Brexit discussion thread IV

Taytoland

She had to make a deal with the DUP for some form of sustainable government and the DUP have a huge mandate, so just what the kids are on about is anyone's guess. They get the votes.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

But it clearly says in the article that they will lose the rights, and unlike trade there is no WTO fallback.

Are you saying the IAA are wrong?

Planes from all over the world land in the UK because of EU regs. So that plane will be still able to land in Dublin or Paris. If the UK sign up to the EU regs then, yes they can still land, but we are talking about a no deal scenario.

And when you say may, what does that mean? They either will or they won't. Do you mean they may unless a deal is reached?

trellheim

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

oh boy a lot of reading to be done .... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_II_Agreement#Aftermath for a starter for 10

Imreoir2

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They will also lose the legal framework for certifying aircraft. They are covered under EU agreements now, if they crash out, the certs they issue will not be worth the paper they are written on outside the UK.

EdgeCase

The most depressing aspect of this whole fiasco is the way UK political debate has been utterly debased and reduced to the level of factual analysis you would expect in a pub or a talk radio phone in.

Experts are vilified, documents are not read, widely available information on all sorts of processes, treaties and legislation that are all fully in the public domain are not being looked at by politicians or commentators. Journalists are going into interviews without any kind of knowledge and seem to be incapable of calling out utter nonsense when it is presented as fact in debate.

The quality of British public debate is simply being destroyed by Brexit.

If you compare it with the kind of discussions that went on here during the financial crisis, it's like chalk and cheese. There were public debates Ireland about the nuances of economics, markets, banking and finance regulation and the people talking about it, whatever side of the debates they were on, or if they were hosting debates were damn well briefed and read themselves into the topics.

Also the level of public knowledge on the subjects increased rapidly as it rolled on and people were pretty clued in about what was happening.

The contrast with the UK at the moment is frightening. I am seeing debates that are just pure rhetoric and hot air and people quite happily operating in factual vacuums when they are actually talking about intricate treaty law.

I really think this is one of the lowest periods I've ever seen in British politics and political debate. it's an absolute shame to see a country that often had very high standards of public and political discourse just turning into a society that now seems to pride itself on ignorance and obtuseness.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

We have different opinions on what effect their votes may have had. We can play the game of what may possibly happen with people's opinion of Sinn Fein and how they could possibly have reacted. Either way it didn't matter as the Labour votes for the government was the crucial difference.

That leads me to your reply above. You would need to show me where I blamed Sinn Fein for the Labour rebels not voting with their party. I was comparing the reaction of supporters of both parties (I am assuming you are a Sinn Fein supporter) to each other. They are deflecting or at least trying to deflect the attention from their own parties and decisions so that people wouldn't focus too hard on their actions.

I blame Labour a million times more for this than Sinn Fein. The simple truth is that those amendments could have been overturned had they not voted against their party. This could also possible have led to a motion of confidence against the government. Not the Sinn Fein votes but the Labour rebels. But their is an interesting what if question regarding those seats that SF holds in Westminster, especially with the majority this small.

How very dare you. :P

I'm very far from an SF supporter. I just don't see how anyone with ay sense can think that them taking up their seats matters in the grand scheme of a HoC vote.

Anyway, leave it there. Time has moved on and we are now at todays omnishambles.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fascinating the difference in the comments sections when Tusk or Juncker say something that the Mail/Express people don't like as opposed to when Leo says something.
They don't get stereotypically derogatory towards the entire population of Luxembourg, or suggest threatening their military power against Poland. I understand it's partly that Leo is the serving PM whereas the other two are exPMs with different roles now, but there does seem to be a healthy dashing of anti-Irish racism in there.

I suspect it's because they know precious little about Luxembourg and Polish people and culture. not that they know much about us mind.

judeboy101 wrote: »

A by election can be triggered by 4000 signatures in north Antrim due to paisley suspension. He has a large majority but it fluctuates from 18k to 28k, if the other parties agreed on a compromise uup candidate who was pro eu the might squeeze him out. They could make it a "vote on brexit" in the unionist heartland.

As safe as seat as you can imagine. No way will his Unionist support collapse. Whatever about your thoughts on him and the Daddy they were very very effective local operators even with their nationalist constituents.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Backstop is still the difficulty?

TM has just ruled out the backstop. There is no backstop.

There was only ever a backstop in the event of a NO DEAL. No deal then we get backstop. have a deal and then there is a solution with the lack of a need for a backstop.

Taytoland wrote: »

She had to make a deal with the DUP for some form of sustainable government and the DUP have a huge mandate, so just what the kids are on about is anyone's guess. They get the votes.

The DUP have a huge mandate? From where?

They have 10/18 MPs (Should be 9 because of South Belfast and SF and SDLP splitting the vote.)

36% vs SF's 29.4% is not a huge difference especially in FPTP.

briany

EdgeCase wrote: »

The most depressing aspect of this whole fiasco is the way UK political debate has been utterly debased and reduced to the level of factual analysis you would expect in a pub or a talk radio phone in.

Experts are vilified, documents are not read, widely available information on all sorts of processes, treaties and legislation that are all fully in the public domain are not being looked at by politicians or commentators. Journalists are going into interviews without any kind of knowledge and seem to be incapable of calling out utter nonsense when it is presented as fact in debate.

The quality of British public debate is simply being destroyed by Brexit.

If you compare it with the kind of discussions that went on here during the financial crisis, it's like chalk and cheese. There were public debates Ireland about the nuances of economics, markets, banking and finance regulation and the people talking about it, whatever side of the debates they were on, or if they were hosting debates were damn well briefed and read themselves into the topics.

Also the level of public knowledge on the subjects increased rapidly as it rolled on and people were pretty clued in about what was happening.

The contrast with the UK at the moment is frightening. I am seeing debates that are just pure rhetoric and hot air and people quite happily operating in factual vacuums when they are actually talking about intricate treaty law.

I really think this is one of the lowest periods I've ever seen in British politics and political debate. it's an absolute shame to see a country that often had very high standards of public and political discourse just turning into a society that now seems to pride itself on ignorance and obtuseness.

It's funny the effect that the Internet has had on political discourse. Yes, it wrested some control from the mainstream media, but some people used that freedom to draw battle lines and dig trenches rather than talk to the other side.

Infini

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They're leaving the EU with no deal or no backup plan with open skies. Under that scenario planes will be grounded until an agreement is reached because theyre no longer part of existing arrangements. That's the problem with No deal, they'll be up shyte creek without a paddle.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

Nope. The UK's airports are all certified through EASA. They are trusted to be able to safely handle aircraft. Aircraft that depart from the UK post Brexit (assuming no deal) will be considered having departed an uncertified and thus potentially unsafe airport, so the landing (anywhere, not just the EU) will have to be treated as a potentially dangerous one and fire tenders put on standby etc. It effectively grounds aircraft in the UK.

EdgeCase

briany wrote: »

It's funny the effect that the Internet has had on political discourse. Yes, it wrested some control from the mainstream media, but some people used that freedom to draw battle lines and dig trenches rather than talk to the other side.

It's not just the internet. The level of knowledge being put forward by everyone from government ministers to major television journalists is just abysmally low. Rhetoric and even blatent lies go totally unchallenged.

Water John

I wouldn't blame the Interent. I think we, the Irish value education. We are very quick to call out spoofers, even in the local pub.

An Ciarraioch

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's not just the internet. The level of knowledge being put forward by everyone from government ministers to major television journalists is just abysmally low. Rhetoric and even blatent lies go totally unchallenged.

And Lilico regards himself as one of the more intelligent Brexiteers!

https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1020331187452162048

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

But it clearly says in the article that they will lose the rights, and unlike trade there is no WTO fallback.

Are you saying the IAA are wrong?

Planes from all over the world land in the UK because of EU regs. So that plane will be still able to land in Dublin or Paris. If the UK sign up to the EU regs then, yes they can still land, but we are talking about a no deal scenario.

And when you say may, what does that mean? They either will or they won't. Do you mean they may unless a deal is reached?

Planes all over the world land in other parts of the world under various agreements. Planes landed in the UK before it was in the EU and will do so after it leaves. New agreements will replace the current one. That's all.

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They will also lose the legal framework for certifying aircraft. They are covered under EU agreements now, if they crash out, the certs they issue will not be worth the paper they are written on outside the UK.

If the UK crashed out most of the fleets aircraft could not fly due to insurance policies being invalid. Probably like 40 million other insurance policies in the EU.

Francie Barrett

Leroy42 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/uk-flights-will-not-be-able-to-land-in-ireland-without-post-brexit-deal-1.3571311

I assume that the opposite it true, that ROI and EU flights will not be able to land in the UK

I am sorry, but that is scaremongering of the highest order.

The problem here is that people are conflating Britain exiting the EU without a free trade deal, with that of Britain leaving the EU without having agreement on anything. Why are people under the apprehension that if the EU and the UK can't agree on trade, that any sort of agreement is out the window? Barnier himself said last month that Britain and UK still have agreement on about 80% of Brexit. Even if between now and next March there is agreement on nothing else, I don't see any reason why the UK can't leave the EU with at least agreement on that 80%.

If that is the case, then there is no reason in the world why open skies should not fall into that 80%. It is literally in no one's interest for air travel between Britain and the EU to be restricted and no politicians are going to be stupid enough to allow it to happen.

listermint

First Up wrote: »

Planes all over the world land in other parts of the world under various agreements. Planes landed in the UK before it was in the EU and will do so after it leaves. New agreements will replace the current one. That's all.

New agreements and certifications would have to be made.

You just said it in your own post.

That's the point everyone is making.

But it seems to be your assertion that you can do that overnight by email with a simple send and reply....

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They will also lose the legal framework for certifying aircraft. They are covered under EU agreements now, if they crash out, the certs they issue will not be worth the paper they are written on outside the UK.

If the UK crashed out most of the fleets aircraft could not fly due to insurance policies being invalid. Probably like 40 million other insurance policies in the EU. Similar to most cargo ships also.

First Up

listermint wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Planes all over the world land in other parts of the world under various agreements. Planes landed in the UK before it was in the EU and will do so after it leaves. New agreements will replace the current one. That's all.

New agreements and certifications would have to be made.

You just said it in your own post.

That's the point everyone is making.

But it seems to be your assertion that you can do that overnight by email with a simple send and reply....

I'm saying that aviation agreements will be stand alone and will not be dragged into the UK's trading terms with the EU.

An Ciarraioch

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that aviation agreements will be stand alone and will not be dragged into the UK's trading terms with the EU.

It has nothing to do with trading, but because the current aviation agreement is dependent on EU airspace, it would automatically lapse on the 29th of March, unless the Withdrawal Agreement (which covers all aspects of EU legislation) is finalised.

An Ciarraioch

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am sorry, but that is scaremongering of the highest order.

The problem here is that people are conflating Britain exiting the EU without a free trade deal, with that of Britain leaving the EU without having agreement on anything. Why are people under the apprehension that if the EU and the UK can't agree on trade, that any sort of agreement is out the window? Barnier himself said last month that Britain and UK still have agreement on about 80% of Brexit. Even if between now and next March there is agreement on nothing else, I don't see any reason why the UK can't leave the EU with at least agreement on that 80%.

If that is the case, then there is no reason in the world why open skies should not fall into that 80%. It is literally in no one's interest for air travel between Britain and the EU to be restricted and no politicians are going to be stupid enough to allow it to happen.

May herself stated to a Commons committee this week that no agreement had yet been reached on aviation.

Akrasia

First Up wrote: »

Planes all over the world land in other parts of the world under various agreements. Planes landed in the UK before it was in the EU and will do so after it leaves. New agreements will replace the current one. That's all.

Eventually, but how long would those new agreements take? Especially if the UK are in an internal political crisis and on bad terms with the EU?

Akrasia

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am sorry, but that is scaremongering of the highest order.

The problem here is that people are conflating Britain exiting the EU without a free trade deal, with that of Britain leaving the EU without having agreement on anything. Why are people under the apprehension that if the EU and the UK can't agree on trade, that any sort of agreement is out the window? Barnier himself said last month that Britain and UK still have agreement on about 80% of Brexit. Even if between now and next March there is agreement on nothing else, I don't see any reason why the UK can't leave the EU with at least agreement on that 80%.

If that is the case, then there is no reason in the world why open skies should not fall into that 80%. It is literally in no one's interest for air travel between Britain and the EU to be restricted and no politicians are going to be stupid enough to allow it to happen.

Its called a no deal brexit for a reason

Imreoir2

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am sorry, but that is scaremongering of the highest order.

The problem here is that people are conflating Britain exiting the EU without a free trade deal, with that of Britain leaving the EU without having agreement on anything. Why are people under the apprehension that if the EU and the UK can't agree on trade, that any sort of agreement is out the window? Barnier himself said last month that Britain and UK still have agreement on about 80% of Brexit. Even if between now and next March there is agreement on nothing else, I don't see any reason why the UK can't leave the EU with at least agreement on that 80%.

If that is the case, then there is no reason in the world why open skies should not fall into that 80%. It is literally in no one's interest for air travel between Britain and the EU to be restricted and no politicians are going to be stupid enough to allow it to happen.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, if the backstop is not agreed there will be no withdrawal treaty, there will be agreement on nothing.

devnull

In the UK for work at the moment and been asked by several people today as to why 'your Prime Minister" is bullying us and trying to punish the UK for leaving the European Union by banning their planes to get some revenge.

When I explained to them the reasons behind it, the regulatory environment, how aircraft are certified, insurance and open skies they told me that I am just peddling the made up myths by an inexperienced PM who is trying to hoodwink the UK into paying huge amounts of money to land planes to bleed the UK dry on behalf of the EU after losing all their membership payments.

Another one said when the UK leaves with no deal, Ireland will start offering the UK money to land their planes at Irish airports as they need the British planes and couldn't survive without them and Ryanair and Aer Lingus would go bust overnight as it would force all their aircraft to be grounded as the vast majority of their planes go to the UK.

Another one told me that there will be no problem and everything in relation to trade will carry on as normal, as with aviation, ports and crime detection because this is done at European level and that the UK are still going to be in Europe, they are just not going to be paying money to the European Union to give to other countries.

Honestly as someone who spent a period in the UK when growing up, I wonder what the hell has happened to the country and how they can believe the garbage the likes of the Sun put out. But the scary thing is a large amount of people actually believe the rubbish.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So, the UK had a solution, being part of the EU, decided to opt out of that, which the EU is still offering, but according to her it is up to the EU to come up with a solution, rather than stick to the agreements that she herself had already entered into.

Mind boggling indeed.

sink

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that aviation agreements will be stand alone and will not be dragged into the UK's trading terms with the EU.

There are essentially two stages to the Brexit negotiations. The first stage is the Withdrawal Agreement, this has 3 main focuses; Money (settling of accounts), People (citizens rights) and the Irish Border. The second stage is the future relationship, this includes all agreements on the future relationship including trade and aviation. The EU has been absolutely resolute that stage one must be completed before any part of stage two and can be agreed, that includes aviation. Without stage one being agreed to, stage two won't even begin to be discussed.

It's not a question of it being dragged into the UK's trading terms, that's a separate policy area of stage two. It's a question of dealing with legacy issues that need to be resolved before they can even get to trade or aviation. They can't come to an agreement on anything else without first agreeing to stage one.

Call me Al

It's also worth pointing out that, despite sabre rattling ahead of time, Dave Davis agreed this two stage approach with the EU without any debate or controversy well in advance of the actual initial talks.
In typical fashion, for domestic purposes, he argued once he got home that NI discussions were unrealistic without looking at it in the context of a FTA, but that's as far as his discontent went.
Talks proceeded as per the agreed timetable set down by the EU.

Trasna1

Water John wrote: »

I wouldn't blame the Interent. I think we, the Irish value education. We are very quick to call out spoofers, even in the local pub.

To be honest, if we had been fed a diet of anti EU rhetoric for 40 years we would be the exact same. Ireland has a very pro-eu media and that really helps to bolster support for the project here.


We are not any smarter, or better educated than them across the Irish sea. We are susceptible to the same bs.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

I'm saying that aviation agreements will be stand alone and will not be dragged into the UK's trading terms with the EU.

And we're telling you that as per the current rules such a deal can only be struck after they have left EU and only if EASA confirms the full process of confirming that the CAA has satisfactory supervision. That includes CAA building up all the competencies that EASA has currently (such as certification of engines, airplane parts etc.) in the UK again; i.e. it's not something done over night or by the stroke of a pen. There are actual actions required behind such a certification and not something you ignore and hope things will work out. If you want to get an idea what it involves I recommend this blog post as a starting point; it is a very big deal and yes UK planes would be grounded.

flutered

zapitastas wrote: »

That is the most likely outcome if they had decided to go down that route. A republican paty swearing allegiance to a British monarch in order to be able to cast votes in the HoC wouldn't exactly be too palatable to many members

if sf went to westminister, imagne the furore from the erg, the edl, the tory party, never mind the tabloids