Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

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 !

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.