The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Which is something that the airlines, their regulator and their union have all said is a possibility.

There are two options - either you have a more in-depth knowledge of all these industries than all the people involved in them, or you maybe haven't thought about this as much as you could have.

And given you've not gone much further than "it'll be fine, just because it will be fine", I'd not be too confident on the first possibility winning out.

I am an expert in aviation , I once went to Farnborough airshow    ...

 

firstly yes we'd lose access to the ECAA  ..however these rights are reciprocal. US and other ECAA carriers would also lose their automatic rights to fly to the UK ... 

secondly the impact of these no flights is huge to a lot of countries , indeed ACI EUROPE  have campaigned hard to make sure that UK airlines keep the same access they currently have

thirdly , There is goodwill on both sides ....  EU airlines also rely on access to Heathrow. No continental European politician wants to needlessly destroy air traffic with Britain.

it's not exactly difficult top foresee a bilaterall deal Switzerland is not part of the ECAA, but has such an arrangement  .. Norweigian has become the third largest budget airline in Europe ... that's Norway that country that isn't in the EU

 

IATA carried out a detailed study , perhaps wearedoomed.com missed it   , so here it is for you

However, even under the “hard” scenario, the UK passenger market is expected to be 45.5% larger in 2035 than it was in 2015

 

 

IAG which is British Airways to you non experts is listed on both the Madrid and Uk stock markets and also 20% owned by Qatar via it Luxemburg based company  , they have repeatedly stated they are Brexit proof  and  

Easy Jet has already put a contingency in place with multiple licenses  , the EU could say they've acted illegally , but only if they then break up KLM-Air France who do exactly the same thing ..

 

 

but , No I'm sure you are all correct and Lufthansa and KLM are going to stop flying to England

 

 

[blandy]

15 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

I feel like a lot of folks in this country care more about animals than their fellow humans

'cus it's going to the dogs, innit

[Chindie]

That's Norway and Switzerland, those countries with EU deals remember, that have requirements we don't like (and the EU itself doesn't like the Swiss one).

[Enda]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

if you are in Irelands position right now , what would you be thinking ?

(i) That you lot are going to seriously regret threatening peace in NI; (ii) we're relieved that our government is a lot more sensible than either the UK's or the US' at the moment; (iii) we're thankful for the boys of 1916 for getting us independence from your disastrous state of affairs; (iv) that we could never really trust our "best friend" Britain to act in good faith with the North anyway, and so if you're being unreasonable about the whole EU thing (and IMHO you are being completely unreasonable) well then we'll see yiz later.

[Enda]

By the way, folks, very few people in Germany really care about Brexit. You're not that important.

[tonyh29]

Just now, Enda said:

(i) That you lot are going to seriously regret threatening peace in NI; (ii) we're relieved that our government is a lot more sensible than either the UK's or the US' at the moment; (iii) we're thankful for the boys of 1916 for getting us independence from your disastrous state of affairs; (iv) that we could never really trust our "best friend" Britain to act in good faith with the North anyway, and so if you're being unreasonable about the whole EU thing (and IMHO you are being completely unreasonable) well then we'll see yiz later.

yeah good luck with that one .... 

 

I'd be interested in how we are being unreasonable though  , in a 2 way negotiation in what way have we been unreasonable by trying to negotiate  ?

[choffer]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

yeah good luck with that one .... 

 

I'd be interested in how we are being unreasonable though  , in a 2 way negotiation in what way have we been unreasonable by trying to negotiate  ?

Are you suggesting that's what we've been doing for the last 12 months? 

Edited October 11, 2017 by choffer
Insert winkie

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I am an expert in aviation , I once went to Farnborough airshow    ...

firstly yes we'd lose access to the ECAA  ..however these rights are reciprocal. US and other ECAA carriers would also lose their automatic rights to fly to the UK ... 

secondly the impact of these no flights is huge to a lot of countries , indeed ACI EUROPE  have campaigned hard to make sure that UK airlines keep the same access they currently have

thirdly , There is goodwill on both sides ....  EU airlines also rely on access to Heathrow. No continental European politician wants to needlessly destroy air traffic with Britain.

it's not exactly difficult top foresee a bilaterall deal Switzerland is not part of the ECAA, but has such an arrangement  .. Norweigian has become the third largest budget airline in Europe ... that's Norway that country that isn't in the EU

IATA carried out a detailed study , perhaps wearedoomed.com missed it   , so here it is for you

IAG which is British Airways to you non experts is listed on both the Madrid and Uk stock markets and also 20% owned by Qatar via it Luxemburg based company  , they have repeatedly stated they are Brexit proof  and  

Easy Jet has already put a contingency in place with multiple licenses  , the EU could say they've acted illegally , but only if they then break up KLM-Air France who do exactly the same thing ..

but , No I'm sure you are all correct and Lufthansa and KLM are going to stop flying to England

I think the difficulty is that the EU has 2 kinds of arrangements for Aviation. Within the EU and to/from the EU.

Currently therefore, the UK is compeltely covered under all the EU arrangements for Aviation. When we leave, we'll go from inside to outside the EU. so the EU internal flights agreements will no longer apply to the UK. And as we'll be outside, the EU to external flights arrangements won't apply either, we'll have to put something in pace and agree it with the EU (should hopefully be easy, for the reasons ytou mention) . Flights between the UK and non-EU are not going to be covered by any agreement at all, so again new ones will all need to be in place by Brexit day. Quite a lot of work, and cost that.

There therefore needs to be, before Brexit day, arrangements put in place to allow Aviation between everywhere else in the world and the UK. It's all currently sorted out by the EU.

Like with many things (e.g. Euratom) it may be possible, it might even be likely, to quickly draw up and ratify some effectively identical agreements with everyone else to allow flights to continue as they were before we left the EU. That's the best case - everything stays the same, but at the cost of a load of admin, load of time and effort and of moves by e.g. Amsterdam to take away transatlantic flights from London to Schiphol (one of the arguments made by the Gov't for the 3rd runway at Heathrow) . There's no "better" case. The best we can do is keep the current arrangements at extra cost and impact. The worst case is flights to and from the UK grounded everywhere. And for what? Sovereignty innit, innigrants comin' over 'ere spending their money. Ger'em out.

The aviation is just one of the enormous amount of unforseen, unmentioned, impacts of Brexit. No upside, all downside.

Edited October 11, 2017 by blandy
clarification

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, choffer said:

Are you suggesting that's what we've been doing for the last 12 months? 

I'm kinda hoping that there is some important stuff going on behind the scenes well away from David Davis

 

 

 

[Enda]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

yeah good luck with that one .... 

 

I'd be interested in how we are being unreasonable though  , in a 2 way negotiation in what way have we been unreasonable by trying to negotiate  ?

1. You're dragging your feet on the "exit" bill. It's not an exit bill. The EU has requested that you pay only what you have previously signed up to pay, so we don't have to go cancelling science projects we've penciled in.

2. Your notions that we suspend the free movement of labour for you are unreasonable. It's reasonable as a starting point, but we've made it clear time after time after time that we are not sacrificing this crucial part of the European project for you.

3. HM Government's idea that you can sign one page trade deals with countries is unreasonable.

4. Any idea that there can be an open border with NI without it being in the customs union/single market is unreasonable.

5. Any idea that you can be in the customs union/single market without oversight from European courts is unreasonable.

6. Any idea that it is "the EU" preventing an open border, or restricting trade, or whatever, is unreasonable. This is your decision. It is absolutely respected by the EU. You're a sovereign nation deciding your own position. Cool. But it is our sovereign decision to keep our trading agreements that we've built up. This is not the EU's decision, it's yours. Any idea that it is "the EU" preventing an open border, or restricting trade, or whatever, is unreasonable. You can move towards the Norway option once you agree to our pre-conditions on expenses, the border, and the rights of citizens.

[Chindie]

I think 'unreasonable' on many of those is kind. Moronic is more accurate.

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

e.g. Amsterdam to take away transatlantic flights from London to Schiphol

LHR to JFK is the most lucrative flight link there is , presumably for a reason , I'm not really sure these people are going to want to fly on another 30 mins to AMS and then change planes and fly back to LHR ?

Schipol is a decent hub for onward flights to the far east etc  but not a lot else

 

[Enda]

7. In this era of "fake news", your press is completely unreasonable. It peddles lie after lie about the EU. You're being fed click-bait propaganda nonsense daily. So much so that the EU Commission in the UK has kept a track of EU myths on its website. Have a look: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/. 

[darrenm]

5 minutes ago, Enda said:

7. In this era of "fake news", your press is completely unreasonable. It peddles lie after lie about the EU. You're being fed click-bait propaganda nonsense daily. So much so that the EU Commission in the UK has kept a track of EU myths on its website. Have a look: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/. 

We know

[ml1dch]

56 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I am an expert in aviation , I once went to Farnborough airshow    ...

 

firstly yes we'd lose access to the ECAA  ..however these rights are reciprocal. US and other ECAA carriers would also lose their automatic rights to fly to the UK ... 

secondly the impact of these no flights is huge to a lot of countries , indeed ACI EUROPE  have campaigned hard to make sure that UK airlines keep the same access they currently have

thirdly , There is goodwill on both sides ....  EU airlines also rely on access to Heathrow. No continental European politician wants to needlessly destroy air traffic with Britain

You seem to be arguing a different point to everyone else. Nobody has said that there is no way to avoid this. What you say above is (in my understanding) correct. As long as everyone is happy and getting along, then the right agreements get put in place, new treaties are signed and then things carry on as normal.

What doesn't happen, is that agreements aren't put into place, new treaties aren't signed and things carry on as normal. That is what leads to flights not taking off. It's why "telling them to whistle, leaving with no deal and just using the WTO" isn't in any way an option. 

It's like a canary in a mine - if you see someone blathering on about how it's fine because of tariff levels and trade deficits it's proof that they don't know what they are talking about, and they've not considered stuff like this. It's a certain consequence of us not concluding negotiations.

Which is fine if it's some numpty on Twitter or in The Daily Express saying it. When it's the Prime Minister or Home Secretary, not so much.

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, Enda said:

1. You're dragging your feet on the "exit" bill. It's not an exit bill. The EU has requested that you pay only what you have previously signed up to pay, so we don't have to go cancelling science projects we've penciled in.

the UK position is we need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU

I fail to see anything wrong in that position 

It gets hard to determine who you mean by "we"  ..do you mean we the irish , or we the EU

2) where have the UK stated this in Brexit negotiations ...they've been quite clear it will end for the Uk , I've not seen demands that it ends for all of Europe .... in regards to Ireland the Uk have said it wants to keep the CTA

3) I can't see anything on google about a one page trade deal

4+)

The NI border thing all sides have stated that don't want a hard Border , the EU position is 

In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border

the Uk position is

We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland.

sounds to me like all parties want the same aim , it's just a matter of negotiation as to how we get there  ....

 

[tonyh29]

15 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

You seem to be arguing a different point to everyone else. Nobody has said that there is no way to avoid this. What you say above is (in my understanding) correct. As long as everyone is happy and getting along, then the right agreements get put in place, new treaties are signed and then things carry on as normal.

What doesn't happen, is that agreements aren't put into place, new treaties aren't signed and things carry on as normal. That is what leads to flights not taking off. It's why "telling them to whistle, leaving with no deal and just using the WTO" isn't in any way an option. 

It's like a canary in a mine - if you see someone blathering on about how it's fine because of tariff levels and trade deficits it's proof that they don't know what they are talking about, and they've not considered stuff like this. It's a certain consequence of us not concluding negotiations.

Which is fine if it's some numpty on Twitter or in The Daily Express saying it. When it's the Prime Minister or Home Secretary, not so much.

I was answering the numerous replies on why "no flights to the UK " was a possibility , none of the posters seemed to be suggesting ways to avoid it , I thought I was being asked why I knew more than people like Michael O'Leary ..so I gave some reasons why I believed such an outcome was highly unlikely

I agree if nothing it put in place there could be whole heap of trouble , however I also showed that IAG , Easyjet , have already put procedures into place and thus there won't be trouble ahead , or music , moonlight,  love and romance

I'm not aware that I used , no deal , whistling or WTO in any of my reasoning  so to a degree I'm not sure why raise it  , I'm neither the PM , Home Secretary or the Daily Express  

 

 

 

 

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The NI border thing all sides have stated that don't want a hard Border , the EU position is 

In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border

the Uk position is

We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland.

sounds to me like all parties want the same aim , it's just a matter of negotiation as to how we get there  ....

 

I appreciate we're jumping from topic to topic quite quickly but...

The options are as follows (assuming we actually leave):

(1) There is a customs border along the current Ireland / Northern Ireland border. This is the default, and what will happen with the current trajectory.

(2) Northern Ireland remains inside the Single Market, leading to a customs border in the Irish sea. So effectively either official or unofficial reunification.

(3) The EU suspends it's laws, allowing access to the Single Market to a country not subject to it's rules, putting at risk their union and in clear breach of WTO rules.

One of those three will happen - which do you think it will be?

[ml1dch]

35 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I agree if nothing it put in place there could be whole heap of trouble , however I also showed that IAG , Easyjet , have already put procedures into place and thus there won't be trouble ahead , or music , moonlight,  love and romance

I'm not aware that I used , no deal , whistling or WTO in any of my reasoning  so to a degree I'm not sure why raise it  , I'm neither the PM , Home Secretary or the Daily Express

On point one, that doesn't have any impact on the situation we are discussing. easyJet opening a European headquarters in Austria means that they can continue to fly from Rome to Paris. Or Madrid to Krakow. Or Barcelona to Berlin. Them having a base in Austria doesn't affect the UK in any way at all.

On point two, it's a thread discussing leaving the EU. It's not a thread titled "Tony badly answers questions about the EU".  So even if it's not directly addressing something you've said, that doesn't mean I cannot or should not post it. Besides, I think that "consequences of only understanding half the story" is pretty relevant to the last few pages.

Edit - if I'd intended it to be in response to you directly, I'd have been clear and said "some numpty on VillaTalk" instead of "some numpty in the Daily Express" 

Edited October 11, 2017 by ml1dch

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

LHR to JFK is the most lucrative flight link there is , presumably for a reason , I'm not really sure these people are going to want to fly on another 30 mins to AMS and then change planes and fly back to LHR ?

Schipol is a decent hub for onward flights to the far east etc  but not a lot else

I might be wrong, but I thought one of the arguments, or concerns about having/not having a 3rd runway at LHR was that Schiphol is growing and growing and aiming to take lucrative routes from London, so London needs the capacity to fend off that threat  -  that currently LHR is a big hub for Europe to USA (and RoW) flights, and Schipol wants to take that hub position.  Obviously now, we're talking about limits due to regulation post Brext, rather than capacity, but the effect is still negative - Clearly any grounding or diminution of flights permissable to and from the UK post Brexit, even if only temporary until new agreements are sorted,  will hinder "our" cause and help places like Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt