Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

The news that the NHS will need additional funding to maintain current levels of care and treatment didn’t come as any surprise. Neither did the amount - estimated at £4,000 per household each year.

What surprised me most was the statement that increased taxation will be necessary to fund this increased cost. We all knew that the increase was necessary, but I seem to recall that £18bn pa was going to be available for this purpose as a result of Brexit ! I recall seeing £350m pw on a bus and also on a Boris Johnson poster making this crystal clear.

Have I been asleep ? (or perhaps sleepwalking ?)

I don't know about sleepwalking but spending £18 billion a year to be lectured by Selmayr is definitely not my idea of a great way to spend our money. Why does cooperating with European countries necessitate us throwing £18 billion a year into the hands of a bunch of unelected Eurocrats in the hope of getting a few shekels in return as well as city loads of Romanians who do not appear to be doctors, engineers or teachers as we still have shortages in all those areas?

Apparently these non doctors, teachers, nurses or engineers are entitled to all the benefits of our NHS courtesy of EU agreements at a cost on top of our £18 billion a year as well as open access to welfare benefits, housing and schooling for their kids. All at what cost?

The £18 billion up front money wasted on the EU is just the tip of the iceberg of economic and social burdens that Remoaners wish to retain. 

Eloise posted:

So, according to Ipso MORI, 48% of people say Brexit is working out as they expected (compared to 9% who say it’s going better than expected and 39% who say to going worse than expected and 4% who “don’t know”).

Coincidentally 48% of people (who voted) voted to remain.  So is this the same 48% of the people - they thought it was going to be a disaster, and think it’s working out to be a disaster?

The disaster was completed and signed off at Maastricht. 

Don Atkinson posted:
Eloise posted:
  1. Don Atkinson posted:

 

Assuming we do remain part of EASA, i'm still not sighted  on how much our contribution will be and whether we shall have any right of input, or just follow the Rules as established by others

Don; would remaining part of the EASA, through associated membership or however, likely require agreeing to the ECJ overseeing the rules of the EASA or is that not an issue with EASA?

Hi Eloise,

I don't know, is the honest answer to your good question, but I rather suspect "yes". Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are all members of EASA However,  i'm not totally sure of their terms of membership, but I've not been aware of any aviation matters from those four going to the ECJ, but then I tend to be somewhat parochial, focused on the UK and Canada !

I have sent an e-mail to my MP asking for an answer.

I will let you know what he says !

His written reply on Commons notepaper reads as follows :-

Thank you for contacting me about the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The EU directive states that there should be continued connectivity between the UK and the EU after withdrawal. How a new relationship will be agreed or what it will look like is not clear. An area I know the Government are still Keep (sic) (I think he means keen) to progress is the European Single Sky.

Clearly this will mean a new partnership will have to be agreed. It might be that the UK will remain a full member or some other kind of partnership or collaborative approach will be reached.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours......etc

Anybody want to interpret this for me ?

Don Atkinson posted:
Thank you for contacting me about the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The EU directive states that there should be continued connectivity between the UK and the EU after withdrawal. How a new relationship will be agreed or what it will look like is not clear. An area I know the Government are still Keep (sic) (I think he means keen) to progress is the European Single Sky.

Clearly this will mean a new partnership will have to be agreed. It might be that the UK will remain a full member or some other kind of partnership or collaborative approach will be reached.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours......etc

Anybody want to interpret this for me ?

To paraphrase "um, I don't really know... though it'll all be alright on the night"...

 

Oh, my communication with my MP was by e-mail as follows :-

Dear Richard,

The following text (in italics) appeared on the CAA website, up until 13th May 2018 although it now seems to have disappeared. Nevertheless, the link to the European Commission still works.

Assuming the UK leaves the EU, but does somehow remain a member of EASA, would the UK be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ in matters related to EASA ?

The European Commission has published its views on aviation safety rules post-Brexit, if there is no implementation period or other agreements in place. It sets out the scenario from a legal perspective and details how EASA licences and certificates would be treated if we are not an EASA associate member.

In response the UK CAA have said: "The Government, the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the entire aviation industry have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK withdraws from the European Union (EU). The EU paper describes what the situation will be if this is both not achieved and no other agreements are in place, including an implementation period. While this a matter for government, we believe this to be a highly unlikely scenario. However, we continue to make the necessary contingency plans."

I appreciate you are a busy man and you might not know the answer immediately, but I'm sure (ok, I hope !) that somebody, somewhere in Government or the Civil Service will be able to provide a definitive statement.

Best regards

Duncan Mann posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
Thank you for contacting me about the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The EU directive states that there should be continued connectivity between the UK and the EU after withdrawal. How a new relationship will be agreed or what it will look like is not clear. An area I know the Government are still Keep (sic) (I think he means keen) to progress is the European Single Sky.

Clearly this will mean a new partnership will have to be agreed. It might be that the UK will remain a full member or some other kind of partnership or collaborative approach will be reached.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours......etc

Anybody want to interpret this for me ?

To paraphrase "um, I don't really know... though it'll all be alright on the night"...

 

I fear that you could be right, Duncan.

And not just with reference to EASA, SERA (Standardised European Rules of the Air), Galileo and the European Single Sky. But with about 499 other agencies as well.

I didn't watch more than about 5 minutes of Question Time last night. The first question was whether another General Election was imminent !!!! It was enough to make me realise that petty, party politics are far more important to politicians and the media, than our National future or Brexit. However, they all agreed that Brexit is a mess, and I defy anybody to disagree with them on that point.

My latest "bright Idea" is...............let's organise another two-part referendum (it IS a democracy i'm told !) for October/November ie soon after the Terms of our Deal are set out.

Part One is "Do we leave on the terms of this Deal" v "Do we remain as an existing member of the EU"

If we vote "leave", we leave and that's it. No Part Two. HMG sort out the finer details and the Transition Period etc

If we vote "Remain", we remain at least until the Part Two vote.

Part Two is "Do we Remain" v "Do we Leave with No Deal". If we vote Remain, that's it. No more discussion, status-quo. If we vote "Leave", that's it. We leave that day, no more discussion. We live with the consequences.

Note, it is US, the great British Public, NOT the politicians who are deciding.

Of course, we could delegate responsibility along the same lines to our elected representatives.............er nooo ! at least not IMHO !

 

Don Atkinson posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
Eloise posted:
  1. Don Atkinson posted:

 

Assuming we do remain part of EASA, i'm still not sighted  on how much our contribution will be and whether we shall have any right of input, or just follow the Rules as established by others

Don; would remaining part of the EASA, through associated membership or however, likely require agreeing to the ECJ overseeing the rules of the EASA or is that not an issue with EASA?

Hi Eloise,

I don't know, is the honest answer to your good question, but I rather suspect "yes". Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are all members of EASA However,  i'm not totally sure of their terms of membership, but I've not been aware of any aviation matters from those four going to the ECJ, but then I tend to be somewhat parochial, focused on the UK and Canada !

I have sent an e-mail to my MP asking for an answer.

I will let you know what he says !

His written reply on Commons notepaper reads as follows :-

Thank you for contacting me about the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The EU directive states that there should be continued connectivity between the UK and the EU after withdrawal. How a new relationship will be agreed or what it will look like is not clear. An area I know the Government are still Keep (sic) (I think he means keen) to progress is the European Single Sky.

Clearly this will mean a new partnership will have to be agreed. It might be that the UK will remain a full member or some other kind of partnership or collaborative approach will be reached.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours......etc

Anybody want to interpret this for me ?

My interpretation of your MP's reply is that he is trying to give the appearance of being interested in the topic you raise while being careful to offer no option on it whatsoever. 

Don Atkinson posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
Eloise posted:
  1. Don Atkinson posted:

 

Assuming we do remain part of EASA, i'm still not sighted  on how much our contribution will be and whether we shall have any right of input, or just follow the Rules as established by others

Don; would remaining part of the EASA, through associated membership or however, likely require agreeing to the ECJ overseeing the rules of the EASA or is that not an issue with EASA?

Hi Eloise,

I don't know, is the honest answer to your good question, but I rather suspect "yes". Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are all members of EASA However,  i'm not totally sure of their terms of membership, but I've not been aware of any aviation matters from those four going to the ECJ, but then I tend to be somewhat parochial, focused on the UK and Canada !

I have sent an e-mail to my MP asking for an answer.

I will let you know what he says !

His written reply on Commons notepaper reads as follows :-

Thank you for contacting me about the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The EU directive states that there should be continued connectivity between the UK and the EU after withdrawal. How a new relationship will be agreed or what it will look like is not clear. An area I know the Government are still Keep (sic) (I think he means keen) to progress is the European Single Sky.

Clearly this will mean a new partnership will have to be agreed. It might be that the UK will remain a full member or some other kind of partnership or collaborative approach will be reached.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours......etc

Anybody want to interpret this for me ?

He mixed up the term Single European Sky, his response appears to refer to air services agreements and nothing to do with airworthiness, not sure what you asked about but that response is about vague as you can get. I guess there was no one on hand in the U.K. that knows what is going on that he could  ask?

Hi Mike,

I agree.

superficial interest, no real attempt to address the question, and no recognition that the question is pretty fundamental and probably applies to a wide range of other industries. ( thank you Eloise ) It really is possible that nobody in gov has even thought about these issues. If they have, would they really want us to understand and even discuss them ?

Still, he did make a reply.

Add Reply

Likes (3)
jprJockymacwanderer
×
×
×
×