Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 71 of 71 FirstFirst ... 21616768697071
Results 2,101 to 2,118 of 2118

Thread: BREXIT - Merged thread.

  1. #2101
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,538
    That very much depends on your definition of "good" in this context. All we can say at the moment is that things will be different. Some things will undoubtedly be worse, and some things better. As a democrat, I prefer my government to be more local, and locally accountable, and I don't see why some MEP in the furthest reaches of Eastern Europe should have a say in national laws, and vice versa. In this respect the new arrangement will be preferable, from my point of view at least.

  2. #2102
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent K View Post
    Very much in the same way there is no evidence to suggest Brexit will be good for the country, or otherwise. There is no plan, there is no solid evidence to prove either the positive or negative case. Similarly it's a load of hot air at the moment.

    And yet you're happy to believe this sometimes fraudulent, and hypothetical at best, information and expect others to do the same? A little contradictory I think.

    It will be contradictory to you AK because, frankly, you can't sometimes 'see the wood for the trees'. My argument for Brexit doesn't center around the economic case as important as that is, it centers around the necessity for GB to govern itself and to be responsible for its affairs in a way that hasn't happened for the last forty or so years.

    Article 1 of the UN Charter specifies and enshrines the right of national self determination. Is GB to be denied that ? No, of course not. We are not of the Continent - as much as you might think differently. We are not France or Germany or Italy or remotely like any of the other EU members. We are an outward looking international maritime power who, more than any other nation on Earth has shaped the way the developed world and much of the undeveloped world to-day lives. We cannot be subservient to another power or congregate of powers.

    And much of the electorate of Britain are aware of that and voted accordingly. Thank Heaven.

  3. #2103
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,727
    Have you seen the size of our Navy lately John?

    The Spanish have, it would seem..

    Now, I do find myself in some agreement with j_jza80, in regard to needing to cut down somewhat on pollution. Unlike John, I accept the case for global warming, and would note that we are not in a position to have observed and recorded any proposed full natural cycle that might exist. If nothing else we can demonstrate the benefits of reducing pollution on the environment, and on the health of the populace.

  4. #2104
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    Bruce, you know there is no 'case for global warming'. It is a supposition based upon an invention to justify the continuation of subsidies. Your support merely enriches the energy suppliers. Who pays ? The taxpayer. It's a very expensive and destructive scam.

  5. #2105
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,727
    John, there is enough scientific evidence to be of concern to any right thinking person. If you choose not to believe that, then that is entirely up to you. I see no conspiracy, and importantly, no need for one.

    I don't see complacency as an option. If you are wrong, what then?

  6. #2106
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    None of us presently alive will ever know. The time scale will be too extended.

    If I and many others are right, we and many other nations will have taxed and subsidised ourselves into penury for no gain whatsoever. In the meantime, The major polluters; India, China, Russia go their merry way pumping out pollution galore without penalising their industries and without incurring any sanctions from the idiots in the West in thrall to fraudulent 'science' and what looks like a peculiar desire for some kind of industrial self flagellation.

    You couldn't make it up, unless of course you're Lewis Carroll.

  7. #2107
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    699
    There are still people who believe the earth is flat. Not many, but a few.

    A few centuries ago almost everybody believed the world was flat.

    Denying climate change due to industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels is on a par with still believing the earth is flat.

    Just because you chose to believe that it is not so doesn't alter the above. The only fraudulent science is served up by the deniers.

    Oh, and yet again you are behind the times John, you will find that china is taking this very seriously now and indeed is taking the lead left by the USA courtesy of forrest trump.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa...-idUKKBN1360DK
    Last edited by trekbuster; 5th April 2017 at 17:16.

  8. #2108
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    What a farrago of juvenile nonsense. That epic belongs to the fourth form debating society. Permit me to introduce you to a 'flat earther'.

    Sir David King is best described as a climate change activist. In other words some kind of scientist. He is very scientific and therefore an arch proponent of man made climate change.

    He is so scientific that he is, as a scientific adviser, additionally famed for his support of diesel vehicles and the recommendation of cutting of fuel duty during the time of our unlamented late premier, one Tony Blair. The very scientific David King has just admitted that he got it all wrong.

    Just because he got such a piffle pottle matter of diesel engine pollution wrong, affecting the livelihoods of thousands, not to mention their health it doesn't automatically follow that he is also rather wide of the mark in connection with the other hat that he wears as a climate change activist - does it ?

  9. #2109
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Haslemere, Surrey
    Posts
    1,230
    Nice to hear some wise and thoughtful words for a change, after all of the "We'll break your legs if you leave" rhetoric from the likes of Junker & co. : -



    Cheers

    Paul
    The most usless commodity in aerobatics is the amount of sky above you!

  10. #2110
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,727
    Quote Originally Posted by John Green View Post
    What a farrago of juvenile nonsense. That epic belongs to the fourth form debating society. Permit me to introduce you to a 'flat earther'.

    Sir David King is best described as a climate change activist. In other words some kind of scientist. He is very scientific and therefore an arch proponent of man made climate change.

    He is so scientific that he is, as a scientific adviser, additionally famed for his support of diesel vehicles and the recommendation of cutting of fuel duty during the time of our unlamented late premier, one Tony Blair. The very scientific David King has just admitted that he got it all wrong.

    Just because he got such a piffle pottle matter of diesel engine pollution wrong, affecting the livelihoods of thousands, not to mention their health it doesn't automatically follow that he is also rather wide of the mark in connection with the other hat that he wears as a climate change activist - does it ?
    No John, of course it doesn't. If you read the remarks made by Mr King recently, you will be aware that the case for diesel was made by the automotive industry, who made spurious claims that they could control the NO emissions with catalytic converters and the like. He and the government made their recommendations based on a lie; one which has spread throughout the developed world. He always knew that diesel was bad, but was duped. It happens.

    If the Diesel 'revolution' is now over, then we will get used to it. Electric cars are coming on stream. If we can just build some more nuclear plants, we should get back to relatively cheap travel within a generation. All we need then is electric aeroplanes...

    I suspect you would prefer we burned more coal.

  11. #2111
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradburger View Post
    Nice to hear some wise and thoughtful words for a change, after all of the "We'll break your legs if you leave" rhetoric from the likes of Junker & co. : -



    Cheers

    Paul
    Clearly somewhat selective Paul, but I found myself in full agreement with the Danish chap.

  12. #2112
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    Those clips suggest to me that the EU is in deeper trouble than it thinks it is.

  13. #2113
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,538
    There are plenty of Eurosceptics in the EU parliament, although many of them still support EU membership as they see it as the 'lesser evil' (for want of a better term). Unfortunately they are outnumbered many times by federalists, which is why anything passed down from the commission regarding further EU integration often gets the rubber stamp with little opposition save a few loud but meaningless objections from people like Nigel Farage.

    The opposition for giving Britain a punishment settlement will come from the EU's 30,000 corporate lobbyists, who won't want trade barriers with a huge, important, and profitable market.

  14. #2114
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    699
    That epic belongs to the fourth form debating society.
    Ah,but you see I was trying to set it at your level since you don't seem to understand the basics.
    Last edited by trekbuster; 6th April 2017 at 15:11.

  15. #2115
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,790
    Thank you. I need all the help I can get.

  16. #2116
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by j_jza80 View Post
    There are plenty of Eurosceptics in the EU parliament, although many of them still support EU membership as they see it as the 'lesser evil' (for want of a better term). Unfortunately they are outnumbered many times by federalists, which is why anything passed down from the commission regarding further EU integration often gets the rubber stamp with little opposition save a few loud but meaningless objections from people like Nigel Farage.

    The opposition for giving Britain a punishment settlement will come from the EU's 30,000 corporate lobbyists, who won't want trade barriers with a huge, important, and profitable market.
    The damning thing for EU member states as regards trade barriers is that they won't even get to collect the tariffs, the EU will, just as they do now with non-EU imports, the recipient states only get a tiny fraction of it. On the other hand, UK HMRC would receive the full tariffs on roughly £300bn worth of EU imports, as well as the full tariffs on the £300bn of non-EU imports, which they don't currently get, as well as collecting an extra 0.3% on VAT (about £2bn/year) that currently goes to the EU on top of the annual £2bn/year membership fee.

    I've actually tried find the figure for how much in non-EU import tariffs we pay to the EU, but to no avail. I would imagine almost any percentage of £300bn will come to a significant number though. This seems to suggest around £12.9bn would be a WTO tariff on EU exports, so the figure for non-EU tariffs on a similar value of imports would likely be around £13bn too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-versa-civitas

    So £15bn/year (13+2) extra for the treasury either way and possibly £38bn (13+2+13+10net) if no deal is struck. That figure excludes other indirect EU costs that could be cut like legislation, higher education subsidies for EU citizens in the UK (circa £2.5bn/year), JSA to EU citizens (£0.75bn/year), overseas child benefit payments (£0.25bn/year). So £41.5bn/year total minus legislation cost reduction. Assuming every export to the EU was lost, which is an unimaginable worst case, then that means £200bn worth of exports (after Rotterdam effect) lost. In fact only £133bn in terms of physical exports (not sure if that excludes Rotterdam effect), rest is unaffected consultancy services. Revenue collected on GDP is about 25%, so £33bn in lost UK government revenue on exports to EU, vs about £41.5bn increase in revenue plus savings elsewhere, not including legislation. Wonder who'll pick up the tab for the £41.5bn out of the remaining 27 states?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7325326.html

    On the exit fee side of things, the current MFF ends in 2020. So given a £10bn/year net contribution, assuming we were liable for this, that makes a £10bn bill, assuming we pay all of 2019. Not sure where the EU got the rest from. This is offset by a UK claim on EU assets due to contributions paid, which could be considerable:

    http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm
    http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-b...t-liabilities/

    The ‘Brexit bill’ is likely to be one of the most contentious aspects of the upcoming negotiations. But estimates so far focus largely on the EU costs and liabilities that the UK will have to buy its way out of. What about the EU’s assets? The UK will surely get a share of those, and they could total €153.7bn.
    Then there's also the argument that we've paid £600bn into the EU come 2020, so our claim on assets could extend well beyond this.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1451513263

    Over the next five years, the UK is set to pay a further £96 billion to the EU, with total contributions hitting £600 billion in 2020.
    I have also noticed something somewhat curious:

    Verhofstadt - Belgium
    Juncker - Luxembourg
    Tusk - Poland

    Is it my imagination, or have they been extracting the urine? Belgium - not poor. Luxembourg - highest GDP/Capita on the planet. Why are they being subsidised by the EU? Poland - £12bn seems a little extravagant.

    Last edited by Ryan; 13th April 2017 at 19:44.

  17. #2117
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,538
    Have you got a source for those figures?

    If they are correct, given the huge advantages the Euro is providing the German economy (while sucking the blood out of the rest of western Europe), it is the UK that is getting truly shafted.

  18. #2118
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    52
    If you mean the big chart, it's here.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...d-to-know.html

    The £13bn figure is based on this estimate. We import roughly the same amount from outside the EU, so the import duties should be similar on them. At present the EU takes most of it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-versa-civitas
    https://europa.eu/european-union/abo...enue-income_en

    The higher education figure is based on number of EU students multiplied by averaged tuition fee minus £9,250 student contribution.

    https://institutions.ukcisa.org.uk/Info-for-universities-colleges--schools/Policy-research--statistics/Research--statistics/International-students-in-UK-HE/#International-students-in-UK-HE-by-domicile,-level-and-mode,
    -European-Union-(EU)-(excluding-UK)-and-non-EU,-2015-16
    Last edited by Peter; 23rd April 2017 at 23:45.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES