Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, talahtnut said:

Take a look at Iceland.

Then Greece, Italy etc.

 

yes, and in order to find what?

don't really understand your intervention

 

Iceland is doing OK most of the time.

So is Italy. In long periods Italy is doing economically better than the UK.

Greece still functions even in spite of economical mismanagament over ages.

 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

yes, and in order to find what?

don't really understand your intervention

 

Iceland is doing OK most of the time.

So is Italy. In long periods Italy is doing economically better than the UK.

Greece still functions even in spite of economical mismanagament over ages.

 

In fact, rather than shore up the bankers who caused the global economic crisis and make the working man pay their bonuses, did Iceland not jail them? 

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

yes, and in order to find what?

don't really understand your intervention

 

Iceland is doing OK most of the time.

So is Italy. In long periods Italy is doing economically better than the UK.

Greece still functions even in spite of economical mismanagament over ages.

 

Italy actually outproduces the UK now.

 

I could not believe my eyes when I read that.

 

But it's true.

 

Italy manufactures more than the UK.

[evadgib]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The Greeks were terrible at falsifying accounts. They're not even smart enough to come up with that idea. It was well documented that it was Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan who came up with the idea and implemented this fraud. Did the US come up with a master plan to break up the EU by feeding it duds like Greece? Who knows, either way the Americans did the deception.

 

To blame Europe for being defrauded is like blaming a woman for being raped.

 

The thing about refugees is that they only need to be funded at the start. After the influx of Syrian refugees Germany started to see a proliferation of superb barber shops, supermarkets, eventually almost all refugees end up becoming tax payers.

Failure to ever audit the ????????'s books & the systematic rapes and sexual assaults in ????????  regularly reported thereafter suggests otherwise.

[Logosone]

Yes, we probably shouldn't have used a UK auditing firm.

[evadgib]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, we probably shouldn't have used a UK auditing firm.

How about the article in your favorite & oft quoted rejoiner newspaper?

Edited March 8, 2020 by evadgib

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Italy actually outproduces the UK now.

 

I could not believe my eyes when I read that.

 

But it's true.

 

Italy manufactures more than the UK.

 

Last time I bothered to look, 10-15 years ago;

 

Italy also outperformed UK economy wise (and wine and pizza and salami wise),

 

(at the time I had some UK acq. who were very urinated off by that).

 

 

Italy has actualy quite a large production oriented industry, also lots of heavy industry, that sells world wide.

trains - rails - cars - boats - ships - engines/motors - clothing - white wares - agri/food stuff

and I am sure lots more,

not bad at all

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by melvinmelvin

[evadgib]

Back on topic:

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

In fact, rather than shore up the bankers who caused the global economic crisis and make the working man pay their bonuses, did Iceland not jail them? 

cannot remember right now, Iceland conducted some quite tough legal processes,

PM ended up in court etc

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by melvinmelvin

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

 

The Greeks were terrible at falsifying accounts. They're not even smart enough to come up with that idea. It was well documented that it was Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan who came up with the idea and implemented this fraud. Did the US come up with a master plan to break up the EU by feeding it duds like Greece? Who knows, either way the Americans did the deception.

 

To blame Europe for being defrauded is like blaming a woman for being raped.

 

The thing about refugees is that they only need to be funded at the start. After the influx of Syrian refugees Germany started to see a proliferation of superb barber shops, supermarkets, eventually almost all refugees end up becoming tax payers.

???

it is actually quite common around the world to put the blame for a rape on the raped woman

 

good for Germany that influx from Syria end up as good tax payers, that does not go for all European countries.

[vinny41]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:15 PM, JustAnotherHun said:

And for those who want to have a bit closer look to reality:

 

Unemployment rate of Syrian "refugees" by end of 2019: 44.2%

* Everyone who's in a language- or integration course does NOT count as unemployed.

* Everyone who has a "Geringfuegige Beschaeftigung" (small-scaled employment) with a max income of 450 Euro/month is NOT unemployed.

 

74.9% of all Syrians with granted asylum status depend on social welfare transfers

 

27 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

???

it is actually quite common around the world to put the blame for a rape on the raped woman

 

good for Germany that influx from Syria end up as good tax payers, that does not go for all European countries.

It appears that even in Germany Syrian migrants don't end up as good tax payers

[CG1 Blue]

11 hours ago, Logosone said:

Without the EU passporting rights many international banks, brokers, fund managers and the like would never have set up shop in the City. Of course it is not easy to quantify the exact figure, because some would have anyway, but many would not.

International banks, brokers and fund managers came to the City long before EU passporting existed! 

 

EU member states benefit massively from having access to financial services in the City of London, and financial stability is absolutely critical in the current times. That's why a compromise will be reached in the negotiations. I suspect it will be some sort of bespoke 'equivalence' arrangement. 

[CG1 Blue]

13 hours ago, sandyf said:

I will say the same again, it would only take 1 Turk out of the millions of refugees for Amnesty International to start shouting the odds.

The issue surrounds the 3.6 million Syrian refugees that are in Turkey and refugees must seek asylum in the first border they cross, they cannot transit to a country of their choosing.

Closing the Greek border to Syrian refugees is not a breach of International law as is being claimed.

There is no dispute that a humanitarian crisis exists and it is up to the International community to resolve it, not the Greeks or the EU.

It's the excessive force being used by the Greeks including gun shots and tear gas that is considered a breach. 

As I've said before, I sympathise with the Greeks having to deal with the brunt of this issue. But I was pointing out the hypocrisy from Von Der Layen. 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

cannot remember right now, Iceland conducted some quite tough legal processes,

PM ended up in court etc

 

Inside Job is an excellent documentary laying bare the truth behind the origins of the crisis, and focuses on Iceland's part in the run up to it, and how they responded afterwards.

[vinny41]

12 hours ago, Logosone said:

No, I am looking at the full, true, picture, you are not. The typical net contributor figures are based on simplistic 'what did the EU pay us, what did we pay to the EU'. However, that's not the full reality.

 

The full reality is that the City of London thrived during the days of membership in the EU, substantially because of the very fact that UK domiciled companies could get passporting for their products and services in the EU.

 

Without the EU passporting rights many international banks, brokers, fund managers and the like would never have set up shop in the City. Of course it is not easy to quantify the exact figure, because some would have anyway, but many would not.

 

The same with tourism. Some people would have come anyway, others came because the Eu legalframework made travel very easy and cheaper.

 

Same with workers, some came to the UK because the EU made movement of people easy, others would have come anyway.

 

Whilst we can not quantify exactly these financial advantages the UK gained from EU membership, we certainly know they existed and would have pushed the UK easily into a net benefactor category.

 

As far as Tourism, this is not a wild guess without substance, it is an informed insight with considerable substance. London has seen record number of visitors while in the EU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/may/20/london-record-visitor-numbers-2015-31-5-million

 

Now where did these tourists come from? By far, indeed a VERY VERY VAST MAJORITY, of those visitors come from EU countries, as you can see here (table on the right):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Tourists from France and Germany alone are DOUBLE the number of US visitors. Of the top ten tourist countries, EIGHT are from the EU. Add the figures up.

 

Now, to argue that the cheaper and document free travel which the EU has promoted played no part in this is simply false.

 

On child benefit, I agree with you, Romanians should not be able to claim child benefit for children in Romania on the UK tax payer. It's perverse. However, it is the UK government paying this, allowing this and doing it. Take it up with the UK government. 

 

Regarding National Insurance, all I know is that I paid National Insurance, I have the card to prove it. What's more, I was NEVER repaid the NI contributions I paid in the UK, even though, thankfully, I don't live in that country anymore. So feel free to apply that sum to make good the money lost on payments for child benefits. 

 

Of course the VAST majority of workers in the UK from the EU are not 'posted' workers, but are people who go there on their own initiative.

 

Again, I fail to see any reason why you could be happy the UK has left the EU. EU membership was an overwhelming benefit to the UK.

 

 

 

I have to disagree with you that you are looking at the full picture as you are only looking in one direction , while I am sure that you are correct in that UK financial services benefited from passporting services  I am sure the same applies to EU companies and organizations that wanted to gain access to UK financial services.

The same applies to Tourism , your thinking is EU tourists only come to the UK and there isn't a single UK tourist anywhere in Europe but clearly this isn't the case

In 2018 the total number of visits by UK nationals to Europe was 57.3 million spending £29.6 billion pounds

In 2018 the total number of visits by EEC nationals to the UK was 27 million spending £11.3 billion pounds

So UK nationals spent £18.3 million more on Tourism in the EU compared to EU nationals

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06022/SN06022.pdf

Now if we look at trade

The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2018, UK exports to the EU were £291 billion

while  UK imports from the EU were £357 billion 

The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£66 billion with the EU

Now when we come to UK nationals  living and working in the EU and UK nationals living in the EU paying tax, purchasing goods , paying vat it is estimated  there are in fact 1.8 million to 3.6 million British people living part-time or full-time in the EU27.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/british-citizens-europe-residents-eu-brexit-a8332986.html

Taking all of the above into account it is clear that the UK is and always has been since day 1 a Net Contributors to the EU budget and to the European member countries

Edited March 8, 2020 by vinny41
forgot url

[Logosone]

41 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

International banks, brokers and fund managers came to the City long before EU passporting existed! 

 

EU member states benefit massively from having access to financial services in the City of London, and financial stability is absolutely critical in the current times. That's why a compromise will be reached in the negotiations. I suspect it will be some sort of bespoke 'equivalence' arrangement. 

Yes, but not in the numbers which we saw during the UK's membership of the EU, when the uK was able to benefit from passporting rights and basically a legal background tailor made for the City.

 

There were international banks that set up before the UK joined the common market, but it only really accelerated to the extent that we saw recently while the UK was a member of the EU. For obvious reasons.

 

The EU needs the City like a hole in the head. Everything that is done there can be done in a European financial centre. But of course, we Europeans, did not want the City to split from Europe. Because we took the longer term view that we were competing against other Asian financial centres, like Singapore, that were the real threats. But of course, turns out perfidious Albion is not on our side. It is YOU the British who wish to chase after other skirts that are more to your liking. It is not us. For Europe it was already a case of the financial sector being badly fragmented. That's not good. The synergy with New York, which an English speaking centre like London offers is of course nice. But nowadays everyone in Paris or Frankfurt that works at a financial institution speaks English.

 

As a conduit to the Caribbean and UK tax havens Britain is no longer required, for years now Cayman Islands is like a pest that big instutitions in Europe avoid for fear of bad publicity, though yes, historically a few billion are still parked there. It used to be the case that almost all capital markets transactions in Europe were done under UK law, just like in Asia. That is no longer the case. Neither in Asia, nor in Europe. All the know how the UK built up from pioneering the Eurobonds market, Europe is not far from that anymore.

 

Europe could equally centralise all the financial services in Paris, which is already a leader in asset management of funds. 

 

According to S&P, there is a clear contradiction between the interest of both sides in avoiding a fracture of the financial markets and the British government’s stated desire to be able to freely negotiate trade agreements with third countries. The rating agency warned that the further the UK moves away from EU regulations, the more expensive trading with the EU will become for the UK financial sector.

 

It is not with us, that the real danger resides, because even though the EU could kill of the City in the next few years, they probably will not do so, but it is the British who are their greatest enemy, because as we saw with BJ lately he seems to believe his own nationalist propaganda, or maybe he was always a little Englander. And if he moves away from EU law, then, Tcha, then, I'm afraid all gloves will be off and it will be worst for the City. Not Europe. We don't need you. You need us. It was the internationalisation of the City which made it a success. The assets held in the city are international assets, not domestic ones like in New York.

[Logosone]

26 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

I have to disagree with you that you are looking at the full picture as you are only looking in one direction , while I am sure that you are correct in that UK financial services benefited from passporting services  I am sure the same applies to EU companies and organizations that wanted to gain access to UK financial services.

The same applies to Tourism , your thinking is EU tourists only come to the UK and there isn't a single UK tourist anywhere in Europe but clearly this isn't the case

In 2018 the total number of visits by UK nationals to Europe was 57.3 million spending £29.6 billion pounds

In 2018 the total number of visits by EEC nationals to the UK was 27 million spending £11.3 billion pounds

So UK nationals spent £18.3 million more on Tourism in the EU compared to EU nationals

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06022/SN06022.pdf

Now if we look at trade

The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2018, UK exports to the EU were £291 billion

while  UK imports from the EU were £357 billion 

The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£66 billion with the EU

Now when we come to UK nationals  living and working in the EU and UK nationals living in the EU paying tax, purchasing goods , paying vat it is estimated  there are in fact 1.8 million to 3.6 million British people living part-time or full-time in the EU27.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/british-citizens-europe-residents-eu-brexit-a8332986.html

Taking all of the above into account it is clear that the UK is and always has been since day 1 a Net Contributors to the EU budget and to the European member countries

 

Yes, but you see the visitor number from the UK to Europe was also strongly influenced by the positive paper free travel environment which reduced costs, that was created by the EU.

 

Same with the number of UK workers in Europe. Do you seriously think as many would have settled in Europe if the EU had not made it so very very easy? 

 

And Europe is blessed with some of the most desirable, best weather, high quality tourist destinations in the world, the Balearics, the Spanish coast, Canaries, south of France, Paris, the Amalfi coast, obviously people stay there longer and in greater numbers. No matter what. They will keep coming to Europe. But will Europeans visit the UK as much now? I doubt it very much.

 

The trade deficit indicates that people in Europe make things that others want. They can be sold elsewhere much easier than financial services can be transferred, that depend on know-how, regulations and so on. Selling machines somewhere else is easier than becoming a lawyer for another jurisdiction, with different laws. So for Europe it is easy to sell goods elsewhere. Is it as easy for the UK to sell services in another jurisdiction, I doubt it very much.

 

Btw, whether the UK was a net recipient of monies or a net contributor of funds in relation to the EU is determined by the cost to the UK and the benefits to the UK. The benefits to the UK were tremendous, whilst the cost, the trade deficit, it would have had that trade deficit with anybody, because the UK doesn't make things anymore, only 20 per cent of the UK economy is manufacturing now. So even taking on board the trade figures you mention, you can not view the imports from the EU as a cost?!!! The UK WANTED those goods, it was obviously another benefit for the UK. The UK nationals WANTED to travel to the Balearics and enjoy a holiday, that was also a benefit, not a cost. I'd still see it as a net benefactor.

 

 

[vinny41]

27 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Yes, but you see the visitor number from the UK to Europe was also strongly influenced by the positive paper free travel environment which reduced costs, that was created by the EU.

 

Same with the number of UK workers in Europe. Do you seriously think as many would have settled in Europe if the EU had not made it so very very easy? 

 

And Europe is blessed with some of the most desirable, best weather, high quality tourist destinations in the world, the Balearics, the Spanish coast, Canaries, south of France, Paris, the Amalfi coast, obviously people stay there longer and in greater numbers. No matter what. They will keep coming to Europe. But will Europeans visit the UK as much now? I doubt it very much.

 

The trade deficit indicates that people in Europe make things that others want. They can be sold elsewhere much easier than financial services can be transferred, that depend on know-how, regulations and so on. Selling machines somewhere else is easier than becoming a lawyer for another jurisdiction, with different laws. So for Europe it is easy to sell goods elsewhere. Is it as easy for the UK to sell services in another jurisdiction, I doubt it very much.

 

Btw, whether the UK was a net recipient of monies or a net contributor of funds in relation to the EU is determined by the cost to the UK and the benefits to the UK. The benefits to the UK were tremendous, whilst the cost, the trade deficit, it would have had that trade deficit with anybody, because the UK doesn't make things anymore, only 20 per cent of the UK economy is manufacturing now. So even taking on board the trade figures you mention, you can not view the imports from the EU as a cost?!!! The UK WANTED those goods, it was obviously another benefit for the UK. The UK nationals WANTED to travel to the Balearics and enjoy a holiday, that was also a benefit, not a cost. I'd still see it as a net benefactor.

 

 

Visitor numbers to both the EU and the UK were strongly influenced more by low cost travel in the form of charter flights, low cost airlines, ferries and a small part visa free travel, Many millions of UK and European Nationals have travelled to Turkey for a many years , Turkey did offer some European countries visa free travel other countries such as Rep of Ireland and the UK you puchased visa on arrival for 5 euros or £10 Sterling no big deal.

 

As to living and working in Europe I lived and worked in West Germany long before the creation of the EU I can't tell you if my employer was required to do anything other than registering me for Geman tax. I do remember having to register my address with the local town council but that wasn't a major deal 10 mins.

I would never consider using a UK based lawyer for a legal matter in example Germany and I sure most people have the same attitude as me and vice versa for using a German lawyer for a legal matter in the UK.

[nauseus]

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

quote "Absolute garbage, they lived beyond their means for decades and falsified the accounts to get into the EU."

 

The Greeks must have been damned good at falsifying their accounts or the alternative is that the EU auditors were 3rd or 4th rate and the EU desperately wanted Greece in the EU and glossed over the report and failed to do due diligence. If the latter was the case the EU have only themselves to blame.

 

As an aside (and slightly off topic) looking at Greek/Turkish border over the last few days the EU looks like gaining another 2 or 3 million refugees. I have no idea how they will be accepted nor who will provide funds for them.

 

The EU ain't big on audits, especially their own.

Edited March 8, 2020 by nauseus

[nauseus]

On 3/7/2020 at 7:30 PM, Logosone said:

Yes, Factortame never happened.

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd,

Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty, being fully aware that, even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972.

If the supremacy within the European Community of Community Law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary.

Funny you didn't see Lord Bridge screaming about how the British were deceived into accepting EU law. Quite the opposite.

 

Interestingly the Supreme Court of England and Wales disagreed:

in the 2014 case of R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, the UK Supreme Court said:

 

It is, putting the point at its lowest, certainly arguable (and it is for United Kingdom law and courts to determine) that there may be fundamental principles, whether contained in other constitutional instruments or recognised at common law, of which Parliament when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 did not either contemplate or authorise the abrogation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law#United_Kingdom

 

Yeah, no courts and judges in the UK adjudicated on the primacy of EU law.

 

I wonder what world you live in sometimes.

This case was brought by a Spanish company starting three decades ago and so had to be heard in a British court. The finding proves what said in post 512 is true, i.e. that: British courts have no choice than to defer to EU Law because EU Law has primacy over any conflicting national laws of any member states. Despite your your pedantry, you are actually agreeing with me.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by nauseus

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, sanemax said:

The Greek Drachma would have devalued due to the terrible state of the Greek economy  and financial affairs , this would have helped their economy by ways of increased tourism and their exports would have been cheaper and more attractive to buyers 

   As Greek was in the Euro , their currency didnt devalue

I have to assume you would blame the NHS for people getting lung cancer after smoking all their life.

The problems were there before they had the Euro so why not devalue at that time, couldn't possibly the fear of losing the EU as a sugar daddy.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

I had forgotten about the marine side. Thank you for reminding me.

 

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/aerospace.aspx

 

Defence Aerospace business
With more than 16,000 military engines in service with 160 customers in 103 countries, Rolls-Royce is a powerful player in the defence aero engine market. From combat to transport, from trainers to helicopters, our engines and pioneering service solutions ensure that our customers have world-leading engine technology available, whatever the mission demands.

 

https://www.rolls-royce.com/country-sites/india/products-and-services/civil-aerospace.aspx

 

Civil Aerospace
We are a leading manufacturer and service provider of aero engines for large civil aircrafts and corporate jets worldwide, powering more than 30 types of commercial aircraft. We have over 13,000 engines in service globally with airlines, freight operators, lessors and corporates; with 50% share in the modern wide-body engines on order.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Holdings

 

Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (company number 04706930)[3] is a British multinational engineering company incorporated in February 2011 that owns Rolls-Royce, a business established in 1904 which today designs, manufactures and distributes power systems for aviation and other industries. Rolls-Royce is the world's second-largest maker of aircraft engines[4] (after General Electric)[5] and has major businesses in the marine propulsion and energy sectors.

Rolls-Royce was the world's 16th largest defence contractor in 2018 when measured by defence revenues

 

TBH I had only a vague idea of the size of Rolls-Royce holdings and I didn't realise that it was this big or this varied. There must be a huge export market world wide.

 

So much for the UK not producing very much for export.

 

I simply cannot be be bothered to reply to logoosones post as he always runs down the UK and England wherever and whenever possible.

Bill, you have to remember that Rolls Royce went bankrupt in 1971 and was nationalised by Ted Heath, who according to some was the architect of the UK's demise.

The government will have a bit of a challenge if they have to bail them out again.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/28/rolls-royce-makes-29bn-loss-as-engine-fault-costs-790m

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

The Greeks must have been damned good at falsifying their accounts or the alternative is that the EU auditors were 3rd or 4th rate and the EU desperately wanted Greece in the EU and glossed over the report and failed to do due diligence. If the latter was the case the EU have only themselves to blame.

Mainly the former Bill. It was based on an omission that only a few in Greece knew about and came to light a couple of years later. Problem here is that Eurostat had no say until Greece became a member.

Greece's membership should have immediately been suspended and the EU accountants a P45, then there would not have been the fallout from the fiasco.

There is certainly a question mark over the EU decision to allow Greece to remain a member, but on the other hand Greece has no right to complain.

 

In March 2002, Eurostat refused to validate data transmitted by the Greek government. In reaction, the NSSG (National Statistical Service of Greece) revised the debt level by several percentage points. In September 2002, Eurostat again refused to validate the data. The debt was revised upwards once again, and the government balance, which the Greek government had presented as a surplus, became a deficit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Financial_Audit,_2004

[Logosone]

8 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Visitor numbers to both the EU and the UK were strongly influenced more by low cost travel in the form of charter flights, low cost airlines, ferries and a small part visa free travel, Many millions of UK and European Nationals have travelled to Turkey for a many years , Turkey did offer some European countries visa free travel other countries such as Rep of Ireland and the UK you puchased visa on arrival for 5 euros or £10 Sterling no big deal.

 

As to living and working in Europe I lived and worked in West Germany long before the creation of the EU I can't tell you if my employer was required to do anything other than registering me for Geman tax. I do remember having to register my address with the local town council but that wasn't a major deal 10 mins.

I would never consider using a UK based lawyer for a legal matter in example Germany and I sure most people have the same attitude as me and vice versa for using a German lawyer for a legal matter in the UK.

 

Jesus Christ, you don't get it do you?

 

Why have airline prices decreased so much in the past 25 years? One major factor is that opening national markets and creating an EU single aviation market spurred competition, providing more routes and more destinations to places in the EU and further afield.A good example is Dublin Airport, where the number of intra-EU routes went from 36 in 1992 to 127 in 2016.  New air transport agreements signed between the EU and its major aviation partners around the world have brought even more destinations and lower prices to the travelling public.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/25years-eu-aviation_en

 

The EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel with its open market.

 

Yes you may have worked in Germany before the EU but this does not change the fact that the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

 

You may not consider using a UK based lawyer for your German business, but many German companies doing a merger would use a UK law firm, UK accountants etc. 

 

If somebody from the US wants to setup a fund and market it in Europe he may use a UK law firm.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Deflection and obfuscation - I was referring specifically to infant mortality, not child mortality, which includes deaths due to accidents, violence and the effects of toxins in children up to the age of 19. But nonetheless, it is absolutely deplorable, I agree. However it takes nothing away from my point. 

 

Health in England 'faltering' after 10 years of austerity, warns damning Marmot review

"Life expectancy has stalled, patients are living longer in ill health and health inequality has risen after a decade of austerity that will 'cast a long shadow' over the lives of UK children, according to a devastating follow-up to the 2010 Marmot review."

 

But in answer to your final question, yes - there is something askew in my country. It's that we are forced to give all our cash to the country next door and let them decide how much to return to us. If we weren't routinely bled dry by them, we might stand a better chance to fix our own problems. 

I get the impression that many seem to think that the austerity regime did not apply to Scotland, or relevant to the way people vote.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/there-is-no-safety-net-fifes-child-poverty-epidemic-laid-bare_uk_5dd7eab4e4b0d50f328e3657?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD-r2wbSfEZfaRu7lIdlJ7bRktl9L6b9Nwrg63QNhLijcUKxKO_OPw77pl7FHg4xxGKdrxxtwTR3Etv22nIFxmkfzuNk0XhA8a5-p9J5B1rf2lvbQwf3rheEty-fpdWNEr6UYWIZ09u4_W8iPuR1y2ZvcAMtQpRKYgxhNeTYOkOv

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

This case was brought by a Spanish company starting three decades ago and so had to be heard in a British court. The finding proves what said in post 512 is true, i.e. that: British courts have no choice than to defer to EU Law because EU Law has primacy over any conflicting national laws of any member states. Despite your your pedantry, you are actually agreeing with me.

 

 

 

It doesn't freakin matter who brought the case, does it? 

 

You argued that the UK did not see case law determining the extent to which, and if, EU law had primacy over UK law.

 

I posted two cases as an example which showed you were talking total bullocks. 

 

And if you looked at the second case, that was actually the Supreme Court in England raising doubts about EU law primacy.

[Logosone]

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

TBH I had only a vague idea of the size of Rolls-Royce holdings and I didn't realise that it was this big or this varied. There must be a huge export market world wide.

 

So much for the UK not producing very much for export.

 

I simply cannot be be bothered to reply to logoosones post as he always runs down the UK and England wherever and whenever possible.

 

I had actually defended the UK above by making clear that despite UK manufacturing having declined to now representing only 20% of the UK economy, 80% being services, the UK did still make a few things, also in pharmaceuticals.

 

Rolls Royce  is another example of where the UK does still produce.

 

Unfortunately it does not do so very well, and Airbus has had a never ending line of incidents with faulty Rolls Royce engines. Hence Airbus is now poised to switch from Rolls Royce to GE engines (obviously Brexit had nothing do with this move whatsoever), and aviation insiders are doubting whether Rolls Royce can even survive going forward without the Airbus business:

 

"Airbus’ discussions with General Electric on a possible new engine for the A350XWB, revealed by Aviation Week (AW&ST Nov. 25-Dec. 8, p. 14), threaten Rolls-Royce’s most important platform. The value of forecasted Trent XWB deliveries is greater than Rolls’ other commercial engine applications combined, so losing it would be catastrophic."

 

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/opinion-can-rolls-royce-survive-its-own

 

You don't have to reply to my posts Bill, I get the same with my  daughter when I tell her about reality, she also goes sulking to her bedroom. I'm used to that behaviour. A bit strange in a grown man, but okay, I think I'll survive.

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Logosone

[vinny41]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Jesus Christ, you don't get it do you?

 

Why have airline prices decreased so much in the past 25 years? One major factor is that opening national markets and creating an EU single aviation market spurred competition, providing more routes and more destinations to places in the EU and further afield.A good example is Dublin Airport, where the number of intra-EU routes went from 36 in 1992 to 127 in 2016.  New air transport agreements signed between the EU and its major aviation partners around the world have brought even more destinations and lower prices to the travelling public.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/25years-eu-aviation_en

 

The EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel with its open market.

 

Yes you may have worked in Germany before the EU but this does not change the fact that the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

 

You may not consider using a UK based lawyer for your German business, but many German companies doing a merger would use a UK law firm, UK accountants etc. 

 

If somebody from the US wants to setup a fund and market it in Europe he may use a UK law firm.

Its you that doesn't get it  Yes everyone on this forum is aware that you are an European Union Fanboy and in your opinion the best thing since silced bread and it would be better if they get rid of the countries that you don't approve of let me see

Poland,Hungary,Greece,Portgual,Romania,Czech Republic,Slovakia,Bulgaria,Slovenia,Estonia,Croatia,Latvia

As for Flights this is from the UK CAA

The expansion of low-cost airlines has had less impact on overall air-traffic growth in Britain than many believe, according to a new report by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) released this week.

The report, entitled "No-frills carriers: Revolution or Evolution", calculates that growth in short-haul traffic between 1996 and 2006 averaged five per cent a year - no greater than in the years before the arrival of no-frills airlines.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/737029/No-frills-airlines-praised-for-efficiency-and-cost.html

So I don't believe as you have stated that EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel

As far as I am aware UK nationals have been working and living in many different countries since the begining of travel via ships

So once again I don't think the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

And I suspect a German company doing a merger with a UK company would use German Lawyers for the German part of the Business and Uk lawyers for the Uk side

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

As for Flights this is from the UK CAA

The expansion of low-cost airlines has had less impact on overall air-traffic growth in Britain than many believe, according to a new report by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) released this week.

The report, entitled "No-frills carriers: Revolution or Evolution", calculates that growth in short-haul traffic between 1996 and 2006 averaged five per cent a year - no greater than in the years before the arrival of no-frills airlines.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/737029/No-frills-airlines-praised-for-efficiency-and-cost.html

So I don't believe as you have stated that EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel

As far as I am aware UK nationals have been working and living in many different countries since the begining of travel via ships

So once again I don't think the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

And I suspect a German company doing a merger with a UK company would use German Lawyers for the German part of the Business and Uk lawyers for the Uk side

We have all seen the rise of low cost travel. It happened. Whatever the UK CAA says.

 

And one of the reasons low cost travel happened is that opening national markets and creating an EU single aviation market spurred competition and thus led to lowering of prices.

 

You don't believe that the EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel? Really? Creating a single EU aviation market and open national markets with increased competition had nothing to do with it? Do you also believe the earth is flat? That gravity doesnt' exist? 

 

As far as I am aware UK nationals have been working and living in many different countries since the begining of travel via ships

So once again I don't think the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

 

Yah, there has been no change in UK migration to Europe since ships were invented, and the fact that the EU allowed UK nationals to travel, settle and work freely in Europe played no part in increased numbers of UK settlers in Europe. Okay, good to talk! Have a good day!

 

And I suspect a German company doing a merger with a UK company would use German Lawyers for the German part of the Business and Uk lawyers for the Uk side

 

Even if they would first instruct a German lawyer first, that German lawyer would contact one of the UK law firms that set up in Frankfurt, guess why, because the EU made it easy for UK law firms to set up in Europe. UK law firms had that cachet of being huge global international powerhouses with expertise almost no national law firm had. Again, internationalisation benefitted the UK.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

 

It doesn't freakin matter who brought the case, does it? 

 

You argued that the UK did not see case law determining the extent to which, and if, EU law had primacy over UK law.

 

I posted two cases as an example which showed you were talking total bullocks. 

 

And if you looked at the second case, that was actually the Supreme Court in England raising doubts about EU law primacy.

UK case laws are established after reference to similar historical cases and their outcomes. The Factorame challenge to UK constitutional law resulted in a judicial review but not a case which contributed to a new (case) law. The Spanish quota-hoppers won out because this all goes back to the great CFP, which protected them. The CFP had to be accepted by the UK after they joined the EEC (Treaty of Rome). The Supreme Court can't change any of that either because all EU Law has primacy. 

 

Rumpole would be so disappointed in you.