Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

.

 

The hard fact is that we are going to have a pretty hard Brexit. The longer this game of charades goes on the more inevitable it becomes. If the EU continue their baiting of May in the hope that she will be forced to go to the country and a newly reformed Corbyn will be returned then they are asking for even more trouble. Corbyn hates the EU with a vengeance but sees it as an expedient way to gain power. Fawn around with the EU until we drop out then hope that May and the Conservatives carry the can for the newly embittered British electorate, sweep to magisterial power and rule the Socialist Republic of the UK for the next thousand years. He will, unfortunately, no longer need the services of the EU. His political horizons are limited to the Unions, his masters, the NHS, always good for tugging heart strings and the public services. Oh, and a woman called Dawn from Islington.

 

My reading of the crystal ball is that a hard Brexit will only happen if the HMG completely screw up the negotiations and the rest of the EU lose patience with us and we leave without a deal: that would indeed be a hard Brexit. In other words, it will occur pretty much by accident rather than deliberation.

The hard Brexiteers are too few in number to win a hard Brexit because, although they seemingly have the power to make life very difficult for Theresa M (who I think is genuinely trying to do her best, but unfortunately that doesn't look good enough), they don't have the numbers in the House of Commons. It's pretty clear that there is a comfortable majority of MPs who are looking for a soft Brexit when it comes to a vote.

If, before the negotiations are concluded, TM resigns or is pushed out and a hard Brexiteer becomes PM, the Parliamentary arithmetic is still the same and the likely result is a lost vote in the House, a fracture in the Conservative party, and an election.

If in the unlikely event that we have an election before negotiations are concluded and Corbyn gets in, I suppose there a possibility that more hard-Brexit MPs could be elected but I think the odds of that are small. So even in this situation the Parliamentary arithmetic works against a hard Brexit. Also Corbyn has said he wants the UK to stay in a customs union with the EU and retain the protections for workers etc. That's a soft Brexit.

MDS posted:

Resurrection posted:

.

 

The hard fact is that we are going to have a pretty hard Brexit. The longer this game of charades goes on the more inevitable it becomes. If the EU continue their baiting of May in the hope that she will be forced to go to the country and a newly reformed Corbyn will be returned then they are asking for even more trouble. Corbyn hates the EU with a vengeance but sees it as an expedient way to gain power. Fawn around with the EU until we drop out then hope that May and the Conservatives carry the can for the newly embittered British electorate, sweep to magisterial power and rule the Socialist Republic of the UK for the next thousand years. He will, unfortunately, no longer need the services of the EU. His political horizons are limited to the Unions, his masters, the NHS, always good for tugging heart strings and the public services. Oh, and a woman called Dawn from Islington.

 

My reading of the crystal ball is that a hard Brexit will only happen if the HMG completely screw up the negotiations and the rest of the EU lose patience with us and we leave without a deal: that would indeed be a hard Brexit. In other words, it will occur pretty much by accident rather than deliberation.

The hard Brexiteers are too few in number to win a hard Brexit because, although they seemingly have the power to make life very difficult for Theresa M (who I think is genuinely trying to do her best, but unfortunately that doesn't look good enough), they don't have the numbers in the House of Commons. It's pretty clear that there is a comfortable majority of MPs who are looking for a soft Brexit when it comes to a vote.

If, before the negotiations are concluded, TM resigns or is pushed out and a hard Brexiteer becomes PM, the Parliamentary arithmetic is still the same and the likely result is a lost vote in the House, a fracture in the Conservative party, and an election.

If in the unlikely event that we have an election before negotiations are concluded and Corbyn gets in, I suppose there a possibility that more hard-Brexit MPs could be elected but I think the odds of that are small. So even in this situation the Parliamentary arithmetic works against a hard Brexit. Also Corbyn has said he wants the UK to stay in a customs union with the EU and retain the protections for workers etc. That's a soft Brexit.

  

 

Mate, HMG and the EU will screw up their negotiations. This I guarantee.

You're a hopeless optimist, Resurrection 

On the 8th April 2018, ie in about 3 weeks time, the UK will, to all intent and purpose, terminate all of our UK Pilot licences. Most of us have converted our licences to EASA licences during the transition period of the past 6 years, but there are a few stragglers that need to cross the Finish Line ! It was mainly an admin process accompanied by  a few hefty admin fees !!

EASA is an EU Agency. Much of its documentation and processes were drafted by the UK and the UK was usually the first EU member to implement the EASA regulations as they were rolled out and subsequently modified.

The UK CAA has advised the stragglers to make the change quick, and has positively pointed out that we are still part part of EASA, and will be for some time despite Brexit.

But the wording is such that it is far from clear whether we intend to remain part of EASA, and presumably pay for the privilege, or whether this is a short-term change for 12 months (or possibly 3 years if we have a Brexit Transition) followed by a return to UK licences.

Does anybody here have knowledge of other industries in a similar position of imminent change to EU regulation that might then be superceded as soon as we leave the EU ?

Does anybody know what we intend to do long-term about engineering standards ?

When I was at University studying engineering, we had British Standards and Codes of Practice eg BS449 for steel design and CP 110 for reinforced concrete.

Now, I gather these have all been supeceded by "ENs"

I presume that initially we shall continue to use the ENs, but in the long term, for work in the UK, do we intend to develop our own standards or are we going to simply accept whatever the EU produces ie the next re-issue of each EN as and when it is produced.

I appreciate that when we produce designs or products for non-UK markets we need to deliver to their standards,  but are we intending to re-develop our own standards, possibly with a view to them being far more worthy than ENs, and an expectation that the EU, Chin and the USA (for example) will follow our lead ?

Another similar situation to that which Don raised... on 25th May GDPR(egulations) come into effect.  Even after Brexit the regulations will apply to any U.K. company dealing with EU citizens, but what will the U.K. do for U.K. citizens?

A lot of international standards - indeed the majority that I have involvement with these days - are wider than EU,  typically ISO (International Standards Organisation). Many originated as BSs, while in latter years before international harmonisation BSs increasingly were or included adoptions of other Standards.

I do not see that changing - BSI will still work with all the other international bodes and publish English Language versions of, standards, whether named ISO, or BS EN ISO etc.

So between U.K. still sticking to Common Fisheries Policy during transition and the iconic (for which read pointless) blue passports likely to be printed in Netherlands... is there any good news on Brexit?

Eloise posted:

So between U.K. still sticking to Common Fisheries Policy during transition and the iconic (for which read pointless) blue passports likely to be printed in Netherlands... is there any good news on Brexit?

You’re right, Eloise! Theresa May is a spineless, appeasing apparatchik of the EU, In fact she has been spineless since her days as Home Secretary. She is a disgrace to leadership.

I don’t see any really good news. 

It strikes me that Boris, who has successfully upset EU members (and quite a few Conservative MPs) now seems determined to enrage Russia (and weaken the International support we currently enjoy) .

So I guess with Boris concentrating on Russia, he is probably unable to spend quite as much time upsetting the EU.

small mercy, perhaps !

+1 for Owen Smith 

It's a shame Owen is not leader of the Labour Party, at least we'd have someone worth voting for.

Debs

Well he stood for leader and got trounced, Debs.  While I would very much like a second referendum, I must say my sympathies are with Corbyn here. You can't be on the front bench advocating a policy that contradicts what the party executive have debated and agreed.  Maybe Owen should join the Lib Dems.

Apparently he spoke up on behalf of a 'majority of Labour Party members'  who also want a 2nd referendum. If this is true, and i hope it is,  then it's jolly decent of them to want to let the UK people decide. Perhaps they are aware that Brexit is not in the national interest, and definitely not the will of the people, it seems to be nothing more than a fast track vehicle to fully exploit Tory Party policy for the next 1000 year Reich.

Owen Smith's comments speaks volumes on how most LP members don't want brexit [let alone most people within the UK] and this feeds into the sad fact that JC should not be giving kudos to the undemocratic Tory-UKIP Brexit goose-step towards the cliff edge.

Also has to be said; it was a ridiculously fraudulent referendum, and that achieved a knife edge fluke result, and since June 2016 people have learned a huge amount about the disadvantages of actually going ahead with it, so in the interest of fair play and legitimate democracy we really do need another referendum.

Debs

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave)  are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave)  are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

naim_nymph posted:

+1 for Owen Smith 

It's a shame Owen is not leader of the Labour Party, at least we'd have someone worth voting for.

Debs

With respect, I see this as a confusion between what we want from Brexit policy and what Smith was actually up to. That confusion is precisely what Smith wanted to cause, and he acted more out of the interests of a cynical, destructive wing of his party than out of concern for the country.

Smith effectively dared Corbyn to sack him, and did so in a way which was calculated to try to damage Corbyn either way.

If Smith had been a back bencher at the time of his comments, there would be no issue. This has been explicitly said, eg by Abbot on Any Questions. But he was not. He was - had agreed to be - a member of the shadow cabinet and was - had agreed to be - therefore bound by collective responsibility. That means you make your case in cabinet, but don't try to fight cabinet fights in public. If you can't win the fight in cabinet, you step down and make your case from the back benches.

Smith and his backers (witness eg Umunna cropping up immediately afterwards) know this absolutely. This makes the actual issue immaterial - it was either sack Smith or be as weak as May by being unable to stand up to or stop shadow ministers saying whatever they like and get away with it (cf Boris, etc.).

I say the above as someone who strongly supports a second referendum. I hope Labour policy shifts to supporting one, ie to what Smith was ostensibly advocating. And at the same time I emphatically agree that Smith was acting in a calculatedly divisive way which demanded that he was sacked.

Spot on, Dave.

I agree with Dave's assessment of Smiths motive, and I also agree that ministers/shadow ministers must resign if they can't cope with Party policy.

But the bigger issue is that of "the will of the people" and whether we really know what "the will of the people" is and what "the will of the people" will be once a "deal" has been established as a basis for the UK to leave the EU.

Agreed, Don. I firmly believe that whatever the deal or lack thereof, there is zero democratic mandate for the precise form of Brexit proposed without a second vote. To claim otherwise based on 'the will of the people' is utter rubbish.

I think it a pity that the result of the referendum seems to have paralysed both main parties, neither of whom seem prepared to have the courage to recognise the damage likely to be done to the UK and the lives of the people they represent.  It seems it's only in the House of Lords that there seems to be an appetite to look through the rhetoric to the substance of the issues.  The best-case that many of our political class seem prepared to aim for is a soft exit.    

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave) are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Well, true to form as I said above....."....Brexiteers .....are shreiking out all over the place, terrified that......"

If the "Deal" is a good one, and in anycase the majority of the Electrorate are in favour of leaving regardless of the "Deal", then there is nothing for you to be concerned about if we held another Referendum. OK, it costs a few Bob or so, but if it were arranged for mid-May next year, that would give both sides plenty of time to explain the benefits of the deal or the benefits of Remaining to the Electorate. No need to put the Transition on hold, or anything else - other that the actual "Leave-Button"

Nothing for you to worry about. No need to continue the frantic shreiking !

Don Atkinson posted:

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave) are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Well, true to form as I said above....."....Brexiteers .....are shreiking out all over the place, terrified that......"

If the "Deal" is a good one, and in anycase the majority of the Electrorate are in favour of leaving regardless of the "Deal", then there is nothing for you to be concerned about if we held another Referendum. OK, it costs a few Bob or so, but if it were arranged for mid-May next year, that would give both sides plenty of time to explain the benefits of the deal or the benefits of Remaining to the Electorate. No need to put the Transition on hold, or anything else - other that the actual "Leave-Button"

Nothing for you to worry about. No need to continue the frantic shreiking !

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result.

Not you personally, you understand, just the shower you aligned with who threatened us with all sorts of dire consequences if  we didn't, as Cameron was always keen to say, 'do the right thing.' Well, we did, and Cameron is history and so is the EU for us.  How does it feel to be one of the 20% who want a rerun? And even for just one moment I would not want to be you. (I like to keep it musical)

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU .