Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

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.

Hi jpr,

the initial question was posed by Eloise. I put it to my MP and have copied my e-mail text above.

I think HMG has a lot of work between now and October and with the Summer recess to fit in it doesn’t seem long enough to properly consider many of these issues.

Hi Don, apologies I didn’t look up the original question, and I do agree that we’re short on time. 

Next Tuesday is shaping up to be an interesting day. Reports in my newspaper say the Prime Minister intends to ask Parliament to reverse in one day all the amendments to the bill that the Lords have proposed.   Now if she had a good majority such a plan might not be a surprise but she doesn't.  Perhaps she's 'going for it' now while she still has DUP support, which is in real danger of melting away if HMG bows to the growing movement to extend to NI abortion rights that exist elsewhere in the UK and which Eire has just voted for. Interesting times.

Interesting to hear to the debate in Parliament today.  Some grumpy Brexiteers on both sides of the House. This is the first time that I've seen the shadow Exiting the EU minister, Matthew Pennycook, in action. Must say I think he is impressive, making arguments cogently and in an even-tempered way, unlike some members. 

MDS posted:

Interesting to hear to the debate in Parliament today.  Some grumpy Brexiteers on both sides of the House. This is the first time that I've seen the shadow Exiting the EU minister, Matthew Pennycook, in action. Must say I think he is impressive, making arguments cogently and in an even-tempered way, unlike some members. 

 

Agreed.

It seems to me that many MPs are looking after No1 as always, at least so far as being re-selected as Conservative/Labour candidates for the next election ie, not very far-sighted and not in what they (secretly ?) consider to be in the best interest of the Nation.

As for making cogent arguments in support of their point of view, well, that doesn't appear to be a requisite for any MP's CV these days, so it is a pleasant surprise to encounter one, as today.

Looks like the PM's plan to overturn the HoL amendments is working. Credit to her for that.   Sounds like behind the scenes the potential rebels have been given some re-assurances e.g. about what HMG will do when it brings the negotiated deal back to Parliament.  I suppose given the stage we are in the process - Bill needs a second reading in both Houses, negotiations still to be completed etc - both sides can afford to talk about principles but in practice kick the can down the road a bit. Crunch-time is yet to arrive.  

MDS posted:

Looks like the PM's plan to overturn the HoL amendments is working. Credit to her for that.  

I have a different way of seeing the same events:

In a completely unprecedented display of craven scrambling (whips & ministers literally sneaking round in the chamber, publicly whispering into potential rebels' ears - this kind of thing is never normally done in public), total disaster for the government (and I mean that - it could well have brought the govt down if it'd failed) was narrowly averted because the government caved in at the last minute and finding a fudged concession to the rebels that merely postpones the crisis.

It'll be largely reported as a victory, and it'll definitely be spun as one, but in reality it was desperate, desperately weak stuff.

The minister who entirely correctly resigned on principle earlier today had everyone virtually holding their breath in case it started a domino effect.  That couldn't have been the case without the government's position being absurdly perilous.

I can't disagree with your analysis, Dave. Perhaps I'm more hardened to the political machinations, which have always been there but are 'on steroids' when HMG has no real majority and parliamentary business has to get done.  That's why I acknowledged the PM's judgement call.  

Quite enjoyed Kenneth Clark's speech in the debate today.  Worth looking up. He did a good job of puncturing the 'principled' arguments of Davis and co.    

MDS posted:

...and parliamentary business has to get done.

Alternatively, 'and parliamentary sovereignty has to be constrained'.  That is, after all, what has effectively happened.

Not intending to pick on your posts MDS, it's just that the phrase stood out as ripe for reinterpretation

Astonished !......is the polite expression !!!

The NHS has been promised a 3.4% pa increase in real funding for each of the next 5 years. This means that by 2023 it will be receiving £20bn pa more in real terms than at present.

I’m not sure what % of Gov spending is allocated to the NHS, but the c.£115bn pa can only be a few percent. So the £20bn pa increase is almost peanuts in overall Gov income/spending……..

……….and a goodly chunk of my acquaintances voted to Leave because we were contributing £9bn pa to the EU !

As I say, astonishing !

I believe that increase is in cash terms. So with inflation running at over 2% the real increase is much smaller. 

hungryhalibut posted:

I believe that increase is in cash terms. So with inflation running at over 2% the real increase is much smaller. 

Oops !

The figures I saw quoted on the BBC website were percentage increases averaging 3.4% pa,above inflation. I had presumed that the £20b pa by 2023 was a cash estimate.

But what do I know !

I copy and paste the figures from the BBC below, and genuinely accept that my understanding of these figures is about as reliable as my understanding of "golden" pensions

Year-by-year funding increases

• 2019-20 - 3.6%
• 2020 - 21 - 3.6%
• 2021-22 - 3.1%
• 2022-23 - 3.1%
• 2023-24 - 3.4%

All figures are above inflation

My partner has been a nurse for the past 20 years and it is her and many of her partners firm belief that the NHS under extreme pressure already will come to it's knees unless all of the fine 'foreign' nurses and health care assistants are not only allowed to stay permanently but are allowed to keep coming in increasing numbers and we are talking Band 5 (staff nurses) and below (HCA's0.

So the amounts talked about will not cover the wages of these extra nurses let alone anything else,  talk to Nurses on the ground and they will tell you that with that level of investment the NHS as we know it will cease to exist and will become unworkable. The fear that that is this governments intension is very real amongst staff and moral is at an all time low.

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I believe that increase is in cash terms. So with inflation running at over 2% the real increase is much smaller. 

Oops !

The figures I saw quoted on the BBC website were percentage increases averaging 3.4% pa,above inflation. I had presumed that the £20b pa by 2023 was a cash estimate.

But what do I know !

I copy and paste the figures from the BBC below, and genuinely accept that my understanding of these figures is about as reliable as my understanding of "golden" pensions

Year-by-year funding increases

• 2019-20 - 3.6%
• 2020 - 21 - 3.6%
• 2021-22 - 3.1%
• 2022-23 - 3.1%
• 2023-24 - 3.4%

All figures are above inflation

You’ll find that ‘above’ in this context means ‘higher than’ rather than ‘additional to’. The increases are below the average annual growth from 1955 to 2015. 

hungryhalibut posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I believe that increase is in cash terms. So with inflation running at over 2% the real increase is much smaller. 

Oops !

The figures I saw quoted on the BBC website were percentage increases averaging 3.4% pa,above inflation. I had presumed that the £20b pa by 2023 was a cash estimate.

But what do I know !

I copy and paste the figures from the BBC below, and genuinely accept that my understanding of these figures is about as reliable as my understanding of "golden" pensions

Year-by-year funding increases

• 2019-20 - 3.6%
• 2020 - 21 - 3.6%
• 2021-22 - 3.1%
• 2022-23 - 3.1%
• 2023-24 - 3.4%

All figures are above inflation

You’ll find that ‘above’ in this context means ‘higher than’ rather than ‘additional to’. The increases are below the average annual growth from 1955 to 2015. 

Oh dear, hoodwinked yet again by "political speak"

I had, indeed, mistakenly presumed that "above" in the context of the Gov statement meant "in addition to".

I wonder if anybody else made this mistake ? (and is willing to admit to it ?)

On further reflection, I’m now unclear what 3.4% above inflation really means.

Let me try to illustrate three possibilities, one of which might be right, but not necessarily so !!

• Current allocation £100
• Inflation 2.5%
• Proposed increase 3.4% above inflation

Future allocation:-

Option 1 = £100 + £3.40 = £103.40     (which is what I think  HH is suggesting ? ie it’s more than the inflation amount would have been)

Option 2 = £100 + £2.50 + £3.40 = £ 105.90    (which is what I had thought)

Option 3 = £100 x 2.5% x 3.4% = £105.98      (well, I suppose it’s possible !!)

I’m starting to think the “Brain Teaser” thread might be a more appropriate place to take this one !!

It’s simply the cash increase. See below. I wouldn’t say you’d been hoodwinked by political speak, rather that the section you quoted above was sloppily worded by the BBC. When I was writing reports for local authority members I was always explicitly clear, but that clarity often evades both politicians and civil servants, often deliberately I suspect. Rather like the non existent Brexit dividend, which will be more than offset by lower growth.

Yes, I can see that the increase over the 5 years would be £4bn; £8bn; £12bn; £16bn and £20bn respectively if the NHS is allocated 3.6; 3.6; 3.1; 3.1 and 3.4%.

But these seem to be based on current values and would only materialise if inflation was Zero. If inflation turned out to be 3.4% pa, these increases would only keep the NHS funded to the same capability as at present. The Gov seems to be suggesting that the 3.4 % will enable the NHS to do a lot better than simply keep pace with inflation.

I'm obviously alone in mis-understanding something here..............

I see you've added a few more words to your above post whilst I was drafting my response above. But i'm not sure whether they help. I'll try to read them more carefully !!

IMHO...........Politicians, Media reports, and Money never seem to be straight forward when combined

hungryhalibut posted:

It’s simply the cash increase. See below. I wouldn’t say you’d been hoodwinked by political speak, rather that the section you quoted above was sloppily worded by the BBC. When I was writing reports for local authority members I was always explicitly clear, but that clarity often evades both politicians and civil servants, often deliberately I suspect. Rather like the non existent Brexit dividend, which will be more than offset by lower growth.

HH

The figure you quoted above are bogus/misleading/meaningless on there own.

We need to know the average inflation figure from 1948 to now and the expected average inflation from now to 2023.

Don Atkinson posted:

Yes, I can see that the increase over the 5 years would be £4bn; £8bn; £12bn; £16bn and £20bn respectively if the NHS is allocated 3.6; 3.6; 3.1; 3.1 and 3.4%.

But these seem to be based on current values and would only materialise if inflation was Zero. If inflation turned out to be 3.4% pa, these increases would only keep the NHS funded to the same capability as at present. The Gov seems to be suggesting that the 3.4 % will enable the NHS to do a lot better than simply keep pace with inflation.

I'm obviously alone in mis-understanding something here..............

Looking at all the figures quoted, it seems hard to believe the approx 3% increase isn’t over and above inflation.

Is it actually possible the 3.7% increase isn’t based on above inflation? I doubt it. Inflation was pretty high in the 70s and 80s.

You may be right. It may we’ll be above inflation.  Whatever, you can virtually guarantee it will be insufficient to meet an ever rising demand. Without Brexit GDP growth would be £350m a week higher, according to the IFS. Now where have we heard that figure before? All May is doing is trying to distract us from her ineptitude in dealing with Brexit and her own party, by waving a few sticking plasters.