Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[dugsbody]

45 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I'd need a citation on that; amongst those I know who supported leaving exactly zero cited immigration as a/the key issue.

Sorry I don't recognise this at all. You're trying to cover yourself by using "key issue" as a semantic argument. 99%+ brexiters have in common that they want to end freedom of movement. 

It may not have been the top of every brexiters list of reasons but it spans every one of them and therefore to me is the core reason for leaving the EU. 

[LandOfConfusion]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Hardly the sort of stuff that justifies, the maybe trillion pound cost of Brexit.

I was asked for an example of the sort of issues, so I gave an easy & immediate example of the fingers in ears "la la la we can't hear you" approach that the E.U. takes to regulation. There's lots of others, some much more complex & dangerous that this but it's a good example.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Some bureaucrat not fully knowing his brief on RC models is not quite up their with our Prime Minister not understanding the implications of the withdrawal agreement.

It's some bureaucrat ignoring practical reality and apparently putting special interests first. Kind of important IMHO.

But totally agree with you re: Prime Minister not understanding or more likely not caring about the implications though.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Where have you been hiding, a quick google search will give you all you need. Have a look at the Brexit word cloud.

A link to your specific work cloud would be nice, together with a link to the underlying study, it's methodology and if possible, raw data. Alternatively a link to a well-conducted & properly structured survey would be even better.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Oh they will, the whole punishment theme will be used to explain the failure of Brexit to deliver the promised benefits. 

Only if they subsequently decide to align intimately with E.U. law, which would almost certainly be seen as a betrayal. Otherwise they're completely exposed.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

As for sovereignty we are already starting to see the limits of that, with the US [...] to us agreeing to fully join in their economic war against Huawei

I could see that happening in any case. Like it or not we need security cooperation with the U.S., and withdrawal of that would be very harmful. It's heads they win, tails we loose I'm afraid.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

My main objection to leaving the EU was always that we would end up as a less sovereign country; a non voting adjunct to the EU or US 51st state. 

My concern was that staying in would result in us being an even more extreme pseudo-democracy, tied to technocrats who have their own interests at heart, interfering in aspects of our lives that they have no business being in. The optimal solution was for Cameron to take us back to a pre-Lisbon treaty arrangement but alas, that didn't happen.

[LandOfConfusion]

8 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Sorry I don't recognise this at all. You're trying to cover yourself by using "key issue" as a semantic argument. 99%+ brexiters have in common that they want to end freedom of movement.

Citation needed.

[hurlerontheditch]

Quote

oris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel are expected to set out their immigration reforms, including a drop in salary threshold for some migrants, at a cabinet meeting on Friday. 

Currently, skilled migrants from outside the EU need to have a job offer with a minimum salary of £30,000.

The BBC understands ministers plan to lower this threshold to £25,600.

Workers from the EU will face the same rules once the transition period for leaving the EU ends on 31 December.

Workers earning less might be allowed to make up "points" elsewhere in order to be granted a visa if they work in a sector with a skills shortage.

Points will also be awarded for speaking good English or for having an outstanding educational background

open the gates!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51430811

[dugsbody]

2 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Citation needed.

You've not been paying attention.

[slawek]

38 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

There's no reasonable justification for interfering in member state's internal matters like this and especially in this way although reading between the lines this seems to be part of a slow clampdown to get private citizens get out of the airspace and make way for Amazon et al delivery drones.

It is about safety and privacy. It is better to have common standards as there is less confusion, it is convenient for any one flying drones (no need to know different rules in different countries), lowers the costs of the equipment (manufactures focus on meeting only one set of requirements). 

58 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

And the latest fight, which we will no doubt also lose is over E.U. regulation of indoor flying. These are organised flights with micro models which mostly happen either in rented sports halls or purpose-built facilities. They have a 100% safety record and I can see no justifiable reason for E.U. legislators to intervene but...

I haven't found anything about EASA regulation apply to the indoor flying.

58 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

And there's other things like making E.U. RC equipment more expensive, apparently because certain E.U. bodies need to justify their existence (the technical reasons they've given are absurd at best)

RC regulations are necessity. It is better to have common standards as they reduce the costs. Instead of tens different regulations we have one.  Having separate US and EU regulations are already causing many problems. Could you give me examples why they absurd?

59 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

and then there's things like the much hated copyright articles (11 & 13) where it was revealed that even the lead E.U. proponent didn't know some of the key points.

There needs to be a balance between freedom of expression and economic rights of people creating contents.  There was lots of discussions about this and lots of changes have been made to make the law sensible. The main opponents of  the changes were US tech giants, which make billions sharing unlicensed contents.   

[smash]

8 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

open the gates!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51430811

Yep. More immigration. There will probably be a shortage of Barista's who don't meet the salary requirement but can come anyway as we need people who make coffee. Got an ahole? Come to the UK.

[Riedquat]

24 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

open the gates!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51430811

This'll be the thing that gets Johnson kicked out, at least as long as one of the alternative parties offers a vaguely credible alternative. If they don't, well, then I can see it getting nasty to be honest, mainstream politics has started to get a few hints of the perils of burying its head in the sand but it certainly hasn't learned the lessons yet. Patience with crass short-termism is wearing thin.

[MARTINX9]

3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

There's nothing to disagree with in that post, nothing at all...... well said.

Ireland has a PR system - they also have a help to buy scheme and have had numerous dodgy politicians and plenty of corruption linked to banking and property developers!

[LandOfConfusion]

1 hour ago, slawek said:

It is about safety and privacy. It is better to have common standards as there is less confusion

[...]

lowers the costs of the equipment (manufactures focus on meeting only one set of requirements). 

Common laws for the above are absolutely fine when they cross borders. So common laws on vehicle safety fine. On food safety fine. On fire safety fine. On the colour of the paint in my house (yes, I know it's a contrived example)? No.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

it is convenient for any one flying drones (no need to know different rules in different countries)

This only really matters if you're going to travel between countries and even then it's your responsibility to know the rules. And even then there is, as is often the case, significant differences between how each member state intends to implement the rules, so in that regard it's not so different that having to learn each country's unique interpretation in the first place.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

I haven't found anything about EASA regulation apply to the indoor flying.

It's currently being debated. The process is long, drawn out and initially at least a bit secretive. The body which represents most model flyers here in the UK, the BMFA is already involved and that's how I came to know of it.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

Could you give me examples why they absurd?

Things such as:

• You need 2 different ID's, a pilot's ID and an operator's ID. The intention is that you have to pay for this (an effective taxation of the airspace, something what was and always has been free) and idea is that it allows the tracing of bad actors because, as we all know, bad actors will absolutely attach personally identifying marks to things which are used in crime and which have a very high likelihood of being recovered.
• There's no single Europe-wide system. So want to fly in France & Germany? That's 2x registration thank you.
• Countries still have their own additional rules; one Portuguese flyer recently posted how he got burnt by this.
• Models over 250g have extra restrictions even though those restrictions are unjustified and in many cases don't make any sense.
• Additional issues over onboard cameras. Rather than use or extend (although not really necessary) existing privacy legislation there is now separate legislation covering them. The thing is, outside the professional sphere there are and are likely to be no models with a tele-lenses. It's just too heavy and so why legislators think people will be able to spy on others and see anything interesting, all whilst operating at least 50m away from people & buildings, with a resolution of 640x480 and a F4 28mm (wide angle) lens I don't know.
• Complete lack of understanding over model rockets & jets (the fuel can't be of a type that can explode...).
• Complete lack of understanding over the differences between a GPS enabled quadcopter (a drone), a quadcopter and a plane.
• Various nonsense over the use of flight controllers. I'm just waiting for the first prosecution because someone used an electronic stabilizer (to counter the effects of wind).

1 hour ago, slawek said:

There needs to be a balance between freedom of expression and economic rights of people creating contents.  There was lots of discussions about this and lots of changes have been made to make the law sensible. The main opponents of  the changes were US tech giants, which make billions sharing unlicensed contents.   

Absolutely. The problem is how to you protect intellectual property without stifling free speech or making it so that big, often U.S. based companies can clamp down on that they don't like?

As an example, at the moment I can take a frame from a movie and use it for the purposes of criticism or parody. But under the mentioned articles if a media giant objects then I'm going to get crushed. There is simply no way I can fight off that sort of mass over something so trivial.

Or what if I link to a new article, like on the front page here? Should I have to pay just for linking to it even though I don't compromise the source's ability to monetise the content in any way? The E.U. seems to be saying yes.

Edited February 9, 2020 by LandOfConfusion
Bugger. Spelling.

[Bruce Banner]

21 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Ireland has a PR system - they also have a help to buy scheme and have had numerous dodgy politicians and plenty of corruption linked to banking and property developers!

But they have nothing as awful as BJ.

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, slawek said:

future?

You think Switzerland and Norway will join the EU?

Unlikely if the EU is in its current form, I'd say.

[zugzwang]

6 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

You think Switzerland and Norway will join the EU?

Unlikely if the EU is in its current form, I'd say.

Probably not but there's a long list of countries that do want full membership.

https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2020/01/06/2020-a-year-of-decisions/

Quote

In the second half of 2020, Germany will take over from Croatia the six-months presidency over the European Council. This will also mark the beginning of the new presidency trio, which also includes Portugal and Slovenia.

As the largest EU economy, arguably the most important political actor in the Union and probably the most important supporter of EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, Germany is undoubtedly the country of major importance for the region.

While Germany is unlikely to singlehandedly reinvigorate EU enlargement during its six-month EU presidency – we have seen, after all, that it could not convince France about North Macedonia and Albania in October 2019 – the German presidency will likely represent an excellent opportunity to push forward the enlargement agenda.

 

[zugzwang]

19 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Absolutely. The problem is how to you protect intellectual property without stifling free speech or making it so that big, often U.S. based companies can clamp down on that they don't like?

You aggregate your interests with those of your neighbours in a political and economic union of like-minded states.

[slawek]

12 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Common laws for the above are absolutely fine when they cross borders. So common laws on vehicle safety fine. On food safety fine. On fire safety fine. On the colour of the paint in my house (yes, I know it's a contrived example)? No.

You haven't addressed my points. The airspace safety is important, much more than esthetics of your house. 

13 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

This only really matters if you're going to travel between countries and even then it's your responsibility to know the rules. And even then there is, as is often the case, significant differences between how each member state intends to implement the rules, so in that regard it's not so different that having to learn each country's unique interpretation in the first place.

The intention is to have standarised rules and be able to use drone across the EU after receiving authorisation in one country.    

"The common rules will help drone operators, whether professional or recreational, to have a clear understanding of what is allowed or not. At the same time it enables them to operate across borders. Once drone operators have received an authorisation in the state of registration, they are allowed to freely circulate in the European Union. This means that they can operate their drones seamlessly when travelling across the EU or when developing a business involving drones around Europe."

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/eu-wide-rules-drones-published

17 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

It's currently being debated. The process is long, drawn out and initially at least a bit secretive. The body which represents most model flyers here in the UK, the BMFA is already involved and that's how I came to know of it.

So this is a fake news. EASA deals only with open skies.

19 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Things such as:

• You need 2 ....

I was asking about RC regulations you were complaining. I don't have time to check all your points. At least two are not valid, rules has not been fully implemented yet, deadline is June 2020 so there are still differences. If you are authorised in one country you can use drones across Europe.  

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/europe-publishes-common-drone-rules-giving-operators-a-year-to-prepare/

27 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

As an example, at the moment I can take a frame from a movie and use it for the purposes of criticism or parody. But under the mentioned articles if a media giant objects then I'm going to get crushed. There is sijply no way I can fight off that sort of mass over something so trivial.

The tech giants don't need the copyright law to block any your content. They own their platforms and they can do whatever they like. The problem is their monopoly. 

29 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Or what if I link to a new article, like on the front page here? Should I have to pay just for linking to it even though I don't compromise the source's ability to monetise the content in any way? The E.U. seems to be saying yes.

That is not true.

"While Article 15 provides that the new rule will not apply to hyperlinks and uses of individual works or very short extracts, it is not clear to what extent a publication can appear on a site before it is a breach."

https://www.thedigitalwatcher.com/2019/03/eu-copyright-reform-article-11-link-tax/

[slawek]

29 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

You think Switzerland and Norway will join the EU?

Unlikely if the EU is in its current form, I'd say.

This was rather intended to be a joke but as they say: never says never.

[LandOfConfusion]

22 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

You aggregate your interests with those of your neighbours in a political and economic union of like-minded states.

And yet the U.S. is like it is.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Hardly the sort of stuff that justifies, the maybe trillion pound cost of Brexit. Some bureaucrat not fully knowing his brief on RC models is not quite up their with our Prime Minister not understanding the implications of the withdrawal agreement.

 

Where have you been hiding, a quick google search will give you all you need. Have a look at the Brexit word cloud. 

Oh they will, the whole punishment theme will be used to explain the failure of Brexit to deliver the promised benefits. 

As for sovereignty we are already starting to see the limits of that, with the US linking agreeing trade deals to us agreeing to fully join in their economic war against Huawei and the EU shaping up to insist on continuing dynamic alignment with EU rules.

My main objection to leaving the EU was always that we would end up as a less sovereign country; a non voting adjunct to the EU or US 51st state. 

Ladies and gentlemen we have indoor flying as a reason to leave the EU. Yes you read the correct, indoor flying!!!

[LandOfConfusion]

11 minutes ago, slawek said:

You haven't addressed my points. The airspace safety is important, much more than esthetics of your house.

You didn't make that point in the part I was commenting on but in any case it's not about airspace safety. In fact UKCAA has already said as much.

12 minutes ago, slawek said:

The intention is to have standarised rules and be able to use drone across the EU after receiving authorisation in one country. 

But at the recreational level that's not what's happening.

14 minutes ago, slawek said:

YOnce drone operators have received an authorisation in the state of registration, they are allowed to freely circulate in the European Union. This means that they can operate their drones seamlessly when travelling across the EU or when developing a business involving drones around Europe."

My understanding as a non-pro drone operator is that the business-related parts of the legislation are pretty favourable and yes, once registered (and appropriately qualified by a CAA approved exam site) you can ply your business across the E.U. This is great and exactly the sort of thing the E.U. should be about.

 

19 minutes ago, slawek said:

So this is a fake news. EASA deals only with open skies.

As I said the legislation re: indoor flying hasn't yet been been drafted; it's still being ignore-sulted on, hence why the BMFA is involved.

20 minutes ago, slawek said:

At least two are not valid, rules has not been fully implemented yet, deadline is June 2020 so there are still differences.

Which two?

22 minutes ago, slawek said:

The tech giants don't need the copyright law to block any your content. They own their platforms and they can do whatever they like. The problem is their monopoly.

There are lots of sites which are not owned by a major media corporation and some aren't even U.S. based. But that won't matter as they can still bring action and if need be obtain court injunctions blocking access to those services. And they'll win as fighting that sort of thing is well beyond most people's and company's resources.

34 minutes ago, slawek said:

"While Article 15 provides that the new rule will not apply to hyperlinks and uses of individual works or very short extracts, it is not clear to what extent a publication can appear on a site before it is a breach."

https://www.thedigitalwatcher.com/2019/03/eu-copyright-reform-article-11-link-tax/

That source also says:

Quote

While Article 15 provides that the new rule will not apply to hyperlinks and uses of individual works or very short extracts [...] It would impose an administrative burden on the online content provider to negotiate licenses and seek consent prior to featuring any article on its platform. Google has already warned that it may have to shut down Google News in the EU if the “Link Tax” proposal is successful.

But I do grant that:

Quote

As it stands, the precise impact of Article 15 and potential consequences remains unclear.

But even then it's still not an acceptable situation.

[LandOfConfusion]

11 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Ladies and gentlemen we have indoor flying as a reason to leave the EU. Yes you read the correct, indoor flying!!!

Oh, I though I was clear when I gave that as an example of the E.U.'s attitude to overreach. Perhaps I need to dumb it down for those on here who are struggling to keep up & who find it difficult to properly criticise an argument?

[IMHAL]

22 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Oh, I though I was clear when I gave that as an example of the E.U.'s attitude to overreach. Perhaps I need to dumb it down for those on here who are struggling to keep up & who find it difficult to properly criticise an argument?

That is because your example is frankly pathetic. Can't you come up with something better, something that affects the majority of ordinary none geeky model drone flyers? 

It's difficult to get hot under the collar about model drones, especially as there are legitimate reasons to harmonise the use of air space. There are no check points 100 ft in the air.

[slawek]

22 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

My understanding as a non-pro drone operator is that the business-related parts of the legislation are pretty favourable and yes, once registered (and appropriately qualified by a CAA approved exam site) you can ply your business across the E.U. This is great and exactly the sort of thing the E.U. should be about.

I think you are confusing the British regulations with the EU regulations. As far as I understand the EU rules don't require registration for the 'open' category. The UK law has not been updated to comply with the EU rules and probably it won't because of Brexit. All those operator and pilot registrations are UK specific and are not valid outside of the UK. 

https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article-drones-eye-view.html

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0945&from=EN

43 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

As I said the legislation re: indoor flying hasn't yet been been drafted; it's still being ignore-sulted on, hence why the BMFA is involved.

Could you provide a link supporting your claim? It could be just a UK idea.

31 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Which two?

The EU doesn't require two registrations, the rules has not been implemented across the EU yet. 

• There's no single Europe-wide system. So want to fly in France & Germany? That's 2x registration thank you.
• Countries still have their own additional rules; one Portuguese flyer recently posted how he got burnt by this.

 

32 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

But even then it's still not an acceptable situation.

You were complaining about links, which are 100% safe to use. The law is not precise enough regarding what is a "very short extracts".

[crouch]

4 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I still have to meet a Leaver that can give an example of a law that they dislike and the UK government was out voted on; although plenty of examples of UK supported laws they don't like that they blamed on the EU.    

This seems a reasonable question. But it isn't.

It's rather odd to ask for a law which "they dislike" (personally presumably) and one which the UK was outvoted on. For a start an individual is likely to have a limited understanding of the issues. Furthermore, it's hardly surprising that there are few cases where the UK was outvoted because the essence of the process is that disagreements are ironed out before any votes are taken and a "law" is accepted.

The real issue is much simpler and more profound. In the 16/17 years since 1990 we have incorporated 52,741 laws (regulations and directives) into UK law:

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/press-releases/2017/march/eu-laws-introduced-in-the-uk-highlights-scale-of-challenge-facing-lawmakers-following-brexit.html

All of these laws would have been agreed by the member states at various levels. But at least some, if not many, of these laws would not have been enacted by member states on their own. They represent compromises which a state outside the EU would not have to make or would not have legislated for anyway or would have legislated differently. Many have been made due to the single market but many are relevant to other issues. 

This may be said to be an assumption but that argument is incredible; to assume that there is total agreement with 27 other countries in 52,741 instances is most unlikely.

It would be quite remarkable if we would agree 52,741 laws purely coincidentally with 27 other nation states without a degree of compromise which would not arise were we not members of the EU.

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Oh, I though I was clear when I gave that as an example of the E.U.'s attitude to overreach. Perhaps I need to dumb it down for those on here who are struggling to keep up & who find it difficult to properly criticise an argument?

Your very own words state:

“Many of the things I have issue with are directly because of the EU“. 

Yet when challenged to list these many things we get, indoor flying. Be truthful, you just don’t like them furreners, eh?

[LandOfConfusion]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

That is because your example is frankly pathetic. Can't you come up with something better, something that affects the majority of ordinary none geeky model drone flyers?

I was asked and gave an example of a change in the law which affected me personally. And I've given some more which will likely affect everyone. If you can't grasp that then I'm afraid I'm unwilling to hold your hand for you.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

I think you are confusing the British regulations with the EU regulations. As far as I understand the EU rules don't require registration for the 'open' category.

In the beginning and for decades it used to be fairly straight forward. Then commercial operations were introduced, then more tinkering and now this.

With some exceptions and no doubt implementation quirks (don't you just love harmonisation?) toys and models below 250g takeoff weight which do not have a "data collection device" don't require registration (open category), although some may be subject to age restrictions at the whim of the state.

And certified toys are completely free from registration even if they have an onboard camera (so so much for privacy concerns).

1 hour ago, slawek said:

Could you provide a link supporting your claim? It could be just a UK idea.

My information for indoor flying comes from BMFA News issue 157.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

The EU doesn't require two registrations, the rules has not been implemented across the EU yet. 

• There's no single Europe-wide system. So want to fly in France & Germany? That's 2x registration thank you.
• Countries still have their own additional rules; one Portuguese flyer recently posted how he got burnt by this.

This correct, the Europe-wide rules will come into effect in June at which point you will need an operator ID and a flyer ID (+ in some cases a PfCO). Technically these are separate registrations in a similar vein to registering your car + obtaining a driver's licence are separate registrations. It's also my understanding that the PfCO, being a commercial operations certificate is Europe-portable but the Op & flyer ID's are not as they are held, maintained and accessible only by the issuing state.

As for point 2, when the rules come in and as I understand it many countries, the UK included have already started implementation. The problem is they can extend them if the think that necessary, hence the very real risk of someone being EU compliant but in violation of local statute, even if they think they're flying legally.

And to be honest, if the E.U. was to be helpful here they'd simply mandate that flyers cannot endanger people or property, fly above 400ft without the member states' CAA permission and not fly within 4km of an airport or aerodrome. That would be enough and there would be no need for all this red tape.

1 hour ago, slawek said:

You were complaining about links, which are 100% safe to use. The law is not precise enough regarding what is a "very short extracts".

Well unless I'm reading it wrong the exact text says:

Quote

Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a
Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive
2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society
service providers.

[...]

The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of
hyperlinking.

But they also mention that implementation is up to the member state so maybe your right. It would be nice if this was a sensible EU-wide laws which was the same regardless of member state and with none of these optional articles. But that's just another perennial problem with the E.U.