rockingrobin

3 minutes ago, aright said:

Did Comet teach him to be a good manufacturing engineer.

No, but he could not make a success of it in the UK

16 minutes ago, aright said:

No a driving, dog, or TV  licence is not an export licence

The French sold Mistral ships to Russia amidst  objections from the other EU partners. The ships however were never delivered not because of EU objections but because of what Russia did in the Crimea. The export licence in part is needed for transparency. 

A licence is a permit to allow an activity to take place, or to use , own something

I am still not seeing how the above helps you in the claim that a licence is not a form of controll

4 minutes ago, aright said:

Simples. An export licence keeps tabs on what's going on it doesn't control it. 

you need to expand on this

As an example are you saying that a driving licence doesnt control who is entitled to drive a vehicle

1 minute ago, aright said:

What? Are you saying James Dyson who employs about 9000 people world wide  and manufactures a variety of products which  he sells globally knows nothing about manufacturing. It beggars belief.

As for his opinions on the Euro and Europe, I wouldn't hold that against him and certainly they don't have anything to do with or detract from his knowledge of manufacturing. Why do you think he was Knighted? 

What about his farms that make a loss

8 minutes ago, aright said:

I don't think the Germans would know any more about manufacturing than the engineers at Rolls Royce Bristol, the wing experts at Broughton or James Dyson. Why do you want to disrespect a man who has created by his own hands a net worth of £8billion and provides employment for almost 5000 people in the UK. A man who also puts back into the UK

 

'Dyson degree'

Sir James' comments came as 33 undergraduates began studying at the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology.

The student engineers have begun a four-year degree, during which they will be mentored by Dyson's scientists and engineers who will teach alongside academics from Warwick University.

Universities Minister Jo Johnson challenged Sir James 18 months ago to help train engineers in the UK.

Sir James said: "It is a great opportunity, and I think a great step forward in the way that higher education is provided.

"We're paying these people, they're getting about 40 days a year more academic time than you'd get at university, plus the fact that they're working with some of the best scientists and engineers in the world."

Dyson's success came about from a remark he made to a question put to him by Lord Howe in 1995 , who used is influence to put Dyson in touch with Comet

3 hours ago, aright said:

There are times when quite frankly I despair.

"we do nomanufacture aircraft anymore" which took a little while to interpret, needs addressing.

 

At Filton (Airbus) 2000 people are employed,  in the design of manufacturing areas, procurement, finance and customer service. 2000 engineers are employed to work on flight physics, structures and research on future aircraft projects.

We are part of a consortium that produce the Typhoon Eurofighter.....most of the project is controlled by BAE.

At Broughton (Airbus) they assemble the wings for all Airbus planes......over 1000 wings a year.

In Bristol Rolls Royce produce jet engines which they sell globally to aircraft manufacturers and airlines ( at least I think it's engines it might be cars )

Bombardier passenger jets are produced in Belfast (yes, that's in the UK)

I think, but am not sure, Leonardo's Helicopter Division formerly Westland still produce in Yeovil. 

I won't continue to "large" the PharmaceuticalIndustry or powder Coatings etc ...I would be here all night.

Dyson employs 7000 people half in the UK. Apart from my interest in maintaining a strong manufacturing base I am also a consumer and if Dyson can reduce the cost of a vacuum  cleaner by assembling  it in Asia I am all for it. We don't need assembly work we need high tec work. Are you seriously suggesting we should set our sights on manufacturing goods for Poundland. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't bring in computers and TV's from China because you would prefer to pay 50-60% more for them if produced in the UK.

 

Its not a trolling statement  but not wanting to answer a simple request  to communicate your thoughts on Mr Junckers speech who is the man who will give you the Elysian Fields in Europe you aspire to is a trolling answer.

 

Are you home now after your hols and where is home?

 

 

    

 

Dyson does not only assemble parts in asia, they also source parts from asia

From the interview James Dyson gave in 2012 , it is difficult to understand why his comments should have more weight than any other person

'I didn't enjoy being CEO that much. At an operational level, that becomes an enormous job, too big for me. I've never really been a businessman. I wanted to carry on the design and engineering myself. That's what I love doing.'

31 minutes ago, aright said:

Just a reminder........He's the man.....He did an excellent interview on radio4 this morning. When asked if he worried about the uncertainty as a result of Brexit he said business is all about uncertainty and uncertainty spells opportunity. He also said  the uncertainty is caused by Barnier refusing to respond to the UK's positive proposals.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/13/sir-james-dyson-i-would-trigger-brexit-now--and-negotiate-trade/

Also on radio 4 was Sir Charles Mayfield (John Lewis )

"I think we need to do justice to that uncertainty and there needs to be a serious parliamentary debate to figure out what kind of Brexit we're going to have in the best interests of the economy and the country."

41 minutes ago, nong38 said:

It is clear that the UK and the EU will at some point have to strike a deal or we walk away and if we walk away there will be no divorce bill. The EU will not want others to be following in our wake and its just possible that the EU may word things in such a away that ex pats living outside the UK must have their pensions increased in line with those in the EU, just make things more difficult for us ( the UK ). There is little link unless the EU wants to start meddling and I would not put it past them.

I cannot see how the EU has any remit regarding expats outside the EU. 

If the media are correct the EU and UK have already reached an agreement on the uprating of pensions for expats in the EU. 

22 minutes ago, nong38 said:

You are correct, but we had not upset them then by wanting to leave, the goalposts may be changing and especially today after there has been a right old outburst by the score in the EU parliament, I am forever hopeful that politicians will get things trying to get things right ( for themselves ). You never know with the Eu some of the really daft things they come up with and our lot might think that 500m a year is a lot better than giving that lot 30-90 billion, both sides could come to our aid without realizing it.

This requires further explanation, I cant see how the EU would have any influence on UK pensions and expats outside the EU

I would have thought not reaching a deal to uprate UK  pensions in the EU offers more scope, as this would bring the issue more to prominance in the UK 

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Do our own research it is there. I posted a very pro EU paper also not having a figure of the so called Brexit divorce. Nowhere to my knowledge has the EU given a breakdown of the so called amount owed. If you know better enlighten us which I know you can't.

 

The current process is not about calculating the figure, this will be achieved once the negotations have been concluded.

They are presently attempting to negotiate the methodology for the calculations

7 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

The EU cant force the UK to pay but you can expect the pound to be devalued further if they dont.

 

The subsequent losses to the UK via another big currency devaluation would far exceed the divorce bill.

 

Numbers, however, have never been a strong point with Brexiteers.

If it ever got to this stage, the EU could for example object to the UK WTO schedueles, or block any trade agreement.

International state immuniy only extends to public acts but not private acts, so the UK could find itself bogged down in domestic courts

10 minutes ago, chrissables said:

If i understand correctly, if the UK refuse to agree to pay, at the leave date they can't force us to pay. 

Enforceability is another issue

12 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I explained how, after reading many articles. Maybe if you believe i am wrong, you can show me where it is written into law?

 

What to me is more interesting (to me) is the EU's inability or refusal to itemise or quantify the payments they demand.

 

I actually believe the UK will pay if a correctly audited and reasonable bill is produced. But to ask for money without that and threaten to not move on the exit negotiations towards a reasonable middle ground is a pathetic way for a government to act.

Art 50 is a standard withdrawal clause, it describes the mechanics of leaving, but does not touch upon the obligations of the leaving member. It states that at some point in time the treaties will cease.

The VCLT is regarded as an "opinion of law" a necessity of international law , which leads us to Art 70 of the VCLT , Consequencesof the Termination of a Treaty

Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Conven tion:

(a) Releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

(b) Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.'

47 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I am far from qualified to explain the law. But i can and have read enough articles referring to what payments, if any are due as part of the settlement the EU is demanding.

 

I have at no time disagreed with payments that are legally due. Why do you think otherwise? All comments i have made are referring to payments due after we leave.

 

Also i have stated we should honour the last year of the 7 year investment we agreed to.

 

Had the EU bureaucrats and politicians been as smart as they think they are, payments due on leaving would have been put into law and the treaties. They in arrogance cocked up and are now trying to play hardball with threats, when in law their hand is quite weak. But for sure they will throw their toys out the pram to try and punish the UK for following a democratic decision. Pathetic really.

You claimed that there was no legal requirement to pay anything after we leave, 

How do you arrive at this conclusion 

There is no need to place obligations on leaving into the treaties , as they are provided for in the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

On and on and on. Why don't you quote what the 'leading' politicians of the day said? Like Heath? 

You mean like his 1972 Brussels speech

Or the article in the 1973 Illustrated London Gazette

1 hour ago, chrissables said:

You are taking my statement out of context. I was (trying) to explain what is the law, not necessary what i thought should happen.

 

Having said that, paying an imaginary bill of ? billions of euros without an independently audited breakdown of costs would make us extremely stupid, and no better for our international reputation.

You have not explained the law

How does article 50 release the UK from obligations undertaken whilst the treaties was in force

17 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Is there a court judgment on this? All I can find is a letter from Miller's lawyers and a confirmation from the government that it will follow parliamentary procedure at the appropriate time.

A court challenge to the DUP/ Conservative agreement as been lodged by other interested parties, claiming , it breaches impartiality as required under the Good Friday Agreement, and the Bribery Act

11 hours ago, aright said:

A good dictionary will tell you the difference between scrutiny, debate and rejection.

Of the 12000 pieces of legislation imposed by the EU can you tell us how many have been rejected by our Parliament.

The European Communities Act 1972 implicitly recognised the primacy of EU law over UK law. Years later this was deepened and extended by the decisions of the top court........The European Court of Justice

 

On the specifics of EU legislation the EU has approximately 740 MEPs 

The sick economies of the EU  Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain have 180 MEP's the UK has 72. Do you honestly think the basket cases of Europe are going to be discussing legislation of value to Britain. The likelihood is they will pursue their own pecuniary interests.

The UK in voting terms has 10% of the chambers votes (very little influence).

Do I want Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia et al having a say in legislation which is binding on the UK. No!

You are obviously happy for these countries to be a wilful force in the UK. You voted stay  

 

To assert that the UK has no input in regards to EU legislation is nonsense.

Take for example Art 288 of TFEU, a directive is binding in result only, it is for national member states to choice and form.

The UK readily gold plated directives and it was in 2013 when Mr Fallon declared that the UK had stopped this practice.

14 hours ago, aright said:

They are not Henry VIII bills they are powers which allow the Government to make technical amendments to legislation.

It beggars belief that many leavers (insults aren't necessary) and many MP's especially in the Labour Party allowed the EU to make and give us 12500 regulations without Parliamentary scrutiny. and without a descenting  murmur. For the last 40 years the executive have been using the same powers to process EU directives into UK law.

Sauce, goose, gander; pot, kettle, black; utter hypocrisy......all come to mind   

Are you forgetting the European Scrutiny Committee, who have the power to withold from clearance and  forward any proposals to parliament for debate

8 hours ago, chrissables said:

I am right, prove me wrong.

Article 70 VCLT

Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty appears to contract out articles 65-68, and 56 VCLT

35 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Monnet would have left behind a substantial body of correspondence available to academia and for those who have written about him since again along with recorded conversations. If it was in a speech to the UN then it would have been very easy to reproduce verbatim. 

Monnet was not at the UN on the said day , but addressing the US National Press Club about the Plevan plan. Monnet speech is recorded in the archives and does not mention the attributed qoute. It is clearly a fake 

2 hours ago, lamecn said:

Correct! He never said it in public, he wrote it in a letter!

Yet, Vaclav Klaus claims that it came from a speech 30th April 1952 to UN

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

In an average parliamentary term, what percentage of major laws passed are put forward by the government, compared to the opposition?

You are confusing a Bill and Act of Parliament

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Very rarely are MPs voted in on force of personality. The overwhelming majority are elected because their electorate voted for a political party with a manifesto. Any MPs going against their party's manifesto on a major issue should put their choice to their electorate, otherwise they run the risk of being highly unrepresentative.

MPs are there to represent everybody in there constituency , incuding those who did not vote for them. To put individual issues back to the electorate would result in minor vulnerable groups of society being disadvantaged and ignored.

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You're splitting hairs.

On the contrary I am not spitting hairs

The government is responsible for bringing new laws into force after being passed by parliament