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

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, crouch said:

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.

 

So there are very few if any significant EU laws that we object to then....thanks for clearing that up.

[slawek]

2 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

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).

That is true.

Do you want the EU to impose hard age limits?

2 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

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.

EASA only requires an operator ID. Flyer ID and PfCO (old permission) are the UK ideas.  The Operator ID should be valid across the EU. Drones C1 and higher are required to broadcast a electronic id to match it with its operator. 

The idea is to have common rules with very limited flexibility. The EU is cleaning up the current mess. 

They allow some limited usage A1/C0 without any red tape. Heavier drones needs a registration for the recreational usage as they are more dangerous for people.

2 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

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

I don't have access to BMFA News. I guess indoor flying is the UK idea, EASA is only dealing with open skies.

2 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

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

Yes, you are reading it wrong.

Art 15 removes the copyright protection for hyperlinks, very short extracts and private or non-commercial uses. 

Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC grants protection

Edited February 9, 2020 by slawek

[crouch]

41 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

So there are very few if any significant EU laws that we object to then....thanks for clearing that up.

Our objections are irrelevant; that is the point; we have to accept EU law like it or not. "Significant" laws only become laws by agreement and compromise but they may not be what we would have enacted as a sovereign country. Sometimes we make small compromises other times less so.

The point is: would we have enacted all those laws that we have had to accept and I think the answer is most likely to be: some, but certainly not all, perhaps not even most; we have had to compromise. The "we object to" is a straw man argument.

Laws that are suitable for 27 are almost certainly not suitable for one; that is the problem; the context forces compromise which, from the point of view of the individual nation is not a good thing; you end up with laws that are not suitable.

Ask the wrong questions and you get the wrong answers.

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by crouch

[GrizzlyDave]

Wow this thread is boring.

 

Looks like a change of leadership in the Irish Election...

[Confusion of VIs]

36 minutes ago, crouch said:

Our objections are irrelevant; that is the point; we have to accept EU law like it or not. "Significant" laws only become laws by agreement and compromise but they may not be what we would have enacted as a sovereign country. Sometimes we make small compromises other times less so.

The point is: would we have enacted all those laws that we have had to accept and I think the answer is most likely to be: some, but certainly not all, perhaps not even most; we have had to compromise. The "we object to" is a straw man argument.

Laws that are suitable for 27 are almost certainly not suitable for one; that is the problem; the context forces compromise which, from the point of view of the individual nation is not a good thing; you end up with laws that are not suitable.

Ask the wrong questions and you get the wrong answers.

 

This is just speculation.

It is entirely possible that the process of debating potential new laws with the other 27 members may make for better more thought through laws. Also sharing the cost of developing new laws/regulation is clearly a significant cost benefit for individual states. Having consistent regulation across 28 states is a significant benefit to producers/service providers. Overall the benefits may well outweigh the fact that these laws are not solely designed to meet the needs of the UK.

What seems to be beyond doubt is that, if they exist, the benefits are not going to offset the huge cost of Brexit.     

 

[LandOfConfusion]

42 minutes ago, slawek said:

Do you want the EU to impose hard age limits?

43 minutes ago, slawek said:

The idea is to have common rules with very limited flexibility. The EU is cleaning up the current mess. 

There was no "mess" to begin with. Originally anyone, regardless of age could fly, subject to some pretty sane, common sense regulations that everyone could and should agree with. Then EASA came along and now we have multiple categories where previously there were just three (sub 20Kg, large model (mainly gas turbines) & full pilot's licence). And now there's also two EU-recognised registration schemes, private and commercial where there were none before. And the justification for the private registration is, as I've said before nonsense.

But that doesn't mean I'm totally against it, things like requiring documentation to be included with the sale of each commercial model regarding it's safe operation is a good idea; it's the attempt to harmonise and 'fix' a problem that was never there that I disagree with. And that's the crux of the matter, if E.U. countries want to move to an ever closer union then things like this are fine. But why should we get dragged into it if we don't want to merge along with them?

56 minutes ago, slawek said:

I don't have access to BMFA News. I guess indoor flying is the UK idea, EASA is only dealing with open skies.

The BMFA is very much hostile to it; they were mentioning it as where EASA is looking to next.

57 minutes ago, slawek said:

Yes, you are reading it wrong.

Art 15 removes the copyright protection for hyperlinks, very short extracts and private or non-commercial uses. 

Ah, it now only applies to commercial operations who use it in a way similar to news aggregation. But then that raises the question, is this site considered commercial? And what about a hobby site attached to a commercial operation? Or if I have adverts on my personal webpage? I could arguably be making pennies from the presence of those links as they attract traffic so am I liable to pay?

[smash]

7 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Complete lack of understanding over the differences between a GPS enabled quadcopter (a drone), a quadcopter and a plane.

What is the mis-understanding in terms of the proposals being put forward?

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

3 hours ago, LandOfConfusion said:

I was asked and gave an example of a change in the law which affected me personally.

Yes you were, and the biggest issue that you tabled was indoor flying. To clarify THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE EU THAT YOU COULD NAME WAS INDOOR FLYING. 

If it was not so tragic how you thickos have all been played, it would be hilarious, but your personal thickness now permeates everyone on the UK. Have a cookie. Well done sir.

Edited February 9, 2020 by MonsieurCopperCrutch

[LandOfConfusion]

3 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Yes you were, and the biggest issue that you tabled

No it wasn't and I even said as much; it was merely the most recent issue and a convenient one to pick. Nice strawman though.

'An ideologue a day keeps the rationality away'.

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, crouch said:

Our objections are irrelevant; that is the point; we have to accept EU law like it or not. "Significant" laws only become laws by agreement and compromise but they may not be what we would have enacted as a sovereign country. Sometimes we make small compromises other times less so.

The point is: would we have enacted all those laws that we have had to accept and I think the answer is most likely to be: some, but certainly not all, perhaps not even most; we have had to compromise. The "we object to" is a straw man argument.

Laws that are suitable for 27 are almost certainly not suitable for one; that is the problem; the context forces compromise which, from the point of view of the individual nation is not a good thing; you end up with laws that are not suitable.

Ask the wrong questions and you get the wrong answers.

 

Like remain or leave? I agree, ask the wrong question and you most definitely  get the wrong answer.

As a 'trivial' aside, there do not seem to be any significant laws we vehemently object to. Why should any sane person get hett up about that?  Seems like people have been suckered some hypothetical universe where laws that we may find unsettling could have been enacted but have not been enacted,, mainly because, small point,  we would not have agreed.

So what if 27 countries have a say? The fact that we find no significant objections demonstrates that they are acceptable, and that compromise is insignificant to our overall interests. Ie nothing to see.

Edited February 9, 2020 by IMHAL

[IMHAL]

35 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

No it wasn't and I even said as much; it was merely the most recent issue and a convenient one to pick. Nice strawman though.

'An ideologue a day keeps the rationality away'.

You have to admit, flying drones is not exactly top of anyones issues for leaving the EU. Do us a favour and find something that is.

[IMHAL]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Wow this thread is boring.

Calm before the storm GD.

I an sure that there will be much to discuss when all those lovely post brexit deals, as promised, come through  

 

 

[slawek]

1 hour ago, LandOfConfusion said:

There was no "mess" to begin with. Originally anyone, regardless of age could fly, subject to some pretty sane, common sense regulations that everyone could and should agree with. Then EASA came along and now we have multiple categories where previously there were just three (sub 20Kg, large model (mainly gas turbines) & full pilot's licence). And now there's also two EU-recognised registration schemes, private and commercial where there were none before. And the justification for the private registration is, as I've said before nonsense.

But that doesn't mean I'm totally against it, things like requiring documentation to be included with the sale of each commercial model regarding it's safe operation is a good idea; it's the attempt to harmonise and 'fix' a problem that was never there that I disagree with. And that's the crux of the matter, if E.U. countries want to move to an ever closer union then things like this are fine. But why should we get dragged into it if we don't want to merge along with them?

The mess I was talking concerned different rules in different countries. For some people in the UK the change from the old system to the new one can look like a mess but in the longer term across the EU is a good thing despite some temporary issues.

There is only one registration system in the EASA system, for drone operators. 

Having one system is convenient, saves money, time, makes things more efficient, improves safety. You register ones in the UK and when you go on holiday to Spain you can use your drone as you did at home (I'm ignoring Brexit here).  

1 hour ago, LandOfConfusion said:

The BMFA is very much hostile to it; they were mentioning it as where EASA is looking to next.

It is a fake news.

"Question: Indoor Operation: what is the Limit?

"Answer: Only operation in the EU skies are under EASA competence"

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA Answers to sli.do Questions.pdf

1 hour ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Ah, it now only applies to commercial operations who use it in a way similar to news aggregation. But then that raises the question, is this site considered commercial? And what about a hobby site attached to a commercial operation? Or if I have adverts on my personal webpage? I could arguably be making pennies from the presence of those links as they attract traffic so am I liable to pay?

Using links or short extracts is always safe.

[MarkG]

4 hours ago, slawek said:

You register ones in the UK and when you go on holiday to Spain you can use your drone as you did at home (I'm ignoring Brexit here).

And how many people are going to take anything other than a little selfie drone on holiday to Spain?

The tiny number of people who want to travel internationally with large drones are more than capable of dealing with the laws wherever they go.

Though given how easy they are to make, the whole idea of drone registration is just hilarious. Only Saxons would go along with something so silly.

Edited February 10, 2020 by MarkG

[debtlessmanc]

17 hours ago, Riedquat said:

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.

We already have this with no wage limit, in the sense that a huge number of Eu migrants to the U.K. are actually non-Eu migrants who obtain citizenship of another Eu state and move here. 

E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/british-dream-europe-african-citizens

anecdotally nearly every barista I have chatted to in Manchester in the last year was an Eu migrant, but actually was born in Latin America and held a passport of Spain/Portugal/ Italy etc All spoke perfect american English too.

there is an issue here, I was speaking to a portugese colleague who openly told me that giving asylum to people,e was not a problem for the Portuguese as as soon as they got a Eu passport they left for Northern Europe as they were no jobs in Portugal. Hardly the Eu ideal!

i think setting the bar low for wages is the right response moving forward.

for the record the best response was to remain and do as eg Belgium does, ignore the rules and deport unemployed other Eu state citizens immediately

[debtlessmanc]

16 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

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

I actually think it is both a disgrace and very worrying that you demean a perfectly reasonable question about a very popular and actually strategically important activity such as model aircraft design/flying. My grandfather was an aircraft designer who designed some very iconic British aircraft and was drawn to the field by building models in the 1900's. 

You really are looking at this from the wrong the direction - why the obsessive legislation and intrusive control? Humanity has never been happy in such environments. As the old saying went about the former Soviet Union everything was either forbidden or obligatory.

Edited February 10, 2020 by debtlessmanc

[crouch]

11 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

This is just speculation.

Hardly. One of the disadvantages of the EU is that you do have to compromise and you are not free to make laws which cater for your circumstances alone. To assume you have not had to compromise during the imposition of over 52,000 laws in only 17 years never mind 47 years beggars belief.

Many are of the belief that jurisdictional competition is one of the main reasons  why Europe progressed from the eighteenth century. Countries were free to enact their own laws and tax regime in accordance with their own priorities and this encouraged competition. In terms of trading mutual recognition of standards facilitated the growth of international trade.

One of the main objectives of the EU is to harmonise regulations and eliminate jurisdictional competition. The result of this is to remove a mechanism for promoting competition and thereby undermining productivity and wealth.

Nor is this principle of harmonisation needed for the SM; the principle of mutual recognition could be adopted instead of that of harmonisation. In areas such as defence, communications and electrical standards external bodies such as CEN or CENELEC can provide standards.

What this means is that "disliking" EU laws is a straw man. If you accept the principle of harmonisaation and the need to compromise it would be very unusual if you could find laws you disliked; if you accept the context you accept the laws that derive from it.

The real problem is not the laws but the context; the principle of harmonisation itself replacing that of jurisdictional competition.

11 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

What seems to be beyond doubt is that, if they exist, the benefits are not going to offset the huge cost of Brexit.

The replacement of the principle of jurisdictional competition with that of harmonisation means the undermining of productivity and growth against which the cost of Brexit is far less than a mere pinprick; moreover it is a cost imposed on 27 countries.

Edited February 10, 2020 by crouch

[IMHAL]

17 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

I actually think it is both a disgrace and very worrying that you demean a perfectly reasonable question about a very popular and actually strategically important activity such as model aircraft design/flying. My grandfather was an aircraft designer who designed some very iconic British aircraft and was drawn to the field by building models in the 1900's. 

Are you trying to kill this thread by boring us all to death? 

[debtlessmanc]

1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

Are you trying to kill this thread by boring us all to death? 

Have you ever visited Germany - you know the economic powerhouse of Europe? You cannot move for model aircraft shops...

[OnionTerror]

7 minutes ago, crouch said:

Hardly. One of the disadvantages of the EU is that you do have to compromise and you are not free to make laws which cater for your circumstances alone. To assume you have not had to compromise during the imposition of over 52,000 laws in only 17 years never mind 47 years beggars belief.

Many are of the belief that jurisdictional competition is one of the main reasons  why Europe progressed from the eighteenth century. Countries were free to enact their own laws and tax regime in accordance with their own priorities and this encouraged competition. In terms of trading mutual recognition of standards facilitated the growth of international trade.

One of the main objectives of the EU is to harmonise regulations and eliminate jurisdictional competition. The result of this is to remove a mechanism for promoting competition and thereby undermining productivity and wealth.

Nor is this principle of harmonisation needed for the SM; the principle of mutual recognition could be adopted instead of that of harmonisation. In areas such as defence, communications and electrical standards external bodies such as CEN or CENELEC can provide standards.

What this means is that "disliking" EU laws is a straw man. If you accept the principle of harmonisaation and the need to compromise it would be very unusual if you could find laws you disliked; if you accept the context you accept the laws that derive from it.

The real problem is not the laws but the context; the principle of harmonisation itself replacing that of jurisdictional competition.

The replacement of the principle of jurisdictional competition with that of harmonisation means the undermining of productivity and growth against which the cost of Brexit is far less than a mere pinprick; moreover it is a cost imposed on 27 countries.

Corporate lobbying seems as if its big business in the Brussels quarter..

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/24/fossil-fuel-big-five-spent-251m-lobbying-european-union-2010-climate-crisis

https://seatca.org/eu-commission-lacked-transparency-over-tobacco-lobbyist-meetings/

 

[IMHAL]

Just now, debtlessmanc said:

Have you ever visited Germany - you know the economic powerhouse of Europe? You cannot move for model aircraft shops...

Please stop.... I feel the darkness descending.

[debtlessmanc]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Please stop.... I feel the darkness descending.

At last we found a remainer who hates "experts"!

[crouch]

6 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Corporate lobbying seems as if its big business in the Brussels quarter..

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/24/fossil-fuel-big-five-spent-251m-lobbying-european-union-2010-climate-crisis

https://seatca.org/eu-commission-lacked-transparency-over-tobacco-lobbyist-meetings/

 

Regulation and complexity is a huge barrier to entry; the more regulation the more economic activity gravitates to the larger corporates.

[slawek]

4 hours ago, MarkG said:

And how many people are going to take anything other than a little selfie drone on holiday to Spain?

The tiny number of people who want to travel internationally with large drones are more than capable of dealing with the laws wherever they go.

Though given how easy they are to make, the whole idea of drone registration is just hilarious. Only Saxons would go along with something so silly.

It works for a little drones too which don't require a registration. If you don't need it in the UK you don't need in any other country in the EU. You don't need too worry about different rules in different countries.

[slawek]

17 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

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

It is a fake news. EASA has nothing to do with indoor flying. It is most likely a UK initiative.