Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

A self-confessed lager lout - that explains EVERYTHING!

Only the best German or Belgiab lagers. After all, I am a committed European. ????

MDS posted:

PeterJ posted:

Resurrection posted:

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

Have you tried IPA? There are some great craft IPAs around. I've begun drinking IPA in preference to lager or bitter when there is a good one available.

I suspect Rees-Mogg doesn't drink beer (too, common) but if he did it would have to be India Pale Ale. Day's of Empire and all that. 

I do like a Duvel, my wifee likes Framboise but I am quite happy with a Jupiler or even a Stella.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Westmalle Tripel. 9.5%. That sounds lovely. 

Chimay Bleu or Chimay Rouge or a Leffe Blonde.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

There seems to be an awful lot that you don’t like. Anyway, lager contains hops; it’s one of the key ingredients. 

Weiss Beer. ????

Hungryhalibut posted:

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

There seems to be an awful lot that you don’t like. Anyway, lager contains hops; it’s one of the key ingredients. 

"By comparison, hops tend to be found in much higher content in ales, especially as the hops provide a protective element to the beer as it is being fermented at higher temperatures. However, the faster, warmer process of brewing ale also means that there may be more bitterness within in the finished beer, which can be a detriment or a positive factor, depending on your own personal taste and the style in which is being brewed."

Don't like the bitterness of hops, which is the fundamental reason I don't really like ales. I don't mind Guinness now and again. 

Resurrection posted:

Only the best German or Belgiab lagers. After all, I am a committed European. ????

Must try one of those Belgiab lagers...where are they made? 

Imagine a beer made by the EU.

The bureaucrats at the Commission would take a year or so to come up with the idea. It would then go to the Council of Ministers to be knocked around for a couple years before being put to the European Parliament for another year or so and if approved the ECJ would then take an eternity to vet the legislation to make sure it met all of the necessary criteria and didn't break any rules. The funds for the building of the factory could then be released, probably going to one of the lesser countries as part of the Regional Development programme, so ending up at a place with no brewing tradition but tasked with the remit of making a beer which met all member states tastes and will of course in reality satisfy no ones. They could name it after one of the 3 or is it 5 unelected EU Presidents - if only someone could remember their names.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Imagine a beer made by the EU.

The bureaucrats at the Commission would take a year or so to come up with the idea. It would then go to the Council of Ministers to be knocked around for a couple years before being put to the European Parliament for another year or so and if approved the ECJ would then take an eternity to vet the legislation to make sure it met all of the necessary criteria and didn't break any rules. The funds for the building of the factory could then be released, probably going to one of the lesser countries as part of the Regional Development programme, so ending up at a place with no brewing tradition but tasked with the remit of making a beer which met all member states tastes and will of course in reality satisfy no ones. They could name it after one of the 3 or is it 5 unelected EU Presidents - if only someone could remember their names.

Ray

Now, now Ray. That's a rather sceptical view of the EU !!!!!!

A few years ago, when EASA, on behalf of the EU had published a whole set of new aviation rules and regulations, it was discovered there were a few (ok lots) of errors, inconsistencies and ambiguities.

Their programme to change some of the more trivial, minor ones was.......wait for it........5 years !!!!

For the big mistakes etc, their comment was (I forget the exact words) "just because we have a mistake, doesn't mean we intend to do anything about it !"

MDS posted:

Penarth Blues posted:

fatcat posted:

Just realised leaving the single market will push up the price of Westmalle Triple.

This Brexit  malarkey is turning serious.

Westmalle Trippel is my favourite Trappist beer - you've reminded me I have a bottle in the fridge...

Off topic, but many congrats on the Bluebirds getting to Premiership. Warnock is a grumpy old git but he gets results.

Thank you for remembering I follow the Bluebirds in the first place! It's been a great season because it was all so unexpected from many angles, and because I got to have a proper look at what a motivated set of players can do when they play as a team for the first time in years.

I've also been converted to the Warnock approach to football, which is a lot more subtle than the papers would have you think: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/...-city-under-14552610 but then it wouldn't make such good copy if they can't just paint him as the antithesis of good football. From a fans viewpoint I'd rather see us have an attempt on goal than pursue possession for its own sake - only a very few clubs in the World are able to do what Man City are capable of doing. The rest just bore the punters rigid with a slightly weird game of football chess undertaken by players who are mostly idiots and play actors.

Being honest, I'm not looking forward to the Premiership as it is not a proper competition unlike the EFL leagues. I did wonder if we could be promoted but stay in the Championship where most results are not known before the match kicks off... I think the likelihood is that I'll get that pleasure again in just over a years time. I just hope we don't overspend this time and try and balance the books a bit better as a result of being promoted.

I did think at one stage that Pompey might have been coming back up to the Championship but it wasn't to be. Best of luck for next year - we may meet in the Championship in the 2019 season!

Looks like some of the senior Tory back-benchers are at last being more public in encouraging the PM to face down the hard Brexiteers in the party, and to confront them with the parliamentary arithmetic.  It seems more and more likely that within the party and Cabinet, the prospect of reaching a compromise e.g. on the customer union, won't be found, thus calling the Brexiteers' bluff.  A 'no-deal' scenario could well be voted down by the HoC so the Brexiteers are going to have to compromise.   

I agree, there might be a bit of hope emerging for some rational thinking and proposals. One step at a time.

Don Atkinson posted:

......some rational thinking and proposals.

Could be a while, Don!

Christopher_M posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

......some rational thinking and proposals.

Could be a while, Don!

Yes. Hence “hope” and “one step at a time”

but what constitutes rational thinking to me, might look like treachery to Resurrection and the other half-dozen hard brexiteers on this forum !

So, £20bn pa to run the Boris Customs System as opposed to £18bn pa (less the rebate) to be a member of the EU.........

........apologies, I know, I should have posted in the “best jokes” topic.

And yes, I appreciate that JRM will state that neither is wanted by 17bn voters.

In fairness, Don, the two figures are very different currencies. The £20bn is an estimate of the increased compliance cost burden that UK businesses that trade with the EU might incur as a consequence of that trade being subject to customs controls. the most tangible element of that for businesses will be the new direct costs they will have to meet in paying shipping agents to handle the customs declarations etc. The £18bn is money collected by HMRC through import duties and VAT which makes up the annual payment HMG makes to the EU budget.  The latter would be 'saved' by government the former would be paid for by businesses.

That said, your broader point is spot on.  If Brexit were subject to a business case appraisal these figures suggest that the sums don't add up to a worthwhile investment. 

MDS posted:

In fairness, Don, the two figures are very different currencies. The £20bn is an estimate of the increased compliance cost burden that UK businesses that trade with the EU might incur as a consequence of that trade being subject to customs controls. the most tangible element of that for businesses will be the new direct costs they will have to meet in paying shipping agents to handle the customs declarations etc. The £18bn is money collected by HMRC through import duties and VAT which makes up the annual payment HMG makes to the EU budget.  The latter would be 'saved' by government the former would be paid for by businesses.

That said, your broader point is spot on.  If Brexit were subject to a business case appraisal these figures suggest that the sums don't add up to a worthwhile investment. 

I agree with your exposition of the separate nature of the two issues.  You set the situation nice and clearly, far better and more succinctly than I could have done.

I see the issues simply linked by “effort”. That effort can be seen as either “manhours” (apologies ladies) or ££££s. Either way, this effort denies effort in other, more productive activity.

No doubt there will be other resource- draining activity incurred by Brexit.

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 ?)

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?

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"...

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 !