How have the EU misbehaved with Cyprus? I must have missed it.
Cyprus banking crisis of 2013. Banks closed, deposits confiscated. They were the first country pushed under the bus to try and save the Euro.
From Wikipedia:- The 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis was an economic crisis in the Republic of Cyprus that involved the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek government-debt crisis, the downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by international credit rating agencies, the consequential inability to refund its state expenses from the international markets[1][2] and the reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled Cypriot financial sector.[3]
On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank(ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors.[4][5] No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected.[6][7]
Nearly one third of Rossiya Bank's cash ($1 billion) was frozen in Cypriot accounts during this crisis.[8]
Did the EU cause the earlier Icelandic crisis and the Global crash in 2008 or was it poorly regulated greedy banks?
How have the EU misbehaved with Cyprus? I must have missed it.
Cyprus banking crisis of 2013. Banks closed, deposits confiscated. They were the first country pushed under the bus to try and save the Euro.
From Wikipedia:- The 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis was an economic crisis in the Republic of Cyprus that involved the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek government-debt crisis, the downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by international credit rating agencies, the consequential inability to refund its state expenses from the international markets[1][2] and the reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled Cypriot financial sector.[3]
On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank(ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors.[4][5] No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected.[6][7]
Nearly one third of Rossiya Bank's cash ($1 billion) was frozen in Cypriot accounts during this crisis.[8]
Did the EU cause the earlier Icelandic crisis and the Global crash in 2008 or was it poorly regulated greedy banks?
How have the EU misbehaved with Cyprus? I must have missed it.
Cyprus banking crisis of 2013. Banks closed, deposits confiscated. They were the first country pushed under the bus to try and save the Euro.
From Wikipedia:- The 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis was an economic crisis in the Republic of Cyprus that involved the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek government-debt crisis, the downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by international credit rating agencies, the consequential inability to refund its state expenses from the international markets[1][2] and the reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled Cypriot financial sector.[3]
On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank(ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors.[4][5] No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected.[6][7]
Nearly one third of Rossiya Bank's cash ($1 billion) was frozen in Cypriot accounts during this crisis.[8]
Did the EU cause the earlier Icelandic crisis and the Global crash in 2008 or was it poorly regulated greedy banks?
If we're going to wikipedia, I think this should be quoted also.
Criticism Irish MEP Nessa Childers, daughter of the country's former President Erskine H. Childers, painted a bleak picture. She described the efforts of the EU-IMF as an "incompetent mess" and said the Eurozone was more destabilised as a result.[23] In its Schumpeter blog The Economist called the Cyprus bail-out unfair, short-sighted and self-defeating.[24] Specifically the article says
The Cypriot deal has no coherence in the larger context. The euro crisis has been in abeyance for a few months, thanks largely to the readiness of the European Central Bank to intervene to help struggling countries. The ECB's price for helping countries is to insist they go into a bail-out programme. The political price of going into a programme has just gone up, so the ECB's safety net looks a little thinner.
The bail-out appears to move Europe further away from the institutional reforms that are needed to resolve the crisis once and for all. Rather than using the European Stability Mechanism to recapitalise banks, and thereby weaken the link between banks and their governments, the euro zone continues to equate bank bail-outs with sovereign bail-outs. As for debt mutualisation, after imposing losses on local depositors, the price of support from the rest of Europe is arguably costlier now than it ever has been.
Dr. Jeffrey Stacey wrote in Germany's Der Spiegel, under the headline "'Abject Error': How the Cyprus Deal Hurts EU Strategic Interests":[25] In strategic terms the EU hurt not only Cyprus and itself, but also the interests of the US and other allies in the West. Europe pushed Cyprus directly into the arms of the Russian government. Not only did this hurt the prospects for its own deal, but it gave leverage to Moscow in the process.
More important still, however, by forcing Anastasiades between the rock of a forced bank levy and the hard place of seeking assistance from Moscow, the EU seriously undermined him domestically precisely when the West was about to reap the benefits at long last of a fairly pro-Western Cypriot president, crucially necessary to overcome sour relations with Turkey that continue to undermine NATO relations, EU relations, NATO-EU relations, and US relations with both. To top it all off, a peace deal along the lines of the Annan Plan for a final resolution of the 40-year-old Cypriot divide – the prospects for which had improved with the election of Anastasiades – has seen its prospects diminished.
Economist Richard D. Wolff commented in an interview in relation to the Cyprus bailout agreement as follows:[26] This is blackmail. This is basically the officials of the banks and the political leaders going to the mass of people and saying to them, "This awful deal that makes you, who have nothing to do with the crisis and didn't get any bailout, pay the costs of the crisis and the bailout. You must do this, because if you don't, we will do even more damage to you and your economy. So give us your deposits, give us your money, pay more taxes, suffer fewer social programs, because if you don't, we will impose even worse on you." It's the basic idea of austerity across the board and in our country, too. And I think it's the confrontation of a system that does not work with the mass of the people, saying, "We will go down and take you with us, unless you bail us out."
How have the EU misbehaved with Cyprus? I must have missed it.
Cyprus banking crisis of 2013. Banks closed, deposits confiscated. They were the first country pushed under the bus to try and save the Euro.
From Wikipedia:- The 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis was an economic crisis in the Republic of Cyprus that involved the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek government-debt crisis, the downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by international credit rating agencies, the consequential inability to refund its state expenses from the international markets[1][2] and the reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled Cypriot financial sector.[3]
On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank(ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors.[4][5] No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected.[6][7]
Nearly one third of Rossiya Bank's cash ($1 billion) was frozen in Cypriot accounts during this crisis.[8]
Did the EU cause the earlier Icelandic crisis and the Global crash in 2008 or was it poorly regulated greedy banks?
If we're going to wikipedia, I think this should be quoted also.
Criticism Irish MEP Nessa Childers, daughter of the country's former President Erskine H. Childers, painted a bleak picture. She described the efforts of the EU-IMF as an "incompetent mess" and said the Eurozone was more destabilised as a result.[23] In its Schumpeter blog The Economist called the Cyprus bail-out unfair, short-sighted and self-defeating.[24] Specifically the article says
The Cypriot deal has no coherence in the larger context. The euro crisis has been in abeyance for a few months, thanks largely to the readiness of the European Central Bank to intervene to help struggling countries. The ECB's price for helping countries is to insist they go into a bail-out programme. The political price of going into a programme has just gone up, so the ECB's safety net looks a little thinner.
The bail-out appears to move Europe further away from the institutional reforms that are needed to resolve the crisis once and for all. Rather than using the European Stability Mechanism to recapitalise banks, and thereby weaken the link between banks and their governments, the euro zone continues to equate bank bail-outs with sovereign bail-outs. As for debt mutualisation, after imposing losses on local depositors, the price of support from the rest of Europe is arguably costlier now than it ever has been.
Dr. Jeffrey Stacey wrote in Germany's Der Spiegel, under the headline "'Abject Error': How the Cyprus Deal Hurts EU Strategic Interests":[25] In strategic terms the EU hurt not only Cyprus and itself, but also the interests of the US and other allies in the West. Europe pushed Cyprus directly into the arms of the Russian government. Not only did this hurt the prospects for its own deal, but it gave leverage to Moscow in the process.
More important still, however, by forcing Anastasiades between the rock of a forced bank levy and the hard place of seeking assistance from Moscow, the EU seriously undermined him domestically precisely when the West was about to reap the benefits at long last of a fairly pro-Western Cypriot president, crucially necessary to overcome sour relations with Turkey that continue to undermine NATO relations, EU relations, NATO-EU relations, and US relations with both. To top it all off, a peace deal along the lines of the Annan Plan for a final resolution of the 40-year-old Cypriot divide – the prospects for which had improved with the election of Anastasiades – has seen its prospects diminished.
Economist Richard D. Wolff commented in an interview in relation to the Cyprus bailout agreement as follows:[26] This is blackmail. This is basically the officials of the banks and the political leaders going to the mass of people and saying to them, "This awful deal that makes you, who have nothing to do with the crisis and didn't get any bailout, pay the costs of the crisis and the bailout. You must do this, because if you don't, we will do even more damage to you and your economy. So give us your deposits, give us your money, pay more taxes, suffer fewer social programs, because if you don't, we will impose even worse on you." It's the basic idea of austerity across the board and in our country, too. And I think it's the confrontation of a system that does not work with the mass of the people, saying, "We will go down and take you with us, unless you bail us out."
Try confronting james o bigot with this information, see how far you get.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
That is Mr Cordy to you, sunshine.
For the third and final time. Fellow remainers why do you bother reading or responding to anything that Chippy writes, it really isn't worth it.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
But, if we are to rely upon the Chicago Convention, Article 1, Section 5 of the AIr Services Transit Agreement would seem to offer the EU, if they wanted or felt they had to (I think neither is likely), in the event of a Brexit without any deal whatsoever, a remedy whereby the overflight rights could be rescinded (within the terms of the Agreement and Convention).
In the event of no deal, and without a reinstated internationally recognised testing and certification regime, the airline industry seems to be making the case that the immediate impact on UK aviation could be catastrophic (admittedly all, like myself, bar Michael O'Leary, believe such an outcome is unlikely - but, if no deal means absolutely no agreement about anything, it is possible).
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
Are you having a fecking laugh. How balanced has this thread become? The vote was 52/48. It hasn't moved that much since if at all. Seth and his possee have hounded down any brexiter commentary. It has become extremely boring and thank god @Chippycafc keeps coming back and @Missed It has made some reasonable comments recently. Many of us across the Uk will always have a different opinion to our friends families and others on this issue. The tories are divided as is labour. Lib dems are anonymous again and ukip are trying to influence the tories through the back door after their ludicrous but expected demise.
Next year I intend to visit Northern Ireland and cross the border to Eire. I also expect to visit France and Belgium amongst other Eu countries. I am not anticipating major change. There is going to be the almightiest fudge of fudges because despite the differences it makes sense for both parties.
The Eu should have recognised the underlying feeling that 17m reasonable British people had and made some accommodation to Cameron. They chose not too and ignored us. Let's get a sensible deal and move on.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
But, if we are to rely upon the Chicago Convention, Article 1, Section 5 of the AIr Services Transit Agreement would seem to offer the EU, if they wanted or felt they had to (I think neither is likely), in the event of a Brexit without any deal whatsoever, a remedy whereby the overflight rights could be rescinded (within the terms of the Agreement and Convention).
In the event of no deal, and without a reinstated internationally recognised testing and certification regime, the airline industry seems to be making the case that the immediate impact on UK aviation could be catastrophic (admittedly all, like myself, bar Michael O'Leary, believe such an outcome is unlikely - but, if no deal means absolutely no agreement about anything, it is possible).
Which brings me back to my original point. This is only difficult if people want to make it that way. If Russia can agree commercial overflight agreements with the USA, but the EU can't agree overflight rights with the UK things have come to a very sad state indeed.
The whole "nothing is agreed until everything agreed" is not helpful. It's not "A deal" they're negotiating. They should be treating it as 100s of deals covering a myriad of subjects. If there are 500 things to be agreed and you only manage 400 of them in the time available, do you honestly, sensibly throw the 400 agreements you've made out the window? That's what the EU are telling us. It's a negotiating tactic designed to exert maximum pressure and enforce their terms, not to meet an equitable outcome between supposed allies.
Who is moderating this thread? I think the people who read it and the people who post on it are entitled to a full explanation as to why Chippy is allowed to troll all over the thread everyday. He has been warned enough times. Can he be banned from posting on this thread? If it is a question of moderator time why not create a few more moderators for this thread who can monitor it and just delete every post he makes on it.
Are you having a fecking laugh. How balanced has this thread become? The vote was 52/48. It hasn't moved that much since if at all. Seth and his possee have hounded down any brexiter commentary. It has become extremely boring and thank god @Chippycafc keeps coming back and @Missed It has made some reasonable comments recently. Many of us across the Uk will always have a different opinion to our friends families and others on this issue. The tories are divided as is labour. Lib dems are anonymous again and ukip are trying to influence the tories through the back door after their ludicrous but expected demise.
Next year I intend to visit Northern Ireland and cross the border to Eire. I also expect to visit France and Belgium amongst other Eu countries. I am not anticipating major change. There is going to be the almightiest fudge of fudges because despite the differences it makes sense for both parties.
The Eu should have recognised the underlying feeling that 17m reasonable British people had and made some accommodation to Cameron. They chose not too and ignored us. Let's get a sensible deal and move on.
I do agree here. It was criminally reckless of Cameron to call the referendum to sort out an issue in his own party, but the EU failed to understand the threat immigration is to it, irrespective of the UK. By the way, he succeded in only making the problem worse within his party! I would argue that the EU did make some significant concessions, but ones that could be challenged by Brexiters. Again, Cameron went about seeking them in the wrong way - it was perceived that he caused the problem, and was looking for the EU for the solution to that problem! He was expected to go in threatening and demanding from them and they don't respond to these tactics favourably!
EU member states will have to respond to open borders when voters in their countries keep giving them bloody noses in elections. If they don't, they are playing in the hands of popularist Euro sceptics. It shouldn't have been the issue it was on paper to the UK. Figures prove that EU immigration benefits our economy, but it isn't just about figures. This country was seen as one with great opportunities to make money by Eastern Europeans and people walk down their high streets and heard/hear more foreign voices than English ones. The effect that has should never be underestimated, and if you are told how well we are doing, but you don't recognise it in your own life - I would argue for different reasons - although sometimes cheaper foreign workers can suppress wages in certain trades it isn't the issue it can be made out to be overall - the opportunity is there for opportunists with their own agendas.
If anybody in the EU still thinks that it is a solely British issue, they are not paying attention and necessity will mean they will have to impose some immigration controls in the near future. Whether it makes economic sense or not.
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
But, if we are to rely upon the Chicago Convention, Article 1, Section 5 of the AIr Services Transit Agreement would seem to offer the EU, if they wanted or felt they had to (I think neither is likely), in the event of a Brexit without any deal whatsoever, a remedy whereby the overflight rights could be rescinded (within the terms of the Agreement and Convention).
In the event of no deal, and without a reinstated internationally recognised testing and certification regime, the airline industry seems to be making the case that the immediate impact on UK aviation could be catastrophic (admittedly all, like myself, bar Michael O'Leary, believe such an outcome is unlikely - but, if no deal means absolutely no agreement about anything, it is possible).
Which brings me back to my original point. This is only difficult if people want to make it that way. If Russia can agree commercial overflight agreements with the USA, but the EU can't agree overflight rights with the UK things have come to a very sad state indeed.
The whole "nothing is agreed until everything agreed" is not helpful. It's not "A deal" they're negotiating. They should be treating it as 100s of deals covering a myriad of subjects. If there are 500 things to be agreed and you only manage 400 of them in the time available, do you honestly, sensibly throw the 400 agreements you've made out the window? That's what the EU are telling us. It's a negotiating tactic designed to exert maximum pressure and enforce their terms, not to meet an equitable outcome between supposed allies.
All I was pointing out was that, contrary to popular opinion, there was an argument to be made that Leo Varadkar, even if the most crass interpretation was placed on his comments, might not have been talking absolute shite, without foundation. If there were to be a particularly acrimonious split all sorts of unlikely things may come to pass.
Membership of the EU for the UK reflects hundreds of agreements made over the period of that membership, but there is only one exit deal, which takes into account all those agreements.
Equally, any trade deal (not just those with the EU) will encompass a whole range of issues, but in any trade deal, just one, if deemed sufficiently important, can crash the wider agreement. It's what almost happened with CETA, and is one of the reasons that comprehensive trade deals are so time-consuming to negotiate. States and supranational bodies negotiate portmanteau deals because they're quicker and more open to compromise than hundreds, or thousands, of individual agreements (the EU and Switzerland have agreed lots of bilateral deals, because the Swiss didn't want to join the EEA, but neither side would be willing to repeat the process, and the deals are much more fragile than the EEA).
The potential new relationship with the EU, which is to be signposted if an exit deal is agreed, will determine what is on the table, but both sides would prefer a comprehensive arrangement, with clearly defined rights, obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms - mostly because they are easier, both to agree and manage.
What the EU, from my reading of events have been saying is that a comprehensive agreement, either on the departure or, later, trade, must be comprehensive - hardly surprising, given that the EU is as much a legal construct as an economic one.
They want a deal, and have always said that they want a deal, just not on any terms. So, there is no desire to destroy EU structures, like the Single Market, to agree such a deal - they wouldn't do it if it was the USA, why would they for the UK?
The UK has said no to the four freedoms, the Customs Union and the Single Market; logically speaking, this determines the broad outline of the type of future relationship that can be agreed without dismantling structures that, in many ways, define the EU today.
Just as with Cameron, and his negotiations, it seems as if Mrs May expects that the EU will amend or even tear up its Treaties to suit HMG, without the formal processes associated with Treaty ratification.
Maybe, but seeing as Brexit is likely to have a negative impact on the wealth of Ireland, it is also understandable that Leo Varadkar might be even less accomodating towards us than others in the EU! Being totally peed off with us doesn't encourage people to be moderate or reasonable!
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
Re Article 6, that's what the International Air Services Transit Agreement is for. It's essentially a worldwide agreement with something like 130 signatories. Only a few countries and the usual awkward squad of Russia and China didn't join up. That's why the EU throwing their weight about over air transport does my head in. There's no need for it and it benefits nobody.
As for certification, does anybody think that come 29 March Rolls Royce and BA will fire all their qualified engineers and replace them with hammer wielding chimpanzees? There's absolutely no reason to cease recognition of existing Qs and treat the CAA like it somehow forgot to be a world leading aviation safety regulator overnight.
But, if we are to rely upon the Chicago Convention, Article 1, Section 5 of the AIr Services Transit Agreement would seem to offer the EU, if they wanted or felt they had to (I think neither is likely), in the event of a Brexit without any deal whatsoever, a remedy whereby the overflight rights could be rescinded (within the terms of the Agreement and Convention).
In the event of no deal, and without a reinstated internationally recognised testing and certification regime, the airline industry seems to be making the case that the immediate impact on UK aviation could be catastrophic (admittedly all, like myself, bar Michael O'Leary, believe such an outcome is unlikely - but, if no deal means absolutely no agreement about anything, it is possible).
Which brings me back to my original point. This is only difficult if people want to make it that way. If Russia can agree commercial overflight agreements with the USA, but the EU can't agree overflight rights with the UK things have come to a very sad state indeed.
The whole "nothing is agreed until everything agreed" is not helpful. It's not "A deal" they're negotiating. They should be treating it as 100s of deals covering a myriad of subjects. If there are 500 things to be agreed and you only manage 400 of them in the time available, do you honestly, sensibly throw the 400 agreements you've made out the window? That's what the EU are telling us. It's a negotiating tactic designed to exert maximum pressure and enforce their terms, not to meet an equitable outcome between supposed allies.
How many of the 100, 400 or 500 deals have been made in the 2 plus years since the vote?
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
That is nothing like what has happened though. It's more like you have pissed on the floor of the best pub of the two in town telling the landlord he's a prick, and got barred for your trouble. Now the only choice you have is to drink in the shit hole up the road that's more expensive. The landlord hasn't shot you, he's just excercised his right to ask you not to come back.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
Galileo and Euratom which nobody here knows nothing about, keep getting mentioned, those that do just concrete my views that they are google queens. Keep it up you are just making a bigger fool of yourself...
If nobody knows nothing then surely everybody knows something.
Having to research what they are and how they work (Google or other sources) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Another one who easily falls into the chipsters double talk...its usually fire from the hips, adequately named shooters and loopy lou, ie andy pandy, Cordy educate them.
I could google how corrupt is claude juncker, but i don't, get the meaning.
How will Brexit impact on the Heating and ventilation industry in which you are an expert. I presume you have looked at the risks and planned accordingly. Genuine question.
I wouldn't agree that Leave voters have been hounded off this thread - there have been some interesting contributions from people who are obviously well informed. It's the conspiracy theories about an EU superstate, endless slogan cliches and general incoherent nonsense that tend to get short shrift, and it's possible that association with this discourages many leave voters from contributing.
The accusation of being victimised doesn't stand up and it's this inability to accept responsibility and to try to shift it onto others instead which has left the UK in the position it finds itself in with the referendum and negotiations.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
All I was pointing out was that, contrary to popular opinion, there was an argument to be made that Leo Varadkar, even if the most crass interpretation was placed on his comments, might not have been talking absolute shite, without foundation. If there were to be a particularly acrimonious split all sorts of unlikely things may come to pass.
Membership of the EU for the UK reflects hundreds of agreements made over the period of that membership, but there is only one exit deal, which takes into account all those agreements.
Equally, any trade deal (not just those with the EU) will encompass a whole range of issues, but in any trade deal, just one, if deemed sufficiently important, can crash the wider agreement. It's what almost happened with CETA, and is one of the reasons that comprehensive trade deals are so time-consuming to negotiate. States and supranational bodies negotiate portmanteau deals because they're quicker and more open to compromise than hundreds, or thousands, of individual agreements (the EU and Switzerland have agreed lots of bilateral deals, because the Swiss didn't want to join the EEA, but neither side would be willing to repeat the process, and the deals are much more fragile than the EEA).
The potential new relationship with the EU, which is to be signposted if an exit deal is agreed, will determine what is on the table, but both sides would prefer a comprehensive arrangement, with clearly defined rights, obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms - mostly because they are easier, both to agree and manage.
What the EU, from my reading of events have been saying is that a comprehensive agreement, either on the departure or, later, trade, must be comprehensive - hardly surprising, given that the EU is as much a legal construct as an economic one.
They want a deal, and have always said that they want a deal, just not on any terms. So, there is no desire to destroy EU structures, like the Single Market, to agree such a deal - they wouldn't do it if it was the USA, why would they for the UK?
The UK has said no to the four freedoms, the Customs Union and the Single Market; logically speaking, this determines the broad outline of the type of future relationship that can be agreed without dismantling structures that, in many ways, define the EU today.
Just as with Cameron, and his negotiations, it seems as if Mrs May expects that the EU will amend or even tear up its Treaties to suit HMG, without the formal processes associated with Treaty ratification.
I think you've put a slightly charitable construction on Varadkar's comments. He's a politician, popular opinion is what it's all about, politicians don't make public statements just for a laugh. As Taoiseach he also has a responsibility for what he says, and on the face of it, what he said didn't stack up. Did he explain, clarify or justify any of it, or did he just run his mouth without thinking based on a half remembered briefing? If he's going to make a point, he should do his homework and make sure he gets it across properly. Not act like the EU's useful idiot and chuck out lazy threats that do nothing to help the negotiations. It's the sort of thing that's characterized the whole Brexit debate.
I take your point on the other stuff though. Where I work, we agree what needs to be agreed and wouldn't let non-agreed items derail those. Just park it and sort it later. I appreciate it's considerably more complicated than that. Like Mr Varadkar, I have oversimplified things.
I always tell myself to stay out of this thread as I get cross about the stupidity and mendacity of our politicians. Now I'm cross about a politician who isn't even ours! I'm off to depress myself with the takeover tread.
How many of the 100, 400 or 500 deals have been made in the 2 plus years since the vote?
As far as I can see, just the agreement for the UK to pay the EU £39bn. They need to pull their collective fingers out!
If by “deals” you mean trade deals with countries outside of the EU then none. We are unable to enter into trade negotiations because we are still members of the EU at present. We don’t have a clue on what terms we will be trading after we leave. WTO seems favourite unless some sort of rabbit is pulled out of May and Barniers respective hats.
Michel Barnier said the EU is prepared to offer Britain a unique Brexit deal.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator said the EU is prepared to offer a deal but would not permit anything that weakened the single market.
Mr Barnier said in a press conference this afternoon: "We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country,
"We respect Britain's red lines scrupulously. In return, they must respect what we are," he said. "Single market means single market ... There is no single market a la carte."
The announcement sparked a jump in the value of the pound.
It leapt almost 1% versus the dollar and euro to touch 1.300, a three-week high, and 1.111 respectively.
Michel Barnier said the EU is prepared to offer Britain a unique Brexit deal.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator said the EU is prepared to offer a deal but would not permit anything that weakened the single market.
Mr Barnier said in a press conference this afternoon: "We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country,
"We respect Britain's red lines scrupulously. In return, they must respect what we are," he said. "Single market means single market ... There is no single market a la carte."
The announcement sparked a jump in the value of the pound.
It leapt almost 1% versus the dollar and euro to touch 1.300, a three-week high, and 1.111 respectively.
Michel Barnier said the EU is prepared to offer Britain a unique Brexit deal.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator said the EU is prepared to offer a deal but would not permit anything that weakened the single market.
Mr Barnier said in a press conference this afternoon: "We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country,
"We respect Britain's red lines scrupulously. In return, they must respect what we are," he said. "Single market means single market ... There is no single market a la carte."
The announcement sparked a jump in the value of the pound.
It leapt almost 1% versus the dollar and euro to touch 1.300, a three-week high, and 1.111 respectively.
Comments
On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank(ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors.[4][5] No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected.[6][7]
Nearly one third of Rossiya Bank's cash ($1 billion) was frozen in Cypriot accounts during this crisis.[8]
Did the EU cause the earlier Icelandic crisis and the Global crash in 2008 or was it poorly regulated greedy banks?
Criticism
Irish MEP Nessa Childers, daughter of the country's former President Erskine H. Childers, painted a bleak picture. She described the efforts of the EU-IMF as an "incompetent mess" and said the Eurozone was more destabilised as a result.[23]
In its Schumpeter blog The Economist called the Cyprus bail-out unfair, short-sighted and self-defeating.[24]
Specifically the article says
The Cypriot deal has no coherence in the larger context. The euro crisis has been in abeyance for a few months, thanks largely to the readiness of the European Central Bank to intervene to help struggling countries. The ECB's price for helping countries is to insist they go into a bail-out programme. The political price of going into a programme has just gone up, so the ECB's safety net looks a little thinner.
The bail-out appears to move Europe further away from the institutional reforms that are needed to resolve the crisis once and for all. Rather than using the European Stability Mechanism to recapitalise banks, and thereby weaken the link between banks and their governments, the euro zone continues to equate bank bail-outs with sovereign bail-outs. As for debt mutualisation, after imposing losses on local depositors, the price of support from the rest of Europe is arguably costlier now than it ever has been.
Dr. Jeffrey Stacey wrote in Germany's Der Spiegel, under the headline "'Abject Error': How the Cyprus Deal Hurts EU Strategic Interests":[25]
In strategic terms the EU hurt not only Cyprus and itself, but also the interests of the US and other allies in the West. Europe pushed Cyprus directly into the arms of the Russian government. Not only did this hurt the prospects for its own deal, but it gave leverage to Moscow in the process.
More important still, however, by forcing Anastasiades between the rock of a forced bank levy and the hard place of seeking assistance from Moscow, the EU seriously undermined him domestically precisely when the West was about to reap the benefits at long last of a fairly pro-Western Cypriot president, crucially necessary to overcome sour relations with Turkey that continue to undermine NATO relations, EU relations, NATO-EU relations, and US relations with both. To top it all off, a peace deal along the lines of the Annan Plan for a final resolution of the 40-year-old Cypriot divide – the prospects for which had improved with the election of Anastasiades – has seen its prospects diminished.
Economist Richard D. Wolff commented in an interview in relation to the Cyprus bailout agreement as follows:[26]
This is blackmail. This is basically the officials of the banks and the political leaders going to the mass of people and saying to them, "This awful deal that makes you, who have nothing to do with the crisis and didn't get any bailout, pay the costs of the crisis and the bailout. You must do this, because if you don't, we will do even more damage to you and your economy. So give us your deposits, give us your money, pay more taxes, suffer fewer social programs, because if you don't, we will impose even worse on you." It's the basic idea of austerity across the board and in our country, too. And I think it's the confrontation of a system that does not work with the mass of the people, saying, "We will go down and take you with us, unless you bail us out."
For the third and final time. Fellow remainers why do you bother reading or responding to anything that Chippy writes, it really isn't worth it.
In the event of no deal, and without a reinstated internationally recognised testing and certification regime, the airline industry seems to be making the case that the immediate impact on UK aviation could be catastrophic (admittedly all, like myself, bar Michael O'Leary, believe such an outcome is unlikely - but, if no deal means absolutely no agreement about anything, it is possible).
Next year I intend to visit Northern Ireland and cross the border to Eire. I also expect to visit France and Belgium amongst other Eu countries. I am not anticipating major change. There is going to be the almightiest fudge of fudges because despite the differences it makes sense for both parties.
The Eu should have recognised the underlying feeling that 17m reasonable British people had and made some accommodation to Cameron. They chose not too and ignored us. Let's get a sensible deal and move on.
The whole "nothing is agreed until everything agreed" is not helpful. It's not "A deal" they're negotiating. They should be treating it as 100s of deals covering a myriad of subjects. If there are 500 things to be agreed and you only manage 400 of them in the time available, do you honestly, sensibly throw the 400 agreements you've made out the window? That's what the EU are telling us. It's a negotiating tactic designed to exert maximum pressure and enforce their terms, not to meet an equitable outcome between supposed allies.
The pound strengthened today on the hope, I believe, of a bespoke deal.
EU member states will have to respond to open borders when voters in their countries keep giving them bloody noses in elections. If they don't, they are playing in the hands of popularist Euro sceptics. It shouldn't have been the issue it was on paper to the UK. Figures prove that EU immigration benefits our economy, but it isn't just about figures. This country was seen as one with great opportunities to make money by Eastern Europeans and people walk down their high streets and heard/hear more foreign voices than English ones. The effect that has should never be underestimated, and if you are told how well we are doing, but you don't recognise it in your own life - I would argue for different reasons - although sometimes cheaper foreign workers can suppress wages in certain trades it isn't the issue it can be made out to be overall - the opportunity is there for opportunists with their own agendas.
If anybody in the EU still thinks that it is a solely British issue, they are not paying attention and necessity will mean they will have to impose some immigration controls in the near future. Whether it makes economic sense or not.
Membership of the EU for the UK reflects hundreds of agreements made over the period of that membership, but there is only one exit deal, which takes into account all those agreements.
Equally, any trade deal (not just those with the EU) will encompass a whole range of issues, but in any trade deal, just one, if deemed sufficiently important, can crash the wider agreement. It's what almost happened with CETA, and is one of the reasons that comprehensive trade deals are so time-consuming to negotiate. States and supranational bodies negotiate portmanteau deals because they're quicker and more open to compromise than hundreds, or thousands, of individual agreements (the EU and Switzerland have agreed lots of bilateral deals, because the Swiss didn't want to join the EEA, but neither side would be willing to repeat the process, and the deals are much more fragile than the EEA).
The potential new relationship with the EU, which is to be signposted if an exit deal is agreed, will determine what is on the table, but both sides would prefer a comprehensive arrangement, with clearly defined rights, obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms - mostly because they are easier, both to agree and manage.
What the EU, from my reading of events have been saying is that a comprehensive agreement, either on the departure or, later, trade, must be comprehensive - hardly surprising, given that the EU is as much a legal construct as an economic one.
They want a deal, and have always said that they want a deal, just not on any terms. So, there is no desire to destroy EU structures, like the Single Market, to agree such a deal - they wouldn't do it if it was the USA, why would they for the UK?
The UK has said no to the four freedoms, the Customs Union and the Single Market; logically speaking, this determines the broad outline of the type of future relationship that can be agreed without dismantling structures that, in many ways, define the EU today.
Just as with Cameron, and his negotiations, it seems as if Mrs May expects that the EU will amend or even tear up its Treaties to suit HMG, without the formal processes associated with Treaty ratification.
The accusation of being victimised doesn't stand up and it's this inability to accept responsibility and to try to shift it onto others instead which has left the UK in the position it finds itself in with the referendum and negotiations.
How many of the 100, 400 or 500 deals have been made in the 2 plus years since the vote?
As far as I can see, just the agreement for the UK to pay the EU £39bn. They need to pull their collective fingers out!
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
All I was pointing out was that, contrary to popular opinion, there was an argument to be made that Leo Varadkar, even if the most crass interpretation was placed on his comments, might not have been talking absolute shite, without foundation. If there were to be a particularly acrimonious split all sorts of unlikely things may come to pass.
Membership of the EU for the UK reflects hundreds of agreements made over the period of that membership, but there is only one exit deal, which takes into account all those agreements.
Equally, any trade deal (not just those with the EU) will encompass a whole range of issues, but in any trade deal, just one, if deemed sufficiently important, can crash the wider agreement. It's what almost happened with CETA, and is one of the reasons that comprehensive trade deals are so time-consuming to negotiate. States and supranational bodies negotiate portmanteau deals because they're quicker and more open to compromise than hundreds, or thousands, of individual agreements (the EU and Switzerland have agreed lots of bilateral deals, because the Swiss didn't want to join the EEA, but neither side would be willing to repeat the process, and the deals are much more fragile than the EEA).
The potential new relationship with the EU, which is to be signposted if an exit deal is agreed, will determine what is on the table, but both sides would prefer a comprehensive arrangement, with clearly defined rights, obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms - mostly because they are easier, both to agree and manage.
What the EU, from my reading of events have been saying is that a comprehensive agreement, either on the departure or, later, trade, must be comprehensive - hardly surprising, given that the EU is as much a legal construct as an economic one.
They want a deal, and have always said that they want a deal, just not on any terms. So, there is no desire to destroy EU structures, like the Single Market, to agree such a deal - they wouldn't do it if it was the USA, why would they for the UK?
The UK has said no to the four freedoms, the Customs Union and the Single Market; logically speaking, this determines the broad outline of the type of future relationship that can be agreed without dismantling structures that, in many ways, define the EU today.
Just as with Cameron, and his negotiations, it seems as if Mrs May expects that the EU will amend or even tear up its Treaties to suit HMG, without the formal processes associated with Treaty ratification.
I think you've put a slightly charitable construction on Varadkar's comments. He's a politician, popular opinion is what it's all about, politicians don't make public statements just for a laugh. As Taoiseach he also has a responsibility for what he says, and on the face of it, what he said didn't stack up. Did he explain, clarify or justify any of it, or did he just run his mouth without thinking based on a half remembered briefing? If he's going to make a point, he should do his homework and make sure he gets it across properly. Not act like the EU's useful idiot and chuck out lazy threats that do nothing to help the negotiations. It's the sort of thing that's characterized the whole Brexit debate.
I take your point on the other stuff though. Where I work, we agree what needs to be agreed and wouldn't let non-agreed items derail those. Just park it and sort it later. I appreciate it's considerably more complicated than that. Like Mr Varadkar, I have oversimplified things.
I always tell myself to stay out of this thread as I get cross about the stupidity and mendacity of our politicians. Now I'm cross about a politician who isn't even ours! I'm off to depress myself with the takeover tread.
Looking good for business and more importantly employment post Madex.
Never mind I’ll just buy my next TV from a British manufacturer.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator said the EU is prepared to offer a deal but would not permit anything that weakened the single market.
Mr Barnier said in a press conference this afternoon: "We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country,
"We respect Britain's red lines scrupulously. In return, they must respect what we are," he said. "Single market means single market ... There is no single market a la carte."
The announcement sparked a jump in the value of the pound.
It leapt almost 1% versus the dollar and euro to touch 1.300, a three-week high, and 1.111 respectively.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/value-of-the-pound-leaps-as-barnier-says-eu-is-ready-to-offer-britain-a-brexit-deal/ar-BBMC7k7?li=AA54rU