UK aviation and BREXIT

A 75% majority woud be sensible. Even UKIP were arguing something like that fore the EU referendum.



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.



I would go with that. You don't mind loosing in a fair fight.



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



Maybe



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.



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.



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/



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.

So you're not happy that the electorate voted to leave them EU and were doing so.
Are you moving to the EU?
 
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

You really do place an almost godlike aura around the head of the CAA.
He wont take away your airside pass you know.
 
A 75% majority woud be sensible. Even UKIP were arguing something like that fore the EU referendum.
Cameron asked the question... and despite having the full force of the State Propaganda machinery behind him, he failed to get his 50% support to win.

Now you want to skew the deck even more?

  1. Did the Join campaign get 75% ahead of 1973? No... we weren't asked!
  2. Did the Remain campaign get 75% in 1975? No... 67% in favour on a national turnout of 64% (mostly because of Ted Heath's "no transfer of political or economic control" promise)
  3. What about the Maastricht Treaty? Nope, we weren't asked...
  4. What about the Lisburn Treaty? Nope, we weren't asked...
We've been lied to enough about the EU... accept the result!
 
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
It doesn't matter if the whole population is regarded as stupid, or ignorant, a people have the right to self determination. It cannot be exercised on their behalf. By anybody. Only a people, under universal suffrage can decide. Or it's not 'self' determination, it's determination by a minority, whether elected or otherwise. And nobody can decide that a people is ready or not, or worthy or not, for self determination.

The only alternative to this is 'jungle rules'.

Self determination is a decision on how a people are governed, that is, they determine the system of governance that they wish to live under. Self determination is not about decision making on laws and policies.

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.
Democracy is letting the people decide who governs them. they make their decision based on various things - the ethos of a party, whether a party is left or right leaning, a party's policies as outlined in a manifesto, occasionally on a single issue such as Brexit. Democracy is not about how the aviation industry is run.

I'll say again - The referendum was a constitutional issue, a question about how we are governed. The rest is merely establishing our future relationship with the EU.

And now, if I was to follow the general MO of this thread, I should be flinging around all sorts of insults about people who didn't understand why they were voting.
 
Self determination is also defined as,

The process by which a person controls their own life.

Google it
Correct, I'll concede the point. Except that it's not relevant constitutionally. International law on self-determination relates to 'peoples' not individuals. Peoples, not people, if you want to play with words.

You clutched at a straw that appeared to save you. Unfortunately, it was a straw man. I suggest hyperbolic metaphor is not your forte.

Maybe you'd be better off listening to experts.
 
I did.

Therefore I rejected project unicorn

"…Third, associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.

For example, in the case of Switzerland, associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency means that airworthiness certifications are granted by its own aviation authority, and disputes are resolved through its courts. Without its membership, Swiss airlines would need to gain their certifications through another member state or through the Agency, and any dispute would need to be resolved through the ECJ.
 
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.
You make some valid points, but if you insist on continuing to be rude and calling people stupid it may help your credibility to get a fcuking grip of your spoolling and grammer.
 
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.
I just joined the thread and asked questions. You applied your arrogant prejudice to them and opened with calling me stupid.

You appear to be overwrought.
 
I just joined the thread and asked questions. You applied your arrogant prejudice to them and opened with calling me stupid.

You appear to be overwrought.

I think this bit fried his composure....

Third, associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.”
 
"…Third, associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.

For example, in the case of Switzerland, associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency means that airworthiness certifications are granted by its own aviation authority, and disputes are resolved through its courts. Without its membership, Swiss airlines would need to gain their certifications through another member state or through the Agency, and any dispute would need to be resolved through the ECJ.
For the UK to get to the state where it could have its own airworthiness certification done by it's own Aviation Authority it is going to take the CAA (according ot the CAA & RAeS) 5-10 years. At which point the UK could apply to be an Associate Member of EASA.

Yes, we knew this BEFORE the EU vote as you also claimed to know. What is the point you are making that it will take the UK 10 years to be an Associate Member of something we are a Full Member of at the moment. (and with a major influence in)

The problem being as you know inthe 10 years in the middle the UK can't grant any Airworthiness Certifications.
 
For the UK to get to the state where it could have its own airworthiness certification done by it's own Aviation Authority it is going to take the CAA (according ot the CAA & RAeS) 5-10 years. At which point the UK could apply to be an Associate Member of EASA.

Yes, we knew this BEFORE the EU vote as you also claimed to know. What is the point you are making that it will take the UK 10 years to be an Associate Member of something we are a Full Member of at the moment. (and with a major influence in)

The problem being as you know inthe 10 years in the middle the UK can't grant any Airworthiness Certifications.

How long do you need to do that job for me?
I can turn it round in a week

That doesn't mean it will take me a week, it means I'm telling you it will take me a week.

10 years? GT-OH!
 
The CAA and the RAeS must be shitting themselves, there's a guy on the internet who knows how to do their job better than they do.
 

exbleep

On ROPS
On ROPs
The CAA and the RAeS must be shitting themselves, there's a guy on the internet who knows how to do their job better than they do.
Unfortunately he's too busy spreading his expertise on submarines to the Admiralty, his expertise on fishing to DEFRA and his expertise on everything else to the Ministry of Everything Under the Sun.
Of course, this is in between his day job of making sure those paper clips get counted in and out correctly.
The thorny question of reshaping the CAA and sorting out the legalities of aviation certification and registration will have to wait until his next CS version of a NAAFI break but it will all by done by, oh, let's see, Friday all right for you guv? It would be Thursday but he has this silly Irish border question to sort out before then.
 
Subordinate to the ECJ
.
That’s not what the statement says, is it.
“7.In practice, ECJ judgements have not been an issue for the aerospace sector. In her Mansion House speech on 2nd March 2018, the Prime Minister acknowledged that “the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us” after Brexit and said that if “the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard.” This is preferable to the alternative of securing an escape from ECJ jurisdiction at the cost of influence in EASA. The Committee welcomes the Government’s pragmatic approach, which is especially suitable for the aerospace sector and regarding ECJ jurisdiction over EASA.”

The impact of Brexit on the aerospace sector - Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee - House of Commons
They fail to mention maintenance in the skills section: huge oversight.
The manufacturing sector might have 4% EU nationals but the number in maintenance runs higher. Loads of young ‘uns from the EU (mainly the south and east) are getting the leg up from the UK.

Any idea who wrote that? (I’m on my wee phone and my browsing abilities are less than optimal).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Snip

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.

Snip
Are you suggesting that if a greater proportion actually knew or understood what it was all about, some of the 48% who voted Remain may have voted BREXIT?

Or are you suggesting that it was only 90% of the BREXIT voters who didn't know or understand things as you do?
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
Are you suggesting that if a greater proportion actually knew or understood what it was all about, some of the 48% who voted Remain may have voted BREXIT?

Or are you suggesting that it was only 90% of the BREXIT voters who didn't know or understand things as you do?
The sink estate lot who'd never voted before, but turned out for the referendum because they were told foreigners would be going home then £20/hr minimum wage for all understood the impact? :)

How will Brexit impact airlines and the wider aviation industry?
 
Unfortunately he's too busy spreading his expertise on submarines to the Admiralty, his expertise on fishing to DEFRA and his expertise on everything else to the Ministry of Everything Under the Sun.
Of course, this is in between his day job of making sure those paper clips get counted in and out correctly.
The thorny question of reshaping the CAA and sorting out the legalities of aviation certification and registration will have to wait until his next CS version of a NAAFI break but it will all by done by, oh, let's see, Friday all right for you guv? It would be Thursday but he has this silly Irish border question to sort out before then.

So your just ranting and made zero effort to read the actuality behind the extreme positions of the opposing sides?

Quelle surprise, the fat lazy CAA doesn’t want to get off its cozy featherbedded arse and do some heavy lifting... who’d have thunk it!

There is no requirement to leave EASA, there is a requirement not to have the ECJ ruling over us, there is, despite the febrile rantings of the EUrofanatics, a work around available that ticks the boxes. It’s in the PMs statement.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top