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

[Bruce Banner]

24 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

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

There are not many proper model aircraft shops here in the UK. Probably because of the lack of places to fly anything other than a toy. That's local regulations though, not EU.

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.

Indeed. No GPS, no problem.

[OnionTerror]

44 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.

You also need an enforcement mechanism to ensure everyone stays on the same page; with the EFTA Court, its intergovernmental enforcement rather than a supranational one.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour 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.

Again just your view without any empirical evidence to back it up, you may be right you  may be wrong. I suspect the benefits of the single market will outweigh the issues you mention, but that's just my view and equally speculation.

What isn't speculation is the massive cost of Brexit. 

[Bruce Banner]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982365/Gang-33-illegal-immigrants-caught-lorry-Calais-trying-FLEE-UK.html

Gang of 33 illegal immigrants are caught in a lorry at Calais trying to FLEE the UK from Dover - fearing 'mistreatment' after Brexit

[crouch]

32 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Again just your view without any empirical evidence to back it up, you may be right you  may be wrong. I suspect the benefits of the single market will outweigh the issues you mention, but that's just my view and equally speculation. 

Quite.

However, this goes further. Not only is the principle of harmonisation inimical to competition it also introduces inflexibility into the system. Harmonisation reduces competition between states and it also makes adjustments within states more difficult. This is very simple; the more rules you have to obey the less room for manoeuvre. Therefore if countries need to make changes in their internal structure harmonisation takes away choice without corresponding benefits.

32 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

What isn't speculation is the massive cost of Brexit. 

Indeed. But that cost has to be compared to the alternatives. Now the "opportunity cost" of Brexit in terms of not being subject to harmonisation may in fact be negative in that respect but it has not been measured, and indeed would be difficult to measure. What you invariably quote are the imputed direct costs of Brexit but the uncalculated indirect benefits (not being subject to harmonisation)may in fact be far more significant over time but, as we would agree, certainly cannot be assumed, despite the fact that, from an analytical point of view, may be just as relevant in theory.

Edited February 10, 2020 by crouch

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

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

Although for so many things that would be the case anyway. At least where anything involving a lot of technology goes. Even without the regulation the barriers to designing and building a new car are vast for example. Electronics? Getting something going the way ARM did would be impossible now (it was a very small team just given the time to start from scratch). And the larger corporates will always have the economies of scale anyway.

[crouch]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

Although for so many things that would be the case anyway. At least where anything involving a lot of technology goes. Even without the regulation the barriers to designing and building a new car are vast for example. Electronics? Getting something going the way ARM did would be impossible now (it was a very small team just given the time to start from scratch). And the larger corporates will always have the economies of scale anyway.

That may well be true. However, many advances in technology spring from small beginnings and a general regime of widespread regulation may have a tendency to discourage innovation.

Secondly you do need comprehensive legislation to support competition and obviously the EU does have laws here. However, observers have noticed that EU anti trust law is enforced much less vigorously than in the US which means it is less effective in restraining anti competitive behavior.

[jonb2]

2 hours 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/

 

I know I could be accused of what-about-ism, but ...

The USA is the home of corporate lobbying. Makes the EU look like newbies. The man in the street has no representation there any more.

The major issue we are all squabbling about should be how billionaires control the world - more so every day. Lobbying and donations being just one pernicious tool of theirs. The Climate denying movement being another. It's what makes me so worried about what Johnson and his cronies are going to do. They will be tools of the ultra-rich.

If you have a Netflix account - watch this.

Or Noam Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream.

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by jonb2

[jonb2]

14 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Wow this thread is boring.

 

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

Leavers will approve of a Sinn Féin win. Having yet another enemy just across the water is what they voted for. No doubt we'll see the Union Jack St George flag out in force again.

"After Brexit, Britain faces a cold, shrunken reality"

“It is an act of the imagination, inspired by an imaginary past, carried along by misdirected grievances, borne aloft by an imaginary future.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/02/07/after-brexit-britain-faces-cold-shrunken-reality/?wpisrc=nl_todayworld

 

 

[LandOfConfusion]

11 hours ago, slawek said:

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.

It's unnecessary intervention but one with which I'm fine with so long as it only affects the integrationist parts of Europe. People from outside of Europe will still need to register so why can't we join them in that? Oh yes, the Lisbon treaty.

11 hours ago, slawek said:

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

I can't find the original source ATM but commercial operations will still be covered by a separate permissions (licence). It was a bit vague as to how exactly that works but from what I remember you need to submit operational plans / outlines to your country's CAA and, having then got approval from them use that to apply for permissions from the EU country in which you intend to fly.

Personally I have no issue with this; as I've said already it's the red tape for private operations that I have issue with and for a country which doesn't want to enter into an "ever closer union" why are we being subjected to what are essentially foreign laws?

11 hours ago, slawek said:

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).

For commercial operations I have no issue but if you want to travel to Spain to use your new drone then why can you not apply for permission for EU flights? Again, this is no problem if we wanted to merge politically but clearly we don't. And as for safety, there's lots of blogs, videos & articles out there attacking that fallacy.

11 hours ago, slawek said:

It is a fake news.

So was the intent to introduce anti-jamming to all modern radio transmitters even though they already have this feature. Except now there's the EU's LBT standard on one side and the perfectly fine, tried & tested FCC/international standard on the other.

7 hours ago, MarkG said:

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

New Zealand has suggested putting up posters and handing out leaflets on safe & legal drone use to arriving tourists and Canada has essentially no restrictions on anything under 250g - just fly safely and don't endanger anyone but here in Europe we have rules so complex you need a lookup table. And you have to register because all will do it and it'll make everyone safe. Just like it's done with guns & cars.

7 hours ago, MarkG said:

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.

I remember reading an article regarding that terrorist who was so difficult to extradite. Turns out the same thing has happened to France & Germany and their solution was to extradite anyway and just live with the ECJ's wrist-slapping. But here in the UK we follow  the rules to the letter.

12 hours ago, IMHAL said:

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.

Not sure if you're intentionally missing my point or just having problems with comprehension, so let me make it clearer.

It seems to me that most people in this country don't want to be part of an ever closer union. Now I'm sure most wouldn't mind agreeing on trade rules & rules designed to make business easier etc but I'd also suggest that a majority would probably be against invasive policies designed to harmonise the various state's internal laws. The trouble is we've been dragged deeper and deeper into this part of the project and even Cameron's "deal" didn't completely address the issue. And now look at what's happened.

[Riedquat]

16 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Leavers will approve of a Sinn Féin win. Having yet another enemy just across the water is what they voted for. No doubt we'll see the Union Jack St George flag out in force again.

Arguing with the fairies in your head again I see.

[IMHAL]

51 minutes ago, LandOfConfusion said:

Not sure if you're intentionally missing my point or just having problems with comprehension, so let me make it clearer.

It seems to me that most people in this country don't want to be part of an ever closer union. Now I'm sure most wouldn't mind agreeing on trade rules & rules designed to make business easier etc but I'd also suggest that a majority would probably be against invasive policies designed to harmonise the various state's internal laws. The trouble is we've been dragged deeper and deeper into this part of the project and even Cameron's "deal" didn't completely address the issue. And now look at what's happened.

I am just asking for examples of laws that people don't like and that really really matter to the majority of people.... I hazard a guess that most people don't give a toss about drones. 

My point is, given these 52 thousand EU laws that we have adopted/helped creat, you manage to find something obscure about drones to complain about... if you are trying to make a point then this is not the way to go about it.

[debtlessmanc]

14 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I am just asking for examples of laws that people don't like and that really really matter to the majority of people.... I hazard a guess that most people don't give a toss about drones. 

My point is, given these 52 thousand EU laws that we have adopted/helped creat, you manage to find something obscure about drones to complain about... if you are trying to make a point then this is not the way to go about it.

Such a question posited to citizens of a soviet republic 50 years ago (other than perhaps those restricting freedom of movement) would be similarly difficult to answer. If you are bit of a libertarian (as i am) you wonder what use 50,000 regulations that noone can identify as being good/bad can be other than the wages of those who create and impose them.

Edited February 10, 2020 by debtlessmanc

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, crouch said:

Quite.

However, this goes further. Not only is the principle of harmonisation inimical to competition it also introduces inflexibility into the system. Harmonisation reduces competition between states and it also makes adjustments within states more difficult. This is very simple; the more rules you have to obey the less room for manoeuvre. Therefore if countries need to make changes in their internal structure harmonisation takes away choice without corresponding benefits.

Having defined standards allows competitors to be measured against each other more readilly as good and services can be compared quality wise and in terms of the environmental damage they cause to produce etc. 'Room for manouvre' needs to be balanced against ensuring that the consumers are getting like for like (not an easy task).

It could be argued that common rules makes for a more successfull environment for competition and for assessing the fittness of competitors. 

 

[crouch]

2 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

It could be argued that common rules makes for a more successfull environment for competition and for assessing the fittness of competitors. 

See my post above on mutual recognition and the use of third party bodies to define standards.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, debtlessmanc said:

Such a question posited to citizens of a soviet republic 50 years ago (other than perhaps those restricting freedom of movement) would be similarly difficult to answer. If you are bit of a libertarian (as i am) you wonder what use 50,000 regulations that noone can identify as being good/bad can be other than the wages of those who create and impose them.

The fact you cannot identify the good is because of your your complacency, you live in a country where generally speaking you can get anything and be 99.99% confident that it will work, it's safe, won't give you the sh1ts, has been produced to a standard that most would find acceptable and will minimise the damage to our environment ...and for the other 0.01% you will have laws that ensure that you get some sort of recourse. 

The fact is that we will end up adopting the vast vast majority of those 55 thousand regulations, because they are needed. It speaks volumes that some obscure aspect of drones fllying seems to be the sole focus of leavers gripes. 

[debtlessmanc]

19 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The fact you cannot identify the good is because of your your complacency, you live in a country where generally speaking you can get anything and be 99.99% confident that it will work, it's safe, won't give you the sh1ts, has been produced to a standard that most would find acceptable and will minimise the damage to our environment ...and for the other 0.01% you will have laws that ensure that you get some sort of recourse. 

The fact is that we will end up adopting the vast vast majority of those 55 thousand regulations, because they are needed. It speaks volumes that some obscure aspect of drones fllying seems to be the sole focus of leavers gripes. 

Sorry - prove to me with citations and thorough analysis that those things would not have happened without the EU...

for instance health and safety in the workplace in the uk is miles ahead of the rest of the EU

Edited February 10, 2020 by debtlessmanc

[IMHAL]

2 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Sorry - prove to me with citations and thorough analysis that things would not have happened without the EU...

Sorry, I don't have a parallel universe machine at my disposal. 

Other than that, what is fact is that we have these rules, they came out of the EU and we helped to create them whilst in the EU. What you cannot prove is that they would have happened anyway without the EU....unless you have a parallel universe machine.

A thank you would be nice, since I opened your eyes to the good aspects of these rules/laws. You can go to bed happy that we helped to create them and left the EU with a great legacy.... and tomorrow you can spend your time moaning and droooooning on about them again.

[OnionTerror]

All EU rules?

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/  Aarhus Convention - brokered by UNECE

https://www.sesec.eu/vienna-dresden-agreements/ Vienna - Dresden agreements

https://www.ilo.org/brussels/information-resources/news/WCMS_647814/lang--en/index.htm ILO

https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/standard_setting_bodies/codex_en Codex

I could go on...

 

 

[debtlessmanc]

15 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Sorry, I don't have a parallel universe machine at my disposal. 

Other than that, what is fact is that we have these rules, they came out of the EU and we helped to create them whilst in the EU. What you cannot prove is that they would have happened anyway without the EU....unless you have a parallel universe machine.

A thank you would be nice, since I opened your eyes to the good aspects of these rules/laws. You can go to bed happy that we helped to create them and left the EU with a great legacy.... and tomorrow you can spend your time moaning and droooooning on about them again.

what are you on about, i am well aware of EU regulations on many things

Apparently the EU built the UK into being the 5th/6th economy in the world we keep getting told, i had presumed that you had an inverse time machine that had proved this to you, if not perhaps you would like to not make such silly claims

[IMHAL]

8 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

what are you on about, i am well aware of EU regulations on many things

You said you see no good (or bad in them)... if you are aware of them then that cannot be true.

Quote

Apparently the EU built the UK into being the 5th/6th economy in the world we keep getting told, i had presumed that you had an inverse time machine that had proved this to you, if not perhaps you would like to not make such silly claims

Again, it is a fact that we are the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world (which we are proud of), what you cannot prove is what would have happened otherwise.

Edited February 10, 2020 by IMHAL

[IMHAL]

17 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

All EU rules?

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/  Aarhus Convention - brokered by UNECE

https://www.sesec.eu/vienna-dresden-agreements/ Vienna - Dresden agreements

https://www.ilo.org/brussels/information-resources/news/WCMS_647814/lang--en/index.htm ILO

https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/standard_setting_bodies/codex_en Codex

I could go on...

 

 

Not all....point taken. Leavers seem to only have issues with the principle of EU derived one.....not in actuallity, but in principle it seems.

Edited February 10, 2020 by IMHAL

[OnionTerror]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Not all....point taken. Leavers seem to only have issues with the principle of EU derived one.....not in actuallity, but in principle it seems.

The SM market consists of around 85% of these "global rules"...vs the acquis communitaire (the body of EU law)...the SM acquis is anything between 10-27% of the communitaire..

[debtlessmanc]

7 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

You said you see no good (or bad in them)... if you are aware of them then that cannot be true.

Again, it is a fact that we are the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world (which we are proud of), what you cannot prove is what would have happened otherwise.

I am aware of them, but you need to prove beyond all doubt that similar legislation would not have happened anyway in order for me to 100% get behind the idea that they prove how good the EU is. even if they you could i could still hold the ineptitude of the EU on health and safety legislation against them....

I am a fence sitter, i was surprised by the result, but what all the events subsequenty have shown me 100% is that for both extremes of remain and leave the issue has a quasi-religious significance. That is why i think that remaining but ignoring certain EU legislation would be the best approach, perhaps some kind of "life of brian" film about the commission would be good for a laugh too.

Edited February 10, 2020 by debtlessmanc

[LandOfConfusion]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

I am just asking for examples of laws that people don't like and that really really matter to the majority of people

Excuse my brevity; we keep getting power cuts and it's really starting to f-me off.

ECJ rulings on dangerous non-EU foreign nationals, free money for farmers; free money for landowners who have tenant farmers and who force those farmers to grow certain types of crop; unnecessary rules rules designed to help the car industry by doing things like altering the MoT so that the failure of certain non-safety related functionality (traction control for example) is a fail.

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

I hazard a guess that most people don't give a toss about drones.

500K sold by Christmas 2017; ~1.5M sold by Christmas 2018 and those are just from places like Tesco's. Numbers of private imports and homebuilds is unknown.