think it is very telling that many Eastern Europeans flocked Westwards but I donít hear of Romania receiving thousands of Brits and French coming the other way.

If all nations had been required to meet a certain standard of infrastructure, taxation, education, welfare etc before being allowed entry then I think the EU would have been better for it.

This is the root of the problem for me. If the EU had stayed as a strong trading block of wealthy nations I could see its benefit. The minute it expanded to let everyone in its decline became inevitable.

Now, I may be wrong and I feel sure there will be plenty of people along shortly to attempt to educate me in the error of my ways but my firmly held belief is that if we ever do finally Brexit we will look back at it as the moment Britain started the ball rolling for others to follow and we will be stronger for it. I just cannot see how 28 disparate nations can continue in harmony indefinitely.

If I am wrong then blame the Remain campaign for failing to convince me otherwise.

I did not vote Leave on a whim and I tried to avoid confirmation bias (just for you, Wiggy!) and I certainly didnít believe the £350M for the NHS claims and I do not see myself as a racist. I was asked a question and based on my feelings I voted leave.

If you voted remain then that was your decision. I donít see why we need to fight about it.

BV

wiggy 27th Mar 2019 11:34


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 10431288)

If I am wrong then blame the Remain campaign for failing to convince me otherwise.




Ah no, you don't get away with that...you're obviously a bright individual and I'm sure you are well able to educate yourself...you "own" that decison..


I did not vote Leave on a whim and I tried to avoid confirmation bias (just for you, Wiggy!)
:ok:


I don’t see why we need to fight about it.
:ok: :ok:


G-CPTN 27th Mar 2019 11:36


All new cars sold in the UK and Europe are to be fitted with devices to automatically stop drivers from exceeding the speed limit under sweeping changes to vehicle safety rules provisionally agreed by the EU.
and police vehicles might be fitted with devices to slow down and stop miscreants?

Remind me when it will be 1984?

Will it apply to motorcycles?

Harley Quinn 27th Mar 2019 12:06


Originally Posted by MOSTAFA (Post 10431240)
Snyggapa "I had misinterpreted your wording of "I'm looking forward to a remainer explain" I certainly never said any such thing, perhaps you should read things before you TYPE.

Sorry, only just looked in this afternoon. Of course those were my words not anybody else's. My intent was not to cause an unnecessary argument between you.

Harley Quinn 27th Mar 2019 12:10


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 10431288)
I will admit to losing interest in this thread once the Ďweirdnessí started but Iíll answer your question.

Maybe I will not benefit personally at all but thatís not why I voted for Brexit.

I voted leave because I detest multiple levels of government. Each level requires staff, buildings and associated costs. The EU parliament annual budget, just to exist, is roughly Ä1.5B.

I live in Wales so I have an extra level again of government than many on here. I donít love that either.

I call it the Ďprocess of being governedí. It all costs money and ultimately they are all tinkering with the same thing.

Also, I donít like the idea of being a member of a club where the membership fees and rewards are radically different for each member. Despite massive differences in benefits to member states, each receives an equal vote. Why do we allow Latvia (often the lowest contributor), for example, to veto something that affects Germany (the highest contributor)? I donít see this as fair. Maybe a sliding scale of influence (like electoral College votes or whatever the Americans call them) to ensure bigger contributors have more say would have been better.

I think it is very telling that many Eastern Europeans flocked Westwards but I donít hear of Romania receiving thousands of Brits and French coming the other way.

If all nations had been required to meet a certain standard of infrastructure, taxation, education, welfare etc before being allowed entry then I think the EU would have been better for it.

This is the root of the problem for me. If the EU had stayed as a strong trading block of wealthy nations I could see its benefit. The minute it expanded to let everyone in its decline became inevitable.

Now, I may be wrong and I feel sure there will be plenty of people along shortly to attempt to educate me in the error of my ways but my firmly held belief is that if we ever do finally Brexit we will look back at it as the moment Britain started the ball rolling for others to follow and we will be stronger for it. I just cannot see how 28 disparate nations can continue in harmony indefinitely.

If I am wrong then blame the Remain campaign for failing to convince me otherwise.

I did not vote Leave on a whim and I tried to avoid confirmation bias (just for you, Wiggy!) and I certainly didnít believe the £350M for the NHS claims and I do not see myself as a racist. I was asked a question and based on my feelings I voted leave.

If you voted remain then that was your decision. I donít see why we need to fight about it.

BV

Very nicely put BV.

MOSTAFA 27th Mar 2019 12:22

No problem HQ my problem is that Snyggapa should have checked what I had actually said it before he accused me of doing something I most certainly didnt.

Very well put BV.

MOSTAFA 27th Mar 2019 12:46

Snyggapa, I simply asked a question and your answer was - Simples. Because EU law has supremacy over UK law.

So - Parliament passed into law the UK's intention to leave the European Union via the European Union "Withdrawal Act 2018", In other words, the UK would leave the EU by EU Law.

Either by a withdrawal agreement or simply by stopping being a member the original date of which was 29th March now extended to 12th April where if there is still no way forward we leave. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by 498- 114 in other words they voted to leave by law.

So if we want to hold Parliament to account, we can do so via the very laws that Parliament put in place. Cant we? Is that not why nothing in the amendments and nothing from the indicative votes are legally binding.

So IMHO MPs are not voting for fun. ----- they are voting out of desperation and what they can get out of it.

Snyggapa 27th Mar 2019 13:18

so the rest of my answer was : "In this case, parliament voted to ask for an extension, we asked for an extension, the EU unanimously agreed to our request subject to certain terms, and we accepted those terms."

The process that we leave the EU is by article 50 - an EU law which sets the timescale and the original 29th March date. Since we (via parliament) made an application under Article 50.3 below:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Then we followed the process in Article 50 to extend the withdrawal date - this was requested, agreed and accepted by the UK and every EU member. Since EU law is supreme to UK law, in event of conflict in theory it doesn't matter what the UK law says. And as far as the EU are concerned, we will still be a member on April 1st no matter what because of the provisions of Article 50.

It is if course entirely and completely desirable (to understate it) for the UK law to be amended to reflect the reality of the situation. I believe that change is in process - otherwise the great pile of unknowns that will be put on the statute book effective from 29th March and potential for unintended loopholes and consequences is enormous.

The whole process was flawed from the start. Most of them self-inflicted and entirely avoidable - starting with the referendum and voting on a binary option with a myriad of mutually exclusive outcomes and definitions.

In the current political climate, a "none of the above" party would probably win a landslide...


MOSTAFA 27th Mar 2019 13:36

Thank you Snyggapa but I would suggest thats your take on it, it certanly isnt mine.

Snyggapa 27th Mar 2019 13:45

out of curiosity, which bits don't you agree with - the legal part or my opinions on the situation that we're in ?

MOSTAFA 27th Mar 2019 14:26

Both. Our problem is simple the British people want Brexit, they voted for it, but sadly the politicians do not and have tried to chisel their versions of it since the referendum. I am guessing Theresa May will agree to resign in the next few days in the hope her pathetic attempt at keeping us in the EU will get through Parliament, I am guessing it won’t (thank you DUP and come the 29th or the 12th we will pull the plug and spend the next few years trying to pick out the turds of the mess politicians have got us in. Bye

Pontius Navigator 27th Mar 2019 14:54

Wiggy, as far as being informed prior to voting, I made my decision myself despite Project Fear. I thought Dave and George were wrong then and I still think they were wrong now.

wiggy 27th Mar 2019 16:34


Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 10431478)
Wiggy, as far as being informed prior to voting, I made my decision myself despite Project Fear. I thought Dave and George were wrong then and I still think they were wrong now.

Oh I'd agree they were wrong ( most especially DC)..but I suspect we might not agree as to what exactly they were wrong about...:ooh:

Pontius Navigator 27th Mar 2019 17:03


Originally Posted by wiggy (Post 10431581)
Oh I'd agree they were wrong ( most especially DC)..but I suspect we might not agree as to what exactly they were wrong about...:ooh:

oh I don't know.

Holding the referendum in the first place. Telling us what Plan Leave would entail. Telling us that Brexit as in what it really entailed was going to achieve. By that I mean that Brexit was never going to be a post Dunkirk situation.

That Sovereignty might be restored but for simple economic reasons we would continue to abide by EU regulations. Our supreme court would once again be supreme but would take due notice of the views of the ECJ.

That we would probably seek to join the CU and ultimately FOM.

Close?


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:11.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.