UK aviation and BREXIT

Hello Stupid.

The EASa is a pan European organisation (34 states) in which the UK has the major say and controlling influence.

We would be swapping that for controll by a single forigen power where the UK has zero say in anything and that is proposing a system that stops British airways and virgin operating from the UK. Also the FAA proposals woudl only assist US airlines to the detriment of the UK aircraft manufacturers. (say goodbye to Airbus, Bombardier and Thales)

Yepp look like treason to me.
If in your world it's stupid to ask questions, how does anyone learn anything?

Such arrogance in your reply is unnecessary but very common in those who were on the losing side in the referendum.
 
It's alright.

The backpedaling brexiteers will be along shortly to assert that they knew this would happen and they are perfectly happy being subordinate to the ECJ.

Shame we'll now be a rule taker.

Taking back control means giving away control
I've said on many occasions that I can see no problem with being subject to the ECJ concerning EASA. It seems to be a sensible idea.

What new rules do you envisage that will be designed to disadvantage the UK?
 
If in your world it's stupid to ask questions, how does anyone learn anything?

Such arrogance in your reply is unnecessary but very common in those who were on the losing side in the referendum.
One learns by asking question but repeatedly ignoring the answers is stupidity. Esp[ecially when all the authoritive vloices inthe discussion (CAA, RAeS, EASA, FAA etc ) are ALL saying the same thing.

That is arrogance that is typical of those who won a referendum on a very narrow margin where very many lies were put out (not least the £350 million a week) and in reallity despite the ludicorous cliam that everyone knew what they were voting for where that is clearly false.

That is stupidity.

I voted remain. I would be happy with a Bexit if the result was an equal or better situation than the UK has now. However there is no evidence other than "wait and see" (there will be a miracle) Despite all the evidence to the opposite.
 
Differing opinions are one thing but we are talking legal requirements and engineering.
Opinion does not come in to it much as the fantacist Brexit loons would like to believe .

Supiditity like "we can use the UK courts instead of the ECJ for Aviation" simpley shows they have no comprehensin of how any of it works. Especially when all 34 members of EASA want to keep the ECJ . BTW this includes anyone inthe UK who understands Civil Aviation.
There you go again - you just cannot help yourself. It's fantasist by the way.
 
I've said on many occasions that I can see no problem with being subject to the ECJ concerning EASA. It seems to be a sensible idea.

What new rules do you envisage that will be designed to disadvantage the UK?
None really. Especially as the largest single group in EASA are (ex-pat) Brits. That is why staying in EASA is the only option according to the CAA and RAeS.

So if we can put that one to bed and get on with sorting out the rest of Brexit?

End of thread?

The SM and CU are very different arguments to the Civil Airspace problem that can be fudged and negotiated by politicians. The CU and SM we all have *opinions* on can and can argue various options.

AFAIK nothing inthe CU & SM come under legal requirements inthe same way as the Civil Airspace Regulations. The Civil Nuclear stuff might be the only other one that does but it has already been stated that won't change.

There is certainly a lot to do on the SM and CU see the relevant threads. .
 
If in your world it's stupid to ask questions, how does anyone learn anything?

Such arrogance in your reply is unnecessary but very common in those who were on the losing side in the referendum.
@One_of_the_strange is cut from the same cloth. Sadly, they devalue anything worthwhile they have to say because people pick up on the chippy comments and consequently switch off from the meaningful bits.
 
It's all Project Fear... won't appen. They wil sort it out....... Ignore the experts they have a vested interest!

What ammuses me is all the Brexit Loons here keep saying the no flights is bollox and the CAA will run the UK airspace when it is the CAA who is leading the charge to say that is not possible. With logic like that from the Brexit Loons why should anyone take any of them seriously?

Becvause apparently tey all knew exactly what they are voting for...... even the mutually exclusive things and the things that are impossible.

Now they want "democracy" to support a blank cheque referendum two years ago but NOT for the people to have a vote on the actual costs... Talk about hypocritical. (delusional would be better bet and probably not competant to vote)
And what amuses me are pontificators who don't proof-read their posts.

Again, I knew exactly what I was voting for - to leave the EU. On a point of principle. Nothing to do with the economy or being better off or immigration or employment but simply the constitutional issue of self-determination.

I'll ask again, are you advocating for direct democracy?
 
Last edited:
And what amuses me are pontificators who don't proof-read their posts.

Again, I knew exactly what I was voting for - to leave the EU. On a point of principle. Nothing to do with the economy or being better off or immigration or employment but simply the constitutional issue of self-determination.
So that proves that not all the Brexit voters were voting for the same thing with one voice. Many were voting for Immigration. Many were voting for the economy (apparently reviving UK manufacturing) I think you will find the majority of leave voters WERE voting to be better off and end Austerity as they were promised £350 million a week...

I'll ask again, are you advocating for direct democracy?
No. However where the question was asked of the whole population and it was split 50/50 really the question of do youy want to pay this bill should also be asked of the whole population. Unless you are happy when HMG says "Brexit is unworkable: it's canceled" without asking the people.

As according to UKIP the winning margin on the Referendum was unsafe and certainly half the UK still believes that if HMG were to decide to stop Brexit because it would be a disaster for the UK will cause a bit of a problem.

Though not as much of a problem of a bad Brexit most of the Remainers will be more than a little pissed off as will a huge number or Leavers who were voting to End Austerity. That will be well over 50% of the UK

I doubt you will see mass disturbances if Brexit is canceled (over half the country will be celebrating) but you will if there is a bad Brexit. Then you will get JC riding to the rescue of the (unemployed) Working Man....
 
Last edited:

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
And what amuses me are pontificators who don't proof-read their posts.

Again, I knew exactly what I was voting for - to leave the EU. On a point of principle. Nothing to do with the economy or being better off or immigration or employment but simply the constitutional issue of self-determination.

I'll ask again, are you advocating for direct democracy?
Who cares the fudge will be done.

We'll lose sovereignty by having no say , but hey ho.

The UK electorate should never again be given a referendum, at least in my view.
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
You can almost see the e-spittle on the screen when he posts.
@One_of_the_strange is cut from the same cloth. Sadly, they devalue anything worthwhile they have to say because people pick up on the chippy comments and consequently switch off from the meaningful bits.
Mongs who won't accept facts deserve to be insulted.

The fact you can't rebutt what the experts such as the head of the CAA are telling parliament speaks volumes.

Like religious nutters, brexiteers won't accept facts like the earth revolving around the sun. Or brexiteers cases, that the world doesn't turn around the UK anymore
 
Mongs who won't accept facts deserve to be insulted.

The fact you can't rebutt what the experts such as the head of the CAA are telling parliament speaks volumes.

Like religious nutters, brexiteers won't accept facts like the earth revolving around the sun. Or brexiteers cases, that the world doesn't turn around the UK anymore
And the prosecution rests, m'lud.
 
So that proves that not all the Brexit voters were voting for the same thing with one voice. Many were voting for Immigration. Many were voting for the economy (apparently reviving UK manufacturing) I think you will find the majority of leave voters WERE voting to be better off and end Austerity as they were promised £350 million a week...



No. However where the question was asked of the whole population and it was split 50/50 really the question of do youy want to pay this bill should also be asked of the whole population. Unless you are happy when HMG says "Brexit is unworkable: it's canceled" without asking the people.

As according to UKIP the winning margin on the Referendum was unsafe and certainly half the UK still believes that if HMG were to decide to stop Brexit because it would be a disaster for the UK will cause a bit of a problem.

Though not as much of a problem of a bad Brexit most of the Remainers will be more than a little pissed off as will a huge number or Leavers who were voting to End Austerity. That will be well over 50% of the UK

I doubt you will see mass disturbances if Brexit is canceled (over half the country will be celebrating) but you will if there is a bad Brexit. Then you will get JC riding to the rescue of the (unemployed) Working Man....
Well I'm actually a fan of direct democracy, I'd be happy if we had a vote on everything. Although my preferred version of it would require a 75% qualifying majority to carry the day. If we'd have been living under my preferred system of governance, I'd be on the losing side. And I'd accept it.

But that's not who we are. There's not enough interest in direct democracy in the UK; I know, I've tried generating the interest but it's just not there. So we have the democracy that we have. And I'm a fan of democracy. which means that I accept the views of the majority of the electorate,, even when they're contrary to my own.

One of the basic tenets of democracy is the people's right to self-determination, to freely decide how they are governed. It cannot be exercised on our behalf. We should have had a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, because it changed the way we are governed. Our right to self-determination was usurped.

Thus, regardless of the consequences, we must leave the EU.

The type of Brexit is a secondary consideration.

If we downplay the importance of the democratic aspect and concentrate on trade or immigration or aviation or making sure that various and sundry industries continue to make their profits, democracy fails

And in our democracy we elect representatives, from which group a government is formed to make laws and policy. If we don't like the performance of our government, we are free to elect a different one from time to time..

So we don't get a say on the type of Brexit, that is our governments's and parliament's remit.

It seems somewhat absurd to denigrate democracy and the law concerning self-determination while demanding strict adherence to laws/rules pertaining to aviation.
 
Who cares the fudge will be done.

We'll lose sovereignty by having no say , but hey ho.

The UK electorate should never again be given a referendum, at least in my view.
We'll have our say. We'll decide, as a sovereign nation, to be a part of the EASA, in the knowledge that the final court of arbitration in aviation matters, is the ECJ. Probably.

What's an election, if not a sort of referendum; should we bar the electorate from having their say at elections as well?

Even a populace that's 100% stupid is entitled to self-determination
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
We'll have our say. We'll decide, as a sovereign nation, to be a part of the EASA, in the knowledge that the final court of arbitration in aviation matters, is the ECJ. Probably.

What's an election, if not a sort of referendum; should we bar the electorate from having their say at elections as well?

Even a populace that's 100% stupid is entitled to self-determination
Parliament is sovereign.

An uninformed electorate voting for unicorns are currently running into the checks and balances of parliament.

Should suicide attemptees be allowed to crack on because of self determination?

Should malcontents be allowed to tear the system down and destabilise the country because self determination?

I argue that parliament is there to moderate the mob mentality of the malevolent and ill informed.

Anything else is chaos.

Parliament is performing admirably in my view. Despite the spanner thrown in the works by the xenophobic, the ignorant and the stupid, my faith in parliament has never been higher
 
Well I'm actually a fan of direct democracy, I'd be happy if we had a vote on everything. Although my preferred version of it would require a 75% qualifying majority to carry the day. If we'd have been living under my preferred system of governance, I'd be on the losing side. And I'd accept it.

But that's not who we are. There's not enough interest in direct democracy in the UK; I know, I've tried generating the interest but it's just not there. So we have the democracy that we have. And I'm a fan of democracy. which means that I accept the views of the majority of the electorate,, even when they're contrary to my own.

One of the basic tenets of democracy is the people's right to self-determination, to freely decide how they are governed. It cannot be exercised on our behalf. We should have had a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, because it changed the way we are governed. Our right to self-determination was usurped.

Thus, regardless of the consequences, we must leave the EU.

The type of Brexit is a secondary consideration.

If we downplay the importance of the democratic aspect and concentrate on trade or immigration or aviation or making sure that various and sundry industries continue to make their profits, democracy fails

And in our democracy we elect representatives, from which group a government is formed to make laws and policy. If we don't like the performance of our government, we are free to elect a different one from time to time..

So we don't get a say on the type of Brexit, that is our governments's and parliament's remit.

It seems somewhat absurd to denigrate democracy and the law concerning self-determination while demanding strict adherence to laws/rules pertaining to aviation.
Hear hear. Well put.
 
Parliament is sovereign.

An uninformed electorate voting for unicorns are currently running into the checks and balances of parliament.

Should suicide attemptees be allowed to crack on because of self determination?

Should malcontents be allowed to tear the system down and destabilise the country because self determination?

I argue that parliament is there to moderate the mob mentality of the malevolent and ill informed.

Anything else is chaos.

Parliament is performing admirably in my view. Despite the spanner thrown in the works by the xenophobic, the ignorant and the stupid, my faith in parliament has never been higher
Self determination is not a concept that's applied to individuals. All in all that's a bit of an embarrassing post.
 
Well I'm actually a fan of direct democracy, I'd be happy if we had a vote on everything. Although my preferred version of it would require a 75% qualifying majority to carry the day. If we'd have been living under my preferred system of governance, I'd be on the losing side. And I'd accept it.
A 75% majority woud be sensible. Even UKIP were arguing something like that fore the EU referendum.

But that's not who we are. There's not enough interest in direct democracy in the UK; I know, I've tried generating the interest but it's just not there.
Agreed. The bigger problem is the rise of social medal and fake news. Also fake news spreads faster than accurate news. This was also seen in the EU campaigning. So I think I would prefer not to have direct democracy. You end up relying on a lot of ill informed people.

Though I think I would prefer PR for Elections. The fact that the Lib Dems and UKIP had many votes but very few seats compared to the Big Two.

So we have the democracy that we have. And I'm a fan of democracy. which means that I accept the views of the majority of the electorate,, even when they're contrary to my own.
I would go with that. You don't mind loosing in a fair fight.

One of the basic tenets of democracy is the people's right to self-determination, to freely decide how they are governed. It cannot be exercised on our behalf. We should have had a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, because it changed the way we are governed. Our right to self-determination was usurped.
Whilst that is good in theory I am not sure 90% of the population actually knew or understood what it was all about. Nor the long term ramifications. With the current system you have an elected group who spend a lot of time studying the issues. IF they make decision the population don't like we get to replace them in General elections

Thus, regardless of the consequences, we must leave the EU.
Maybe

The type of Brexit is a secondary consideration.
No it isn't. It is a primary consideration. As the UK is constituted the MP's and HMG (don't laugh) are charged with looking after the UK as best they can. As the winning marging on the EU Referendum was according to UKIP too close and there was far to much misinformation and down right lies, floating about, even actively promoted, not with standing all referendums are "Advisory" HMG can say we can't get a good Breixt for the UK that tack up so we are cancelling it. I think that in any case The People should be given the choice to say yes or no on the actual Brexit Terms.

If we downplay the importance of the democratic aspect and concentrate on trade or immigration or aviation or making sure that various and sundry industries continue to make their profits, democracy fails
I don't agree there at all. Democracy is letting The People Decide. the trade, aviation, immigration is what tey are deciding about. In fact in some areas it was 90% about immigration.

And in our democracy we elect representatives, from which group a government is formed to make laws and policy. If we don't like the performance of our government, we are free to elect a different one from time to time..

So we don't get a say on the type of Brexit, that is our governments's and parliament's remit.
If you are happy with that. HAving asked the country to start the ball rolling I think they really need to ask the country if it wants to proceed with the Brexit on offer (when it is known) Otherwise there will be a large minority of the UK that will be very unhappy/

It seems somewhat absurd to denigrate democracy and the law concerning self-determination while demanding strict adherence to laws/rules pertaining to aviation.
The laws and rules re Aviation are not a local UK affair. At least not if you want to interact with anyone else outside the UK. incoming or out going aircraft,servicing, licensing of pilots etc etc They are safety laws not business or trade rules where you can fudge it.

There are some other areas like Nuclear, Marine etc that are global/international. Not sure what will happen with rail.... we do have one line that is inter-continental.
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
Self determination is not a concept that's applied to individuals. All in all that's a bit of an embarrassing post.
Self determination is also defined as,

The process by which a person controls their own life.

Google it
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top