How have the EU misbehaved with Cyprus? I must have missed it.
Cyprus banking crisis of 2013. Banks closed, deposits confiscated. They were the first country pushed under the bus to try and save the Euro.
Is this some sort of Biblical "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" reference?
I'm sure that the Greek, Irish and Portuguese problems had arisen before, and efforts to save the Eurozone from a devastating crash had been on the go since 2010-2011 at the latest.
In terms of Greece, there was a punishment element to it for sure - a warning to others! Sod the fact that the harsh austerity imposed on it made it less able to pay the money it owed, or at least some of it, back! It was about punishment and setting an example - which is what we are seeing with Brexit - a different issue, but the same basic idea!
@sethplum - why do you think that a no deal Brexit will see repatriation of EU citizens and UK citizens living in the EU forced to return home? I know there are going to be difficulties but surely this won't happen. Totally impractical for couples with one UK one EU partner anyway.
@sethplum - why do you think that a no deal Brexit will see repatriation of EU citizens and UK citizens living in the EU forced to return home? I know there are going to be difficulties but surely this won't happen. Totally impractical for couples with one UK one EU partner anyway.
I actually don't see it happening in practical terms. However in theoretical terms I see it as what brexit voters voted for, especially ones who voted for a no deal. Isn't that what I go on about so much, what happens in practical terms? If it is (and it is) impractical for mass repatriations, then taking back control of the borders is equally impractical, and therefore brexit itself can't happen. The threat is if brexiters attempt to control the UK borders anyway, by some as yet unspecified means.
In terms of Greece, there was a punishment element to it for sure - a warning to others! Sod the fact that the harsh austerity imposed on it made it less able to pay the money it owed, or at least some of it, back! It was about punishment and setting an example - which is what we are seeing with Brexit - a different issue, but the same basic idea!
Or, alternatively, it reflected the economic orthodoxy of right and centre right institutions. Requiring the selling off of state assets and reduction in state spending is almost de rigeur for people in the IMF, World Bank, etc., etc.
Of course the terms have been overly harsh, especially if you lean towards a more Keynesian approach, but it was much less about punishment than it was about an unwillingness on the part of others (including the UK) to subsidise a country that, up till then, had proved itself either unwilling or incapable to tax and manage the economy properly.
Would any of us have done things differently if we had the control? I hope we all would, and I have been hoping for a more enlightened approach for a while, and maybe something along those lines will happen.
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Seth you are an intelligent person but your posts are now bordering on hysterical rants. Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
Polite way of saying boring.... Maybe he has digested one of his isotopes he knows naff all about... Sorry seth you were Chippy bashing again earlier.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Seth you are an intelligent person but your posts are now bordering on hysterical rants. Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
Polite way of saying boring.... Maybe he has digested one of his isotopes he knows naff all about... Sorry seth you were Chippy bashing again earlier.
No need to apologise, not only am I boring, but I am boring at length. A double whammy. How's your plan for getting a rope and towing Ireland out to mid Atlantic going?
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Seth you are an intelligent person but your posts are now bordering on hysterical rants. Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
Polite way of saying boring.... Maybe he has digested one of his isotopes he knows naff all about... Sorry seth you were Chippy bashing again earlier.
No need to apologise, not only am I boring, but I am boring at length. A double whammy. How's your plan for getting a rope and towing Ireland out to mid Atlantic going?
Still going but our wonderful partners the frogs, keep cutting it up coming into our new territorial waters.
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
Get a life you fool... Even as obnoxious as i am i have never called anyone a nazi fuckwit amongst other things.... I assume you were joking... Btw anyone with 100 flags should get the heave ho. You aren't the Peterborough ref by any chance, your judgement appears that way.
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
Get a life you fool... Even as obnoxious as i am i have never called anyone a nazi fuckwit amongst other things.... I assume you were joking... Btw anyone with 100 flags should get the heave ho. You aren't the Peterborough ref by any chance, your judgement appears that way.
Have you got a link to my use of that phrase you Brexit moron?
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
In terms of Greece, there was a punishment element to it for sure - a warning to others! Sod the fact that the harsh austerity imposed on it made it less able to pay the money it owed, or at least some of it, back! It was about punishment and setting an example - which is what we are seeing with Brexit - a different issue, but the same basic idea!
Or, alternatively, it reflected the economic orthodoxy of right and centre right institutions. Requiring the selling off of state assets and reduction in state spending is almost de rigeur for people in the IMF, World Bank, etc., etc.
Of course the terms have been overly harsh, especially if you lean towards a more Keynesian approach, but it was much less about punishment than it was about an unwillingness on the part if others (including the UK) to subsidise a country that, up till then, had proved itself either unwilling or incapable to tax and manage the economy properly.
Would any of us have done things differently if we had the control? I hope we all would, and I have been hoping for a more enlightened approach for a while, and maybe something along those lines will happen.
Greece should never have been let into the Euro in the first place. They significantly understated their budget deficits on application and everybody knew it. An irresponsible borrower also needs an irresponsible lender and it was the greed and stupidity of French and German banks and the hubris of the EU that are as much to blame. Their actions posed a systemic threat to the French and German banking systems and the ECB had to act to save them from a Greek default. The vast majority of the bailout money went to those banks, Greece just saw that magic money bounce through their accounts without touching the sides.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
No. you wrote I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
No. you wrote I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
Yes I did indeed write that. What has it got to do with your contention that the first bar owner would shoot you if you left for a second bar? And how does that connect with the points made here about air travel?
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
Of course.... I am a fellow of CIBSE and an Engineer for the UK and a proper expert for the Nuclear defence industry, that good enough for you.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
Of course.... I am a fellow of CIBSE and an Engineer for the UK and a proper expert for the Nuclear defence industry, that good enough for you.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
Of course.... I am a fellow of CIBSE and an Engineer for the UK and a proper expert for the Nuclear defence industry, that good enough for you.
And the answer to the question is ?
You clearly as we both know are not on the same wave length when it comes to brains, but for your view nothing... We are world leaders in the HVAC field. You should be proud that one of your fellow addicks has had an input to your offfice comforts, assumed you have worked, in the last 30 years and is getting better.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
Of course.... I am a fellow of CIBSE and an Engineer for the UK and a proper expert for the Nuclear defence industry, that good enough for you.
And the answer to the question is ?
You clearly as we both know are not on the same wave length when it comes to brains, but for your view nothing... We are world leaders in the HVAC field. You should be proud that one of your fellow addicks has had an input to your offfice comforts, assumed you have worked, in the last 30 years and is getting better.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
Of course.... I am a fellow of CIBSE and an Engineer for the UK and a proper expert for the Nuclear defence industry, that good enough for you.
And the answer to the question is ?
You clearly as we both know are not on the same wave length when it comes to brains, but for your view nothing... We are world leaders in the HVAC field. You should be proud that one of your fellow addicks has had an input to your offfice comforts, assumed you have worked, in the last 30 years and is getting better.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
Comments
I'm sure that the Greek, Irish and Portuguese problems had arisen before, and efforts to save the Eurozone from a devastating crash had been on the go since 2010-2011 at the latest.
Isn't that what I go on about so much, what happens in practical terms?
If it is (and it is) impractical for mass repatriations, then taking back control of the borders is equally impractical, and therefore brexit itself can't happen.
The threat is if brexiters attempt to control the UK borders anyway, by some as yet unspecified means.
Of course the terms have been overly harsh, especially if you lean towards a more Keynesian approach, but it was much less about punishment than it was about an unwillingness on the part of others (including the UK) to subsidise a country that, up till then, had proved itself either unwilling or incapable to tax and manage the economy properly.
Would any of us have done things differently if we had the control? I hope we all would, and I have been hoping for a more enlightened approach for a while, and maybe something along those lines will happen.
How's your plan for getting a rope and towing Ireland out to mid Atlantic going?
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
you wrote
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
What has it got to do with your contention that the first bar owner would shoot you if you left for a second bar?
And how does that connect with the points made here about air travel?
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.