Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy

I have no problem debating Brexiters, I actually know one or two in work. They're actually intelligent, albeit frustrated people. Some of what we see on this forum isn't in the above category. I can't debate someone who says they voted remain and wants an end to free movement.

The shame here is we're only getting one or two real voices of Brexit.

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

What evidence is this based on? I am highly skeptical of such claims which are over a long distance of time when a multitude of things can happen, it's simply silly to speculate that far. Let's see the full picture once Brexit happens and then judge it on it's merits.

Well we don't know what the deal is as of yet. That will certainly have a big impact on things.

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

What evidence is this based on? I am highly skeptical of such claims which are over a long distance of time when a multitude of things can happen, it's simply silly to speculate that far. Let's see the full picture once Brexit happens and then judge it on it's merits.

It is based on the evidence that the least damaging Brexit available bar remaining in the customs Union and single market is the 'Canada option'.

As May disastrously chose to trigger A50 and start the countdown when the UK were not ready this means that the UK needs more time otherwise it will at best be trading under the same conditions of Mauritania, WTO only rules. This will destroy the UK economy.
A Canada deal will take at least 5 years to negotiate after 2019. Ergo the UK needs a transition of 5 years. They would now be under WTO rules for non EU trade and the EU are unlikley to give them what they have now in the SM. So a loss of passporting rights for their banks probably.
That is the very best that they can hope for given their red lines.
The UK cabinet have no agreed position and the danger is that the negotiations blow up accidentally and the UK has a chaotic Brexit.
That is truly the disaster situation.
By their own red lines, the very best they can hope for (and it's a long shot) is bad: 20-30 year step back is fair given UK workers (alone in EU) are already poorer than they were 10 years ago.

Vronsky

There's a distinct possibility that it might not be Brexit that causes the UK government to fall, but this sex scandal. Beware of the banana skins!

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Enzokk wrote: »

What you are posting now is not as much control as possible but full control. Full control of immigration, full control of trade and full control of of laws. So maybe you just made a mistake by now asserting you want to take as much control as possible. I still don't see how you can ask for a arbitrator when you want to participate in a EU institution.

In all due respect, what are you talking about? Third country arrangements with the EU do not involve the ECJ directly (e.g look at CETA). I don't want to "participate in an EU institution". I want a free trade deal which is mutually beneficial to all involved.

As for chlorinated chicken, even an EU safety agency regards it as safe. It's a silly point, it'll be up for discussion with America if a free trade deal is to be pursued.

murphaph wrote: »

The UK has no internationally recognised certification authority for civil aviation. UK aircraft are allowed to fly over/to third countries because the UK airlines are overseen by EASA.

The UK will need to establish a competent and internationally recognised UK equivalent of EASA. Note the CAA does not perform this role. If this authority is not set up on Brexit day then in the event of no deal, UK aircraft would be at best in legal limbo and more likely simply couldn't land anywhere outside the UK.

"The responsibilities of EASA include to analysis and research of safety, authorising foreign operators, giving advice for the drafting of EU legislation, implementing and monitoring safety rules (including inspections in the member states), giving type-certification of aircraft and components as well as the approval of organisations involved in the design, manufacture and maintenance of aeronautical products."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Aviation_Safety_Agency

Again, I don't know why you are pointing this out as if it is some kind of advantage to being in the EU. Similarly to when people pointed out that the UK needed to build up a trade negotiation capacity, it is obvious that the UK needs to set up a body to certify civil aviation.

Instead of saying, oh we desperately need the European Union to do this, the response should be we need to build this up.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I have not had a peek in here for a while as it was the same stuff restated loads of times but the above is from a person who voted Remain?

I assume you are giving up your right of free movement by giving up your Irish citizneship (forgive me if this was mentioned previously)

The people voted to leave. I support the decision to honour the vote.

And no - I'm not giving up my citizenship.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have no problem debating Brexiters, I actually know one or two in work. They're actually intelligent, albeit frustrated people. Some of what we see on this forum isn't in the above category. I can't debate someone who says they voted remain and wants an end to free movement.

The shame here is we're only getting one or two real voices of Brexit.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not interested in your silly ad hominems.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

However, there was this amusing bit at the end of the piece:

There was no news on whether either department planned to hold its Christmas party in a brewery.

It's all very Yes Minister.

Holding the Christmas party in a brewery is quite a good metaphor for Brexit.

It started off with promises of Free Beer

And only now are people realising that because of Health and Safety you need to have a written risk assessment and public liability insurance and an alcohol licence, etc.



The Black Iris Brewery tried to organise one and
/

A spokesman said: “[The pub] has been kind enough for us to move the event into their beer garden, so I hope you repay their kindness by eating lots of burgers.

“We trust this won’t cause anyone too much inconvenience and apologise for literally not being able to organise a píss up in a brewery!

Thargor

Just when you think Mays position couldnt get any shakier as she tries to negotiate the most important deal in modern British history it looks like a load of Tory heads are about to start rolling:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/925806802582851592

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, I don't know why you are pointing this out as if it is some kind of advantage to being in the EU. Similarly to when people pointed out that the UK needed to build up a trade negotiation capacity, it is obvious that the UK needs to set up a body to certify civil aviation.

Instead of saying, oh we desperately need the European Union to do this, the response should be we need to build this up.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I wasn't raising it because it's an advantage of the EU (though it so obviously is advantageous to pool resources in such a specialised area) but because it's yet another agency the UK needs to have in place on Brexit day if there is no deal. There is no time to create all these agencies from scratch.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

And no - I'm not giving up my citizenship.

Didn't think so

Do as I say, not as I do

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

I wasn't raising it because it's an advantage of the EU (though it so obviously is advantageous to pool resources in such a specialised area) but because it's yet another agency the UK needs to have in place on Brexit day if there is no deal. There is no time to create all these agencies from scratch.

These agencies carry a cost. Add all these up and you might get to a figure of about £8 billion pounds per year and maybe 5 years before they are fully operational. An example of such agencies will be the new customs software system that is due to launch Jan 2019, just in time for full operational testing, but the rules for the system will not be known until March 2019. Good luck with that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Thargor wrote: »

Just when you think Mays position couldnt get any shakier as she tries to negotiate the most important deal in modern British history it looks like a load of Tory heads are about to start rolling:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/925806802582851592

Went very quickly, must be more to come out about him

A Little Pony

demfad wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

What evidence is this based on? I am highly skeptical of such claims which are over a long distance of time when a multitude of things can happen, it's simply silly to speculate that far. Let's see the full picture once Brexit happens and then judge it on it's merits.

It is based on the evidence that the least damaging Brexit available bar remaining in the customs Union and single market is the 'Canada option'.

As May disastrously chose to trigger A50 and start the countdown when the UK were not ready this means that the UK needs more time otherwise it will at best be trading under the same conditions of Mauritania, WTO only rules. This will destroy the UK economy.
A Canada deal will take at least 5 years to negotiate after 2019. Ergo the UK needs a transition of 5 years. They would now be under WTO rules for non EU trade and the EU are unlikley to give them what they have now in the SM. So a loss of passporting rights for their banks probably.
That is the very best that they can hope for given their red lines.
The UK cabinet have no agreed position and the danger is that the negotiations blow up accidentally and the UK has a chaotic Brexit.
That is truly the disaster situation.
By their own red lines, the very best they can hope for (and it's a long shot) is bad: 20-30 year step back is fair given UK workers (alone in EU) are already poorer than they were 10 years ago.

It was always going to be chaotic because the people in charge are remainers and revolutions tend to be chaotic. I am prepared to see out any rough bumps along the way.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

In all due respect, what are you talking about? Third country arrangements with the EU do not involve the ECJ directly (e.g look at CETA). I don't want to "participate in an EU institution". I want a free trade deal which is mutually beneficial to all involved.

As for chlorinated chicken, even an EU safety agency regards it as safe. It's a silly point, it'll be up for discussion with America if a free trade deal is to be pursued.

You are the one posting these things. If you think I am misrepresenting your posts please point it out. You have been very consistent that you wanted the UK to leave all EU agencies and to have total control for the UK. For me this is total control. You then posted that the target is taking back as much control as possible, which is a change in what you want were posting. You have now again reverted back to your original position.

Now maybe we have a different view on what taking back control and then taking back as much control as possible is, but for me they are two very different concepts where the one means you are doing everything yourself because you do not want to have to suffer the indignity of having an bureaucratic EU institution tell you what to do. Taking back as much control as possible opens up the possibility of having the EU have a say in certain aspects where you want to participate in as well.

But you now post that the UK will replicate all EU agencies and other organisations to ensure the UK doesn't have to have any exposure to the ECJ, because they will be biased against the UK.

You want the UK to take back control by adding to the budget by replicating work that has been done for the UK for the past few decades. Sounds absolutely out of this world to me, but then it seems you have shifted from Remainer to full on Brexiteer who just wants to leave the EU, come hell or high water.

murphaph

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was always going to be chaotic because the people in charge are remainers and revolutions tend to be chaotic. I am prepared to see out any rough bumps along the way.

I bet you aren't.

Hermy

Thargor wrote: »

Just when you think Mays position couldnt get any shakier as she tries to negotiate the most important deal in modern British history it looks like a load of Tory heads are about to start rolling:

I thought it was odd that he said in his statement that he had '...fallen below the high standards that we require of the Armed Forces...' rather than the high standards required of politicians. Is this just an attempt to deflect from what could be a very damaging issue for the Tories?

Capt'n Midnight

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was always going to be chaotic because the people in charge are remainers and revolutions tend to be chaotic. I am prepared to see out any rough bumps along the way.

Translation : "I'm alright Jack. Keep throwing plebs under the bus."

William Strannix: Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face.

Rain Ascending

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for chlorinated chicken, even an EU safety agency regards it as safe. It's a silly point, it'll be up for discussion with America if a free trade deal is to be pursued.

Hmm ... you've given an interesting interpretation of the source material. Yes, the European Food Safety Authority has said that given the usual cooking methods, chlorinated chicken is not unsafe. However, they are not recommending this practice since it may encourage laxity in the rest of the life-cycle of chicken production, preferring a more holistic approach to rearing chickens. I'd have to dig further to see if the banning of US chlorinated chickens is due to the use of chlorine washes or is due to other elements of hygiene control being missing as a result.

But I'd agree with you that this might not be the world's most important point of negotiation with the US. However, given that this is a debating point in the UK, even at cabinet level, it is emblematic of what's ahead for UK politics.

Taking back control will mean different things for different UK constituencies.

At least part of the UK vote, particularly previous Labour voters that drifted across to UKIP over the years, are very much against the globalization trends of the last two decades. Another strong strand of opinion is exactly in the opposite direction, with a strong libertarian streak. These two groups are going to have very, very different views on the negotiation of the new free trade agreements, particularly with big countries like the US and South Korea.

My prediction is for some blazing rows within the UK over free trade over the next decade, precisely because the Brexit process will imbue these with a greater (political) value than might otherwise have been the case.

At one level, this is okay -- just the mechanisms of democracy (hopefully) working well. But such internal tensions may actually slow greatly the UK's ability to quickly create new free trade agreements, particularly if negotiations extend, as they often do, beyond the lifetime of a given government.

First Up

Rain Ascending wrote:

I'd have to dig further to see if the banning of US chlorinated chickens is due to the use of chlorine washes or is due to other elements of hygiene control being missing as a result.

I wonder which carries the bigger health risk; chlorinated chicken or a bendy banana?

Peregrinus

The chlorinated chicken issue is just an illustration of a wider range of issues.

You can also look at eggs. In the US, eggs must be washed in hot water before being sold to the public. Washing like this weakens the shells and increases the risk of subsequent infection so, once they have been washed, they must be refrigerated to keep them fresh, and to avoid absorption of water (which may be infected). Which is why, in US supermarkets, you'll find eggs sold out of a refrigerated compartment.

Whereas in the EU, eggs may not be washed in hot water before being sold to the public, so they are sold off the ordinary shelves and you don't need to refrigerate them when you get home (though most people do, because what else are you going to do with that shelf in the fridge with those egg-shaped depressions in it?)

Why must American eggs be washed? Because the US lacks poultry and egg production standards, and the assumption is that most eggs are produced in fairly sh1tty (in the literal sense) circumstances with a high risk of infection. Although washing the eggs increases the risk of post-farm infection, it does reduce the risk of on-farm infection, which is judged to be the higher risk. Whereas in the EU, the risk of on-farm infection is much lower (because of the poultry production standards) and washing the eggs would result in a higher risk.

It is in fact very unlikely that the UK would ever import fresh eggs from the US (or vice versa), no matter how free the free trade agreement, so this issue in itself has no relevance to any post-Brexit UK/US trade deal. But the underlying issue is the same as with the chlorinated chicken; in general the US has lousier food production standards because it's cheaper to produce the food in dirty conditions and then clean it than it is to produce the food in clean conditions in the first place. This makes for cheaper food (good for the consumer) and higher profits (good for the producer) but it's obviously not so hot for the animals. And, in so far as it results in poorer quality food, that's not so good for the consumer.

This isn't something that just affects chickens; US beef cattle, for instance, are penned in feedlots for their final weeks or months and feed a fattening diet and a liberal belt of antibiotics (to counteract the spread of infection in close confinement) in a way that wouldn't be permitted in the EU.

The problem the UK will face is, if they admit food produced in the US, is that UK farmers will object that they face unfair competition if they are held to higher production standards than US farmers are. Thus there will be pressure to lower production standards to match those of the US. That will be controversial in Britain, where animal welfare concerns traditionally have high traction with a significant segment of voters.

solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Didn't think so

Do as I say, not as I do

Good morning!

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I just hope for your sake that they don't come up with any more crazy ideas. They might find there are too many Irish there in a few years and make you become British and surrender your other citizenships. A quick read of the comments section of the Express reveals no end of British nationalists who think dual citizenship should be banned so people are forced to be British or get lost.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Certainly, you're entitled to do that.

It's fair to wonder, though, whether you would support it so strongly (or at all) if you weren't an Irish citizen, and so weren't insulated from some of its more unpleasant effects. Your enthusiasm, in short, may be influenced by your relative privilege.

Mrs May at one point promised "generous" treatment of EU nationals already settled in the UK, but when she came up with concrete details the general view was that what she proposed did not meet the expectations raised by the promise of generosity. You were almost alone in maintaining that it was indeed generous, as promised. Can you point to anyone who is actually affected by the treatment she is promising who characterises it as "generous"?

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think he is asking if you would apply for British citizenship and revoke your extremely fortunate Irish EU citizenship, thus standing by your convictions and standing shoulder to shoulder with the British folks who will be hugely impacted by the very thing you are advocating.

I assume you understood that but decided to ignore what he was asking.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly, you're entitled to do that.

It's fair to wonder, though, whether you would support it so strongly (or at all) if you weren't an Irish citizen, and so weren't insulated from some of its more unpleasant effects. Your enthusiasm, in short, may be influenced by your relative privilege.

Mrs May at one point promised "generous" treatment of EU nationals already settled in the UK, but when she came up with concrete details the general view was that what she proposed did not meet the expectations raised by the promise of generosity. You were almost alone in maintaining that it was indeed generous, as promised. Can you point to anyone who is actually affected by the treatment she is promising who characterises it as "generous"?

I'm not insulated at all from any of the supposed doomsday scenarios anyone is proposing. I'm as much exposed to employment risk, and financial risk as any British person is. If some of the more extreme prophesies bandied around on this thread were true, I wouldn't just be unemployed, but I would stand to lose tens of thousands. Moreover, it wouldn't be simply an easy move elsewhere, I have financial commitments that would take several months to clear. Fortunately - I don't think any of these scenarios will actually transpire.

I think the Prime Minister's proposals in respect to EU citizens are generous. I've explained why at length on this thread previously.

listermint wrote: »

I think he is asking if you would apply for British citizenship and revoke your extremely fortunate Irish EU citizenship, thus standing by your convictions and standing shoulder to shoulder with the British folks who will be hugely impacted by the very thing you are advocating.

I assume you understood that but decided to ignore what he was asking.

It makes two silly assumptions.

Firstly that I'm less entitled to be Irish than anyone else.

Secondly that being sceptical of the European Union and supporting a good Brexit is somehow an aspiration that can be only held by British people.

Thirdly that I should go to significant expense to change my citizenship.

I don't accept any of these conclusions.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the Prime Minister's proposals in respect to EU citizens are generous. I've explained why at length on this thread previously.

I know you think that. My question was whether you can find anyone who is actually affected by the Prime Minister's proposals who thinks that. Because, you know, if you could, that would be very powerful support for your argument which, so far, doesn't seem to have persuaded many people.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



I'm not insulated at all from any of the supposed doomsday scenarios anyone is proposing. I'm as much exposed to employment risk, and financial risk as any British person is. If some of the more extreme prophesies bandied around on this thread were true, I wouldn't just be unemployed, but I would stand to lose tens of thousands. Moreover, it wouldn't be simply an easy move elsewhere, I have financial commitments that would take several months to clear. Fortunately - I don't think any of these scenarios will actually transpire.

I think the Prime Minister's proposals in respect to EU citizens are generous. I've explained why at length on this thread previously.



It makes two silly assumptions.

Firstly that I'm less entitled to be Irish than anyone else.

Secondly that being sceptical of the European Union and supporting a good Brexit is somehow an aspiration that can be only held by British people.

Thirdly that I should go to significant expense to change my citizenship.

I don't accept any of these conclusions.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are near top of the ladder in terms of insulation from brexit you work in IT and hold an Irish EU passport.

Its clear you don't comprehend insulation as a term.

Therefore your views are very skewed because impact can be mitigated for you easily at any time

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

One of the things which saddens me most about this post is that it defines one of the key issues I have with many of your contributions. You don't know what you are talking about so you hand wave it away as an issue.

BA and Ryanair handle a lot of UK internal flights. Ryanair handle a lot of EU internal flights.

EasyJet has set up in Austria specifically because as UK registered airline, a lot of its business was at major risk - they fly from my local airport to Milan for example and this does not involve the UK in any respect because I left the UK 20 years ago.

But there are wider issues. The airline safety stuff someone has already explained to you. There are also fairly complex rules around foreign (ie non-EU) ownership of airlines operating within the EU. Currently - although there are moves to change this - foreign ownership is limited to 49% of any European airline. This is likely to cause problems for, say, IAG, possibly Ryanair. Aer Lingus is fully owned by IAG, registered in Spain, but who owns IAG? What about British Airways, fully owned by a Spanish company, if the UK decides to have rules relating to certification of companies operating UK internal flights? Qatar Airways owns 20% of IAG per IAG's website today. Another 30% held by British shareholders - which is not clear because Qatar is actually the biggest shareholder in IAG - and IAG technically has issues around foreign ownership post Brexit. easyJet plc claims to be EU owned for the future by the way. And I don't have enough of a view on Ryanair ownership to comment one way or the other but I do know they have a policy on managing foreign ownership of their shares plus they have quite a few US based share holders.

The summary of what you should consider is this: you don't know enough about the regulations in this particular industry to comment.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, I don't know why you are pointing this out as if it is some kind of advantage to being in the EU. Similarly to when people pointed out that the UK needed to build up a trade negotiation capacity, it is obvious that the UK needs to set up a body to certify civil aviation.

Instead of saying, oh we desperately need the European Union to do this, the response should be we need to build this up.

Strictly speaking, pooling resources for several regulatory reasons is very much an advantage to being in the EU. This is one of the reasons that industry in general and the business world in the UK is in favour of remaining within the EU.

However, the correct response would be to say "We have benefited from pooling resources in these areas for [however long the relevant agencies have existed] years but now that we are implementing Brexit, the additional direct cost to the UK of doing so will be n million pounds up front and m million pounds on an ongoing basis, increasing with inflation."

At least it would be honest. The other problem, solo, is the UK would want to be starting to set up these agencies now. Building them up from now so that they are operational by March 2019.

Staffing them will not reduce the UK unemployment rate because there is unlikely to be too many people suitably qualified in highly specialist roles like these drawing dole anywhere never mind the unemployment hotspots of Northern England. The UK has not been massively successful in hiring trade negotiators and iirc, there were reports that some candidates were turning down offers to be trade negotiators for the UK because the UK just didn't pay enough.

The yerrah it'll be grand approach really is not adequate here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't believe the poster in question asked you if you would become stateless; I assumed an implied assumption you would acquire a British passport to ensure you were protected against any more HO shenanigans.

However, the problem I have here is that despite the fact that Ireland did not vote for Brexit, in fact could not, it will be economically damaged by Brexit. I'd have expected anyone who valued their Irish citizenship to take issue with that. I'd also expect anyone who valued Britain to try and prevent them from doing something which may be immensely damaging to their country. Normally we try to prevent our friends from doing stupid things that will only hurt them, even when they won't also hurt us.

I find it sad, but then it is my understanding that a lot of Irish people voted against continued EU membership anyway, despite the impact it would have on the home country and I see it as somewhat hypocritical. However, you're entitled to your views and I have made points on this particular matter before which you took issue with.

In summary I really don't mind Britain hurting itself. I am sorry for the rest of us who get caught in the flying detritus.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not insulated at all from any of the supposed doomsday scenarios anyone is proposing.

In certain respects, you are because we have had this discussion. As an Irish person you have certain privileges that citizens of other EU countries do not have. The right to vote in the Brexit referendum is a shining example.

Additionally, pretty much every single report of an EU citizen receiving deportation letters has not involved Irish citizens.

You are to some extent protected against the risks currently faced by non British non Irish citizens. Clearly you aren't protected against the risks faced by Britain as a whole but that wasn't what you were asked about. You were asked about the impact on non-Irish, non-British EU citizens.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Calina wrote: »

One of the things which saddens me most about this post is that it defines one of the key issues I have with many of your contributions. You don't know what you are talking about so you hand wave it away as an issue.

BA and Ryanair handle a lot of UK internal flights. Ryanair handle a lot of EU internal flights.

Ryanair are headquartered in Dublin, and therefore are an Irish airline.

As for BA, they have the same option available to them as easyJet. They can set up a European airline. Or indeed, allow IAG to take these flights into their other carriers.

Calina wrote: »

The summary of what you should consider is this: you don't know enough about the regulations in this particular industry to comment.

I'm as entitled to post on this thread as you are. I'm aware of the rules concerning airlines flying within the EU. I just don't consider it a huge deal.

Calina wrote: »

However, the problem I have here is that despite the fact that Ireland did not vote for Brexit, in fact could not, it will be economically damaged by Brexit. I'd have expected anyone who valued their Irish citizenship to take issue with that. I'd also expect anyone who valued Britain to try and prevent them from doing something which may be immensely damaging to their country. Normally we try to prevent our friends from doing stupid things that will only hurt them, even when they won't also hurt us.

My point throughout this thread so far is that it needn't depending on the right response from the EU. Britain has proposed a number of different options that could well be taken with flexibility in the EU27.

As for my citizenship and whether or not I value it, look I'm not massively patriotic. I'll level with you. The only time when my nationality has been a major talking point was when I left Ireland and it started becoming something of a reference point. I happen to have been born in Ireland, and I happen to have lived there for over 20 years and I like going back from time to time. But ultimately speaking I didn't decide where I was born, God did. That logic kind of renders any form of nationalism null and void. So I can't really pretend to be a fervent patriot.

Calina wrote: »

I find it sad, but then it is my understanding that a lot of Irish people voted against continued EU membership anyway, despite the impact it would have on the home country and I see it as somewhat hypocritical. However, you're entitled to your views and I have made points on this particular matter before which you took issue with.

In summary I really don't mind Britain hurting itself. I am sorry for the rest of us who get caught in the flying detritus.

I voted for the UK's continued membership of the EU on the basis of it remaining the status quo, and in respect to the projections provided by several bodies. The projections were wrong, and I realised I wasn't voting for the status quo. I was voting for a continued and systematic handing over of control. This nebulous concept of "an ever closer Europe" remaining undefined is actually a dangerous one.

Even before the vote I was Eurosceptic, I said I would vote remain but probably would vote against every single treaty change that supported handing over more control to Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Ryanair are headquartered in Dublin, and therefore are an Irish airline.

As for BA, they have the same option available to them as easyJet. They can set up a European airline. Or indeed, allow IAG to take these flights into their other carriers.

You completely didn't understand what I wrote about ownership then.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm as entitled to post on this thread as you are. I'm aware of the rules concerning airlines flying within the EU. I just don't consider it a huge deal.

And this is actually the problem. You handwave these issues away.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point throughout this thread so far is that it needn't depending on the right response from the EU. Britain has proposed a number of different options that could well be taken with flexibility in the EU27.

I don't see why the EU has to do all the running. the UK is the party leaving.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for my citizenship and whether or not I value it, look. I'm not massively patriotic. I'll level with you. The only time when my nationality has been a major talking point was when I left Ireland and it started becoming something of a reference point. I happen to have been born in Ireland, and I happen to have lived there for over 20 years and I like going back from time to time. But ultimately speaking I didn't decide where I was born, God did. That logic kind of renders any form of nationalism null and void. So I can't really pretend to be a fervent patriot.

Fine. I actually don't care except in terms of of the hypocrisy it demonstrates in one who supports Brexit from a position of privilege over and above EU citizens who are neither British nor other EU, or British citizens who do not have access to a second citizenship.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I voted for the UK's continued membership of the EU on the basis of it remaining the status quo, and in respect to the projections provided by several bodies. The projections were wrong, and I realised I wasn't voting for the status quo. I was voting for a continued and systematic handing over of control. This nebulous concept of "an ever closer Europe" remaining undefined is actually a dangerous one.

I don't care why you voted Remain. As I've pointed out before it demonstrates a lack of faith to your own views.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Even before the vote I was Eurosceptic, I said I would vote remain but probably would vote against every single treaty change that supported handing over more control to Brussels.

QED. Eurosceptic but voted Remain.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today.

On the ownership front, I think it's an entirely reasonable rule in respect to the EU.

Simply put, these airlines can insist that UK and other shareholders sell enough shares to make the magic number of 51%. As you say already, foreign entities are already limited in respect to their shareholding of airlines.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zerbini Blewitt

I have yet to see an EU-sceptic (from any of the EU28) whose scepticism doesn’t show some element of glaring, wilful ignorance of the EU or the reasons why it has come to operate the way it does (or for example why the idea of a true federal superstate is a minority opinion that doesn’t have & will never have enough support at national government(s) level).

It’s interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be a commonly used label for someone who criticises the EU while representing it accurately!

Zubeneschamali

Calina wrote: »

Clearly you aren't protected against the risks faced by Britain as a whole

Of course he is. If it all goes tits up in the UK, solo can move anywhere in the EU to work with his nice EU passport.

This is why tens of thousands of UK citizens have been applying for Irish passports since this all kicked off.

demfad

Bad day for Brexit, yesterday.

• The Commons unanimously passed a motion to release the 58 impact reports on Brexit.
• Arron Banks investigated about the source of his £2.5 donations to Brexit groups. (He is already under investigation for his leave.eu donations)*
• Fallon resigns thus weakening cabinet.

* Banks is already part of the Trump-Russia investigation:

The business tycoon has already been asked to supply information to the Senate judiciary committee investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential contest.

Now he claims he has been “tipped off” by the US authorities that he will be called to give evidence to the committee under threat of subpoena, which means he could be barred from America if he fails to attend.

** On Sky News yesterday Banks said "My only involvement with the Russians was a six hour lunch with the Russian ambassador. I had a great time." He declined to mention the Russian in question was a contact mentioned in the indictment paper of Trump campaign aide Papadopoulos, and in the Steele dossier.

ArthurDayne

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

I have yet to see an EU-sceptic (from any of the EU28) whose scepticism doesn’t show some element of glaring, wilful ignorance of the EU or the reasons why it has come to operate the way it does (or for example why the idea of a true federal superstate is a minority opinion that doesn’t have & will never have enough support at national government(s) level).

It’s interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be a commonly used label for someone who criticises the EU while representing it accurately!

Indeed -- and in truth, Eurosceptic is probably a better term for those who criticise the EU but represent it accurately. In a sense, we should all be Eurosceptics in the same way we should all be sceptical of our national governments. Criticism and challenge against the Irish government by the Irish people for example are healthy, democratic and indeed patriotic exercises. They do not automatically render someone anti-Ireland. There are many criticisms in respect of the EU that I would agree with and as EU citizens we should all educate ourselves on the strengths and flaws of the union -- and always be willing to be healthily sceptical on a rational/evidential basis.

The problem is that the Eurosceptic label has been adopted by those who could better be described as Eurocynics, or worse Europhobics. They point out the flaws of the EU, sometimes compellingly / correctly, but they advocate the flamethrower approach to weeding the garden. In many cases they successfully divert the whole nebulous strata of society's fears and frustrations into the responsibility of the EU and, following a tradition tried & tested throughout the centuries, encourage people to simply blame faceless foreigners -- whether the 'Brussels bureaucrats' or the immigrant population.

Perhaps there is something to be said for those of us who are pro-EU trying to reclaim the 'Eurosceptic' label and affirm that it is perfectly OK to support the EU but not consider it beyond reproach or reformation.

Leonard Hofstadter

I don't know if I'm a massive fan of the EU, in so far as I think it's far from perfect and I completely resent the attempts to erode our sovereignty by trying to force our hand on taxation.

I used to resent the fact we don't have control of our own currency, I always thought was a major mistake to abandon the punt as our biggest trading partners traditionally are the UK and US, the Euro has been weak when we needed a strong currency and vice-versa, it's only since Brexit that I've felt the Euro's value has been at the right level for a fast growing economy like ours. But with Brexit and the decreasing importance of the UK as a trading partner I'm less against it than I used to be and having the common currency is so handy going abroad, it's one thing I really miss as a UK resident.

The EU has completely transformed the wealth and prosperity of Ireland, it has made us much more socially liberal and there's all the benefits of free movement and the single market, one of the EU's crowning achievements (ironically done by the Tories under Mrs T), not to mention all the free trade deals we currently have not to mention the upcoming talks with Australia, India etc.

There is no way we could possibly have come on as a country if it wasn't for the EU, and besides, we haven't exactly excelled at self Government as our tendency to vote for FF despite everything shows.

So, on balance, the EU is overwhelmingly good for us and the advantages more than outweigh the disadvantages for me. The advantages for the UK are perhaps less strong than for us as they are a much bigger economy but it is still much better for the long term health of the UK to stay in the EU or at least for the short term seek the closest possible relationship, such as staying in the single market or at the very least, the customs union.

Lemming

murphaph wrote: »

I just hope for your sake that they don't come up with any more crazy ideas. They might find there are too many Irish there in a few years and make you become British and surrender your other citizenships. A quick read of the comments section of the Express reveals no end of British nationalists who think dual citizenship should be banned so people are forced to be British or get lost.

I'm still reading the posts just after this, but I'll point this out now given there has been much made of solo's privileged position in British law. There are not just Daily Fail/Express/Hate readers who want to end dual citizenship, but there are also members of the Lords (and I should imagine it wouldn't be too hard to find similar in Parliament) who want to scrap the privilege conferred upon Irish nationals as part of the CTA, namely automatic right to stay, vote, etc.

That cosy privilege might not end up being so cosy if such people manage to find a louder mouthpiece amonst the rag-media and ergo political traction on the matter.

A cynic might even find it credible to imagine a return to "no blacks, no dogs, no irish" malarky of old once all the other EU nationals have been "encouraged" to leave. After all, old habits die hard and racism most certainly appears alive and well in the UK these days.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

No, it is a perfectly legitimate question. I am working on the assumption that you would qualify, through residency, British citizenship therefore stateless is not the reason. Putting your money where your mouth is would mean you do not avail of a privilege that you want to deny to others in a similar situation to yourself

The bit in bold says it all really

LeinsterDub

"Would he look seriously at this so that British workers - particularly perhaps younger British workers - would have the opportunity to go and work in the European Union without a visa certainly for a limited, if not extended, period of time?

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1102/916964-brexit/

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but isn't the quid pro quo of this agreement is that EU citizens have the same opportunity?

1. So much for taking back control of their border.
2. You would assume the ECJ would involved in dispute settlements here.
3. The UK would have no veto in a future case of Turkish entry for example. They would be left with 2 options, accept Turks as now European citizens or withdraw from the agreement.

Professor Moriarty

This is a very important development. The research contains dozens of reports/forecasts on various aspects of Brexit - especially economic implications. While the government, understandably, is very reluctant to publish - they claim that it's because it would negatively affect their negotiating position - the real reason is that it almost certainly contains dire predictions. So they are hoisted by their own petard of lying to the electorate. Already the Tories are putting as many stumbling blocks as they can on the path to publishing but the research will be published soon.

There is an interesting side issue in all of this. The motion forcing the publication was passed unanimously. This is because the government is so afraid of being defeated by rebels that they didn't allow it go to a vote - so it went through unopposed. This is happening at an increasing rate.

One of the rebels that they are afraid of, Anna Soubry, put their dilemma regarding the research and the vote very succinctly:

The implication is quite clear: there’s something in them that’s not to be disclosed because it might prick this golden bubble, this balloon, of the promised land of Brexit.

With friends like this...

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1102/916964-brexit/

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but isn't the quid pro quo of this agreement is that EU citizens have the same opportunity?

1. So much for taking back control of their border.
2. You would assume the ECJ would involved in dispute settlements here.
3. The UK would have no veto in a future case of Turkish entry for example. They would be left with 2 options, accept Turks as not European citizens or withdraw from the agreement.

It was the UK by the way that started agitating for Turkish entry to the EU. Germany is perfectly happy with things the way they are.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is a very important development. <...>

It is, but I am wary of the apparent absence of a deadline, and the latitude apparently given to HMG to 'doctor' the reports for (allegedly-) preserving the national interest.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this release spun sufficiently to turn the affair into another Iraq/45-minutes dossier, with the actual truth/scale/info that really matters kept safely under wraps until the inevitable Parliamentary enquiry in 10 years' time.

Or maybe Leavers' consistent bad faith (and the free pass which the British public opinion seemingly gives them about it) has just turned me far too cynical.

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

It is, but I am wary of the apparent absence of a deadline, and the latitude apparently given to HMG to 'doctor' the reports for (allegedly-) preserving the national interest.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this release spun sufficiently to turn the affair into another Iraq/45-minutes dossier, with the actual truth/scale/info that really matters kept safely under wraps until the inevitable Parliamentary enquiry in 10 years' time.

Or maybe Leavers' consistent bad faith (and the free pass which the British public opinion seemingly gives them about it) has just turned me far too cynical.

Reading about the vote, I do think the research will be published though it will be dragged out. Probably as important as the content, is the fact that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tory Remainers have a big stick to beat the government with until they are published. From now on, they will speculate as to the appalling vistas they contain and how the Tories are afraid to publish them for party political reasons. Basically, the Tories will now be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Cookie_Monster

solodeogloria wrote: »

Simply put, these airlines can insist that UK and other shareholders sell enough shares to make the magic number of 51%

how do you suppose they can insist exactly?

Aristotle145

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

MollsGap

A German Finance colleague of mine is full sure that Brexit will never happen. Was shocked by his statement but considering how well he has done in business for himself I find it hard ever find him wrong

Professor Moriarty

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

Is that all? Peanuts. They should be spending a lot more on humanitarian grounds. Tax a few Tory party donors properly.

Christy42

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

365 million a year? That it? Less than that given you said almost so let's call it 350 million. So basically a week's worth of the money that nus was promising the NHS.

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

FFS, spending 0.046% of UK government spending on housing and feeding asylum seekers is causing the finest example of self harm by a country in decades!!!! Go back to the Express and Mail sites

First Up

Christy42 wrote:

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

It is money already allocated to the UK's foreign aid budget. It is just being diverted from aid projects in Africa, Asia etc to dealing with refugees in the UK.

Germany has done something similar. Money allocated to development projects overseas is being used in help refugees in Germany.