RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:To somewhat borrow and marginally edit from an old(ish) article in the FT we need to get cracking on

Replacing more than 750 EU bilateral agreements with potential relevance to Britain, covering trade in nuclear goods, customs, fisheries, trade, transport and regulatory co-operation in areas such as antitrust or financial services.

This includes multilateral agreements based on consensus, where Britain must re-approach 132 separate parties. Around 110 separate opt-in accords at the UN and World Trade Organisation are excluded from the estimates, as are narrow agreements on the environment, health, research and science. Some additional UK bilateral deals, outside the EU framework, may also need to be revised because they make reference to EU law.

Some of the (750+) agreements are so essential that it would be unthinkable to operate without them. Air services agreements allow British aeroplanes to land in America, Canada or Israel; nuclear accords permit the trade in spare parts and fuel for Britain’s power stations. Both these sectors are excluded from trade negotiations and must be addressed separately.

All the agreements must be sifted, creating a huge legal tangle. With Switzerland alone there are 49 accords, while there are 44 with the US and 38 with Norway. Even in potentially consequential areas, some countries are barely aware of Brexit implications. When asked by the FT about a specific customs agreement, one sanguine Indian diplomat first denied it existed, then said it would not matter anyway: “I’m sure people have forgotten it.”

“The logistics are terrifying, even just to go through these commitments and treaties and scope them out,” says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a former trade official for Sweden and the EU now at the European Centre for International Political Economy. “Do you want revisions? Do they? Do you go there?"

And we can't even start with what should be some of the more straightforward progression of the EU withdrawal bill in our own parliament, it's not even from within the UK remotely clear what the government wants still (other than their cake and eat it) and how they think that can be accomplished. I don't know if the dallying has a long term view that we cancel Brexit as we're not remotely prepared, that we extend the transitional period and extend the uncertainty where people don't know what comes next, or whether refusing to engage on the issues is intended to see a hard brexit delivered.

Just to drill down in to only one of these areas, aviation is particular example where you would expect there to be frenetic activity in preparation for Brexit, but which there appears to be none.
https://skift.com/2017/06/20/faa-boss-o ... -aviation/

“With very limited exceptions the United Kingdom’s aviation products are currently certified by the European safety agency or EASA and service providers such as maintenance repair and overhaul facilities are certified using EU regulation and EASA procedure,”said Huerta.

“If the UK does not maintain an associated or working arrangement with EASA upon leaving the EU, the UK will quickly need to re-establish competencies in specific areas especially around certification of new aviation products. And additionally, the U.S.-UK bilateral aviation safety agreement has been largely dormant for a number of years. Well it needs to be updated and put in place to be enforced upon the UK’s exit from the EU. Now this is manageable but it will take time and it will depend on clarity around the UKs relationship with EASA going forward.”

When the UK leaves the European Union it will be forced to replace thousands of regulations with some of its own.
Aviation is one of the areas where the EU plays a crucial role for the UK and if airports aren’t going to grind to a halt on March 30, 2019 , the UK needs to either re-establish its own regulatory framework or apply to retain certain memberships

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/6797/ ... brexit.pdf

It is critical to the aerospace sector that following Brexit there is an aviation regulatory regime in the UK and Europe that allows industry to be competitive and develop innovative products, that supports the provision of a choice of quality services for the consumer, and allows aviation safety standards to be maintained and improved using the latest technology. Moreover, for the UK there needs to be a fully-functioning regulatory system from day one – 20 March 2019 – otherwise there could be disruption to air travel and business operations impacting the air travelling consumer, business performance and, ultimately, the UK economy.

This paper identifies three options open to the UK and the EU. The UK could: remain a full member of EASA; [ii] take an off-the-shelf participation option as Switzerland and Norway have done; or [iii] withdraw from EASA and repatriate all regulatory powers back to the UK Civil Aviation Authority, potentially contracting some activities back to EASA

The main problems with Option :

As a member of EASA the UK would be subject, to some degree depending on negotiations, to the European Court of Justice.

and

As a full participant in EASA, the UK would retain a role in the EASA rulemaking process, to the extent that EASA recommendations would still have to go to the European Commission or Parliament or Council

Unlikely to be acceptable to the Brexit brigade.

How does Option [ii] look?:

For the same reasons provided under Option 1 for remaining members and participating fully in EASA, there is precedent for non-EU members to be full members of EASA, namely, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. This would retain the majority of benefits listed above but entail some loss of influence with respect to evolving regulations.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like "taking back control"

So, Option [iii], then:

the UK could empower the UK CAA to discharge all the UK’s ICAO responsibilities. This would require the UK CAA to rebuild its competence in the many areas of an NAA’s remit which are currently delegated to EASA

sounds good

Given the large number [around 300] of additional specialist staff needed, and the new systems and processes that would need to be put in place and used by industry, this could not be achieved by March 2019. Most of the specialists who carried out these tasks in the CAA prior to EASA taking them over have gone to EASA, taken on other work at the CAA, or retired.

Ah....

Stones of granite wrote:

Given the large number [around 300] of additional specialist staff needed, and the new systems and processes that would need to be put in place and used by industry, this could not be achieved by March 2019. Most of the specialists who carried out these tasks in the CAA prior to EASA taking them over have gone to EASA, taken on other work at the CAA, or retired.

Ah....

It's this sort of thing which makes one wonder if they're not doing it on purpose so as to say they've no choice but to abandon article Brexit. Or thought about another way, whilst it seems politically untenable for any Tory leadership to hand over £60bn or more in any divorce settlement it's also likely seemingly politically untenable to spend the sort of money we need to spend to get ready for a hard Brexit, and the cost of that is only going up the longer we delay. And a lot of leave voters will likely have no idea just how expensive prepping to leave will be, mind I doubt any remainers do either other than it'll be in the billions

And we're seriously short on time now, frankly we're pretty much out of time to get the EU to agree to the number of deals we need, and that's before we get onto another 100+ countries.

So if we can't progress our talks urgently with the EU we're seemingly in a lot of shite unless the EU decides to abandon project EU and have all of the EU seek only the free trade deal with each other such as the UK is asking for.

A small ray of light?

BBC News just reporting that the EU27 leadership via Donald Tusk have given the green light for discussions on future trade to commence soon.

If May is going to survive (and we don't get an complete Brexiteer as PM) then the EU need to give her something back for her personal intervention. No one will benefit from BoJo as PM.

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Given the large number [around 300] of additional specialist staff needed, and the new systems and processes that would need to be put in place and used by industry, this could not be achieved by March 2019. Most of the specialists who carried out these tasks in the CAA prior to EASA taking them over have gone to EASA, taken on other work at the CAA, or retired.

Ah....

It's this sort of thing which makes one wonder if they're not doing it on purpose so as to say they've no choice but to abandon article Brexit. Or thought about another way, whilst it seems politically untenable for any Tory leadership to hand over £60bn or more in any divorce settlement it's also likely seemingly politically untenable to spend the sort of money we need to spend to get ready for a hard Brexit, and the cost of that is only going up the longer we delay. And a lot of leave voters will likely have no idea just how expensive prepping to leave will be, mind I doubt any remainers do either other than it'll be in the billions

And we're seriously short on time now, frankly we're pretty much out of time to get the EU to agree to the number of deals we need, and that's before we get onto another 100+ countries.

So if we can't progress our talks urgently with the EU we're seemingly in a lot of shite unless the EU decides to abandon project EU and have all of the EU seek only the free trade deal with each other such as the UK is asking for.

I agree. I'm sure there are many, many more issues affected in the same way, and the apparent total inaction on the part of the Government is astonishing. They appear to be like rabbits caught in the headlights.

The big story might at other times have been that a senior Tory Whip has written to Universities asking for details on the teaching around the subject of Brexit, which has certainly been taken by many universities as an attempt to have central control on accepted teaching practices as one might see in Turkey or lunatic States in the USA.

But David Davies easily moves past that with his admission that Parliament is very likely not going to get a vote on the Brexit deal until after Brexit completes. Once again showing the Brexit vote had sod all to do with some claims of a democratic deficit owing to the practices of the EU. Davies is also going to alarm many with the idea it'll be exciting to have negotiations carrying on until midnight of the day in question, which is just so far from letting business and the civil service known what's going on it really isn't funny.

Digby wrote:The big story might at other times have been that a senior Tory Whip has written to Universities asking for details on the teaching around the subject of Brexit, which has certainly been taken by many universities as an attempt to have central control on accepted teaching practices as one might see in Turkey or lunatic States in the USA.

But David Davies easily moves past that with his admission that Parliament is very likely not going to get a vote on the Brexit deal until after Brexit completes. Once again showing the Brexit vote had sod all to do with some claims of a democratic deficit owing to the practices of the EU. Davies is also going to alarm many with the idea it'll be exciting to have negotiations carrying on until midnight of the day in question, which is just so far from letting business and the civil service known what's going on it really isn't funny.

It's also impossible given any deal has to be ratified by 27 other governments/parliaments and the European Parliament, revealing that he knows fuck all about the process he's supposedly operating. Christ on a bike.

Exactly this.

Davis is leading the Govt in the Brexit negotiations and should know precisely how things work. its his job to know these things, down to very fine detail.

we are being led by fools.

My money is still on this becoming a complete goat fuck where we all lose, and I include the EU in that. Is this the best leadership that the politicians can provide?

Meanwhile the polarisation of British politics around leave vs remain continues and a complete fucking idiot with a fetish for acting like a twat, Mogg in case you were wondering as there are a number of candidates who fits that description, is being touted as a future leader.

On the other hand, it’s quite amusing listening to the right of the conservatives talking about backstabbing when they were the ones wielding the knife against Major in the 1990s.

Sandydragon wrote:My money is still on this becoming a complete goat fuck where we all lose, and I include the EU in that. Is this the best leadership that the politicians can provide?

Meanwhile the polarisation of British politics around leave vs remain continues and a complete fucking idiot with a fetish for acting like a twat, Mogg in case you were wondering as there are a number of candidates who fits that description, is being touted as a future leader.

On the other hand, it’s quite amusing listening to the right of the conservatives talking about backstabbing when they were the ones wielding the knife against Major in the 1990s.

I agree with most of what you say here. The one exception is Mogg. I know he's being touted as a future leader, but I think that's a "stalking horse" strategy. Electing Mogg as leader of the Tory party would fall into (now popular) category of extreme self-harm. He may play with certain sectors of society but he sure as hell isn't a "one-nation" Tory.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:My money is still on this becoming a complete goat fuck where we all lose, and I include the EU in that. Is this the best leadership that the politicians can provide?

Meanwhile the polarisation of British politics around leave vs remain continues and a complete fucking idiot with a fetish for acting like a twat, Mogg in case you were wondering as there are a number of candidates who fits that description, is being touted as a future leader.

On the other hand, it’s quite amusing listening to the right of the conservatives talking about backstabbing when they were the ones wielding the knife against Major in the 1990s.

I agree with most of what you say here. The one exception is Mogg. I know he's being touted as a future leader, but I think that's a "stalking horse" strategy. Electing Mogg as leader of the Tory party would fall into (now popular) category of extreme self-harm. He may play with certain sectors of society but he sure as hell isn't a "one-nation" Tory.

Sadly, he constantly comes at or near the top of recent grassroots polls for the next leader. Very, very sadly, he seems to have reignited, along with Brexit, the old, grumpy, backward looking part of the Conservatives that had been marginalised under Cameron.

As Mells has said, he would be an electoral disaster and most MPs know it. But he is popular amongst the Tory membership. In an election race, he would have a very real chance.

I wasn't aware of the membership poll. I stand corrected. In that case, the Tories have some tough years ahead of them.

Stones of granite wrote:I wasn't aware of the membership poll. I stand corrected. In that case, the Tories have some tough years ahead of them.

It se ms that both major parties are listening to their more extreme activists and members. No one seems to care about the middle ground. I was wondering if he LibDems might take advantage, but they seem very anonymous.

If the latest spat of allegations gets serious, and there likely are some serious stories around which may or may not be unearthed and may or may not get printed, how many by-elections are we from another General Election?

Digby wrote:If the latest spat of allegations gets serious, and there likely are some serious stories around which may or may not be unearthed and may or may not get printed, how many by-elections are we from another General Election?

Not many. More than a handful and its game over. Labour too have some issues here, but the weight of numbers seems to be on the Conservative side

when the fuck am I getting a blue passport

Tre wrote:when the fuck am I getting a blue passport

Not long. Just need to ship them over from France.

Gove and Johnson are busy sending strident memos to No. 10, though none detailing their resignations for royally screwing up on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and John Redwood fresh from castigating the Treasury and the BoE for not being optimistic enough on Brexit has been busy telling his investors to move money out of the UK. But none of that is any actual progress.

There is that Parliament will now get a vote, which even though it'll not be much of a choice is a step in the right direction, and there seems some movement to accepting the executive shouldn't get Henry VIIIth powers, but agreeing not to make moves away from being democratic isn't the same as actually moving forwards. And really we still don't even know what they're trying to achieve

Before you have a plan you have a vision. Brexit was a shout against the EU not really sold as an alternative we could see or check.

So there is no collective plan or vision. We are at the behest of the anti EU fanatics.

What is painful to consider is that there is probably a soft Brexit majority in the HOC. With cross party support, May could have marginalised the right and still delivered us leaving the EU, but without the hard Brexit pain. But that would require the authority and guts to tell her right wingers to wknd their necks in.

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

Digby wrote:She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Everyone is an enemy of the people

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

We can do all of the above but it will be self-defeating. Hopefully, the grand plan is to have a hard Brexit but then have a bespoke relationship that moves us a substantial way back towards the status quo. Doing this will appease the nutters who want the Empire back - as the headlines will say we’ve left the EU - but we’ll still have close ties in trade, science, education etc etc. High immigration will continue as Boris and Gove don’t see it as a problem and if it’s back in ‘our’ control the govt of the day can say it’s what the country requires.
All we need now is for the UK to realise that £60billion (or whatever slightly lower figure they compromise on) is feck all over 20 years or so and for the EU stop money grabbing and moving the goal posts, and we can get on with the important bit of sorting out the stuff that will be important for people’s future.