The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

The day you voted for Brexit and leaving the open sky agreements, and leaving a free trade area. You have no replacement for it yet.

That makes no sense. How would leaving the open sky agreement, although this is not a given at present, mean that we would close our airspace? And how does leaving a free trade area mean that ships cannot dock?

[Mafic]

As if the EU can never learn from their history, the EU of the day (the Romans) installed a hard border within the British Isles between Scotland and England yet relatively a short time afterwards the British peoples smashed Hadrian's wall to pieces. Can't wait for the EU of today to install their Irish version only to watch a short time later as the people of those same British islands smash it to pieces yet again.

You are stuck in Roman times Slanty without the Romans, Juncker is hardly a Centurion amusing as that picture might be, embrace the 21st C like us modern progressive Brexiteers.

For thousands of years the EU of the day has always failed. Nothing has changed today.

The EU is facing increasing pressures and so they are trying to make Brexit as punishing as possible. If the EU was a true economic union they would want to make a quick break as soon as possible. Current EU has drifted away so much from the current economic union paradigm that it is trying to legislate its way to economic prosperity which is preposterous.

I have said this before but the more the EU takes their time with Brexix the worst they make it for themselves in the end.

[Kallisto]

That makes no sense. How would leaving the open sky agreement, although this is not a given at present, mean that we would close our airspace? And how does leaving a free trade area mean that ships cannot dock?

Because there are deals in place that even if they are not linked to the EU the conservatives are pulling us out of. Just because they are European treaties. Open Sky agreements and such means that unless a deal is properly signed before we leave the EU then we're out of such deals and essentially closed for airspace and seaspace until such agreements are signed. As of right now the conservatives are simply going back on an agreement that was verbally agreed on late last year.

How in the hell are the EU going to negotiate with us in good faith all these little things within a year when we've shown ourselves not to be trustworthy? It simply can not.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU is facing increasing pressures and so they are trying to make Brexit as punishing as possible. If the EU was a true economic union they would want to make a quick break as soon as possible. Current EU has drifted away so much from the current economic union paradigm that it is trying to legislate its way to economic prosperity which is preposterous.

I have said this before but the more the EU takes their time with Brexix the worst they make it for themselves in the end.

How in the hell is "You're leaving the club so you don't get the perks anymore." punishment. Or should it be "Ok bye now let's give you all the good stuff and none of the obligations." that only delusionalists who are in their own reality and think UK is some super special place (Basically like Dribbles thinks) seem to think is what the EU should be doing?

Punishment to the UK would be "Ok bye, now we're closing borders and boycotting everything. Have fun with a crippled economy."

[Dhrizzle]

The EU is facing increasing pressures and so they are trying to make Brexit as punishing as possible. If the EU was a true economic union they would want to make a quick break as soon as possible. Current EU has drifted away so much from the current economic union paradigm that it is trying to legislate its way to economic prosperity which is preposterous.

I have said this before but the more the EU takes their time with Brexix the worst they make it for themselves in the end.

No-one is taking their time with Brexit, last March the UK Parliament gave Theresa May the power to invoke article 50. This began a 2 year countdown to the day the UK would officially leave the EU and all the perks and responsiblities that come with it. So far that hasn't changed and the UK is still on schedule to leave at that time.

If the UK isn't ready at that time it may be able to get some sort of interim period where it isn't officially an EU member but still acts as one until it gets its shit sorted out.

[Demolitia]

That makes no sense. How would leaving the open sky agreement, although this is not a given at present, mean that we would close our airspace? And how does leaving a free trade area mean that ships cannot dock?

In itself it doesn't, but you are into agreements and treaties that make it extremely easy at the moment, and you have no replacement for either thing at the moment.
leaving the open sky agreement would make it difficult for international flights to land in the UK, or leave it, until you join some sort of regulatory framework.
Your ships could dock of course. It's just the stuff that's in it that wouldn't go anywhere.

[Pann]

Because there are deals in place that even if they are not linked to the EU the conservatives are pulling us out of. Just because they are European treaties. Open Sky agreements and such means that unless a deal is properly signed before we leave the EU then we're out of such deals and essentially closed for airspace and seaspace until such agreements are signed. As of right now the conservatives are simply going back on an agreement that was verbally agreed on late last year.

How in the hell are the EU going to negotiate with us in good faith all these little things within a year when we've shown ourselves not to be trustworthy? It simply can not.

How would leaving the open skies agreement mean that we essentially close our airspace and seaspace? What agreement are the Cons going back on?

- - - Updated - - -

In itself it doesn't, but you are into agreements and treaties that make it extremely easy at the moment, and you have no replacement for either thing at the moment.
leaving the open sky agreement would make it difficult for international flights to land in the UK, or leave it, until you join some sort of regulatory framework.
Your ships could dock of course. It's just the stuff that's in it that wouldn't go anywhere.

Why would leaving the open sky agreement make it difficult for international flights to land in the UK?

What makes you think that ships would not be able to go anywhere?

What laws or treaties are you basing this conclusion on?

[Pann]

Outside the Open Skies Agreement or a similar agreement (however the previous ones were replaced so are no longer in order) you cannot launch flights to foreign airports neither are you obliged to accept foreign flights.

Outside some form of a trade agreement, all ships docking must be processed by customs; it is unknown if ports in the EU and the UK have the sheer storage capacity to contain stock in process until it is cleared by customs; I know that several EU states have been making significant expenses to augment such capacities at points of transit like docks. If a ship does not have access to storage it cannot just dock indefinitely until storage is made available.

The open sky agreement is an agreement between the EU and US and as members of the European Common Aviation Area UK airlines have the right to fly to, from and within the EU. The loss of either (although a UK/US agreement is in the pipeline and it is unlikely that a UK/EU agreement will not be reached) would not mean that flights to and from foreign countries would have to be stopped.

Customs arrangements have nothing to do with the claim that ships could not dock or would not be able to come and go to and from the UK.

[Demolitia]

Outside the Open Skies Agreement or a similar agreement (however the previous ones were replaced so are no longer in order) you cannot launch flights to foreign airports neither are you obliged to accept foreign flights.

Outside some form of a trade agreement, all ships docking must be processed by customs; it is unknown if ports in the EU and the UK have the sheer storage capacity to contain stock in process until it is cleared by customs; I know that several EU states have been making significant expenses to augment such capacities at points of transit like docks. If a ship does not have access to storage it cannot just dock indefinitely until storage is made available.

Not only this. The UK is leaving EASA. the british ADS said it would take 10 years to create a certification infrastructure to replace it. And that's if you simply recreate a national regulator that just copies EASA rules. Certification for airports, airplanes manufacturing, airlines, airspace blocks...

[Pann]

Yes, the statements were hyperbolic. But still, considering that your docks probably do not have the capacity to process trade with the EU at its present volume in case of hard Brexit them docking is pointless if they cannot unload.

It would appear that we are agreed that the statements were incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only this. The UK is leaving EASA. the british ADS said it would take 10 years to create a certification infrastructure to replace it. And that's if you simply recreate a national regulator that just copies EASA rules. Certification for airports, airplanes manufacturing, airlines, airspace blocks...

We're leaving the EASA? Since when?

[Demolitia]

It would appear that we are agreed that the statements were incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -



We're leaving the EASA? Since when?

It's an EU agency. You won't be a member state so you're leaving it too.

edit: And all this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenci...European_Union
On top of the obvious ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...European_Union
And Euratom

[Pann]

It's an EU agency. You won't be a member state so you're leaving it too.

edit: And all this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenci...European_Union

Oh, really? Can a country not be a EASA member without being an EU member state? I guess you'd better let Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland know.

[Demolitia]

Oh, really? Can a country not be a EASA member without being an EU member state? I guess you'd better let Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland know.

EFTA members, and Switzerland. All of them included in the founding regulation establishing EASA. You'll need to negotiate your way back in.
edit: the main reason the EU said you couldn't stay in EASA (and in pretty much any other body, unless you're happy to be an observer) is that you don't accept the ECJ's authority.

[Pann]

EFTA members, and Switzerland. All of them included in the founding regulation establishing EASA. You'll need to negotiate your way back in.

You claimed that the UK would have to leave as it would not be a member state but quite clearly being a member state is not a requirement of EASA membership. The UK is/was one of the key members in founding EASA regulation and has stated its desire to remain members of certain EU regulatory bodies, including the EASA, and May stated “We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.” Why would the EU and the UK go to the time and expense of negotiating this?

[Demolitia]

You claimed that the UK would have to leave as it would not be a member state but quite clearly being a member state is not a requirement of EASA membership. The UK is/was one of the key members in founding EASA regulation and has stated its desire to remain members of certain EU regulatory bodies, including the EASA, and May stated “We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.” Why would the EU and the UK go to the time and expense of negotiating this?

We were discussing one aspect of a complex issue.
If the UK wants to stay in some regulatory bodies, they can do so with a financial contribution, if they accept ECJ oversight. The EU's problem is that you don't. Valuable member though you are, you will not get a deal that is superior to Switzerland or EFTA in a year's time. The EU is not in a position to give you the deal you want, because that would piss off every member state, EFTA countries and Switzerland who have accepted such constraints to be part of the club.
And tailoring a deal that is more suited to everyone will take many years, because there are too many disagreements on fundamental things.
Could it be done in theory? Sure
Will it fly? No

[Mayhem]

You claimed that the UK would have to leave as it would not be a member state but quite clearly being a member state is not a requirement of EASA membership. The UK is/was one of the key members in founding EASA regulation and has stated its desire to remain members of certain EU regulatory bodies, including the EASA, and May stated “We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.” Why would the EU and the UK go to the time and expense of negotiating this?

Then the UK would have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ and i thought that was a no-no?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1FE2T6

[Pann]

We were discussing one aspect of a complex issue.
If the UK wants to stay in some regulatory bodies, they can do so with a financial contribution, if they accept ECJ oversight. The EU's problem is that you don't. Valuable member though you are, you will not get a deal that is superior to Switzerland or EFTA in a year's time. The EU is not in a position to give you the deal you want, because that would piss off every member state, EFTA countries and Switzerland who have accepted such constraints to be part of the club.
And tailoring a deal that is more suited to everyone will take many years, because there are too many disagreements on fundamental things.
Could it be done in theory? Sure
Will it fly? No

I am aware of that. However I am discussing the claim that UK airspace would effectively be closed and that ships could not enter or leave the UK. Are you acknowledging that this was not correct?

None of what you have mentioned has anything to do with EASA membership, aircraft or ships.

[Deleted]

We're leaving the EASA? Since when?

We don't know.
Is the UK willing to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU?.

[Kiri]

We don't know.
Is the UK willing to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU?.

It has EU in its name, so Brexiteers will be against it.

[Slant]

I have said this before but the more the EU takes their time with Brexix the worst they make it for themselves in the end.

It's not the EU taking its time. They're right on schedule and prepared for any outcome. It's the British side that doesn't know what to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, really? Can a country not be a EASA member without being an EU member state? I guess you'd better let Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland know.

They have agreements to gain access to these institutions if they so choose. And they're paying the membership fees as well. How are you still floundering to grasp the essential basics on how the EU works?

[Pann]

They have agreements to gain access to these institutions if they so choose. And they're paying the membership fees as well. How are you still floundering to grasp the essential basics on how the EU works?

Nothing I have written suggests otherwise nor do I mention anything other than non-member states are able to be members of an EU regulatory body therefore I do not see how you reached the conclusion that I do not grasp how the EU works. Your post is bizarre!