RugbyRebels

This could be good news - the only times I can remember May doing anything without careful planning, is to U-turn.

Which Tyler wrote:This could be good news - the only times I can remember May doing anything without careful planning, is to U-turn.

Which bit is good news, May leaving the country or losing half a trillion pounds?

(On losing half a trillion pounds there must be so many errors in how the data that goes into that figure gets established I really don't know I'd worry about it much, though the fall in the level of foreign direct investment is worrying)

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I hate it when people are too specific and go into too much detail. We need more vague, people.

Digby wrote: (On losing half a trillion pounds there must be so many errors in how the data that goes into that figure gets established I really don't know I'd worry about it much, though the fall in the level of foreign direct investment is worrying)

I haven't read about this. Does the ONS statistic include the amount wiped off by the falling pound..?.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

I wasn't talking about going back to the Reformation.....I meant her immediate family. They're riddled with corruption.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

I wasn't talking about going back to the Reformation.....I meant her immediate family. They're riddled with corruption.

For example?

And Digby, Chukka? Qualified for Chancellor? Lol. I agree on the others though.

I'd need to do a scan of the last 12 years of Private Eye to give you a complete breakdown. There are convictions which is why I'm comfortable saying it. Euge would have something to say about this. Where is he..?.

Stom wrote: And Digby, Chukka? Qualified for Chancellor? Lol. I agree on the others though.

In my dotage I'm increasingly finding almost the entire 650 to be utterly useless beyond their own self-interest.
They say you get more right wing as you get older. Fuck that.
They're crooks. It's either a game or it's self-interest. Usually it's both.
That's all the policy they have.

We've built a society where psychopathic dynamism has become our driving force. We are once again rewarding nutters who have charismatic zeal and supposed conviction.
Austria just elected their version of JK.
Kyle and Knut.

EU Withdrawal Bill has been pulled from the Commons agenda, it was due to be heard this week, and now it'll not make a return until after the recess. Maybe the government thinks they can convince everyone to agree with them in another month or so, but they'd do much better facing up to the fact they're not in a position to ride roughshod over Parliament, and that for all there are plenty of people in support of a hard Brexit there are plenty who don't support that, and they need to find some compromises. Not having the debate 'cause too many amendments have been submitted and you're worried you'll lose the vote just underlines they're in trouble.

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.

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.