His crime was saying it as it was. Its the new diplomacy...Its a new world order starting...
Last edited:
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The UK had an entirely satisfactory airworthiness regime under our own CAA rules. Since EASA had become involved, airworthiness procedures have become unnecessarily complicated leading to an increase in airworthiness costs of over 300%. EASA have added nothing to airworthiness in terms of safety.
The net result of EASA's involvement is to drive people out aviation, particularly in the private and leisure sector.
I am not familiar with India's aviation governing body. However, if aircraft originating from and maintained in India are allowed to fly over towns and cities all over the world, their maintenance procedures must be subjected to scrutiny and have achieve a standard. Their national carrier, Air India, fly into major cities all over the world, so this is further evidence that their safety standards are satisfactory.
I think what Jacob Reed Mogg was suggesting is that it is possible to achieve a satisfactory safety standard without unnecessary expense and complication. We in the U.K. were able to do this very well prior to EASA's involvement. Many other countries / aircraft owners used to register their aircraft in the U.K. because of our efficient systems. That has all changed now thanks to the EU and EASA.
Last edited:
Dave I absolutely agree with you. Any country needs power to devalue its currency to help competitiveness, its exactly the problem with Greece...
Do you really think we could stay in EU indefinitely without adopting euro? I doubt it.
It won't have when the tax dodgers leave will it[emoji1]
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Oh, so you now agree its not right tax dodgers have found a haven on Luxembourg. Seems you thought it fine whilst they had them ( Juhnkers initiated change in policy to attract them). but when we change to attract them its not on. Hypocritical or what OG.
And BTW my complaint wasn't the low business tax in Luxembourg, it was policies stopping any other eu countries doing same. The mere fact many are in Luxembourg is costing rest of EU billions. I said last week Trump would not tolerate the lost 95 billion dollars(2012 figure) from American companies allegedly centred in Luxembourg so utilising their low tax levels. Said last week it couldn't last. Flecc and you took exception at my targeting Juhnkers and Luxembourg..Somebody else is now..
( Juhnkers is the way Tom likes to spell it)
Last edited:
Why not,we have functioned perfectly well for many years outside of the Euro,there is no pressure on us to become part of the Euro.
KudosDave
You have more faith than I do Dave. Another few changes of government, we almost joined originally...If we leave we cant.
Anyhow think we,ll know a bit more of likely direction post Sleaford result..
Last edited:
Once again you are way off target, I have never mentioned Luxembourg before that last post and expressed any opinion on it.
But don't let that stop you inventing something to justify your rants against it, will you?
Go right ahead, as usual making your own version of reality and populating it with flights of fancy.
As usual you tried to make something out of the situation that wasn't there, and then implied approval of their action in coming here with this line
"With second highest gdp per head in world ? Why not ?"
lets see now, according to Statistics Times the UK is has the 5th highest gdp and Luxembourg the 74th, so what on earth is that outburst supposed to mean?
As now you are clearly cheering because these Tax avoidng parasites are relocating?
How odd, and desperate if that's how low we have to go to scrape a living after Brexit.
You so obviously wanted them out of Luxembourg on moral grounds but happily welcome them here?
Our low business Tax rates simply rip off the Taxpayer to subsidise swindlers like these and you approve?
No wonder the EU fingered them is there?
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
New World order?more like a local Mafia setting up shop in a third world slum.
"Sleaford Result
Caroline Johnson (Cons) 17,570 (53.51%, -2.68%)
Victoria Ayling (Ukip) 4,426 (13.48%, -2.21%)
Ross Pepper (Lib Dem) 3,606 (10.98%, +5.33%)
Jim Clarke (Lab) 3,363 (10.24%, -7.02%)
Marianne Overton (Lincs Ind) 2,892 (8.81%, +3.59%)
Sarah Stock (Ind) 462 (1.41%)
The Iconic Arty-Pole (Loony) 200 (0.61%)
Paul Coyne (ND) 186 (0.57%)
Mark Suffield (ND) 74 (0.23%)
David Bishop (BP Elvis) 55 (0.17%)
Cons maj 13,144 (40.03%)
Electorate 88,712; Turnout 32,834 (37.01%, minus 33.23%)
The Tories inevitably won
Labour failed miserably as expected.
UKIP made no bigger an impression that the last time
And are endangered by a rise in popularity of the Lib DEms
The turnout was abysmal way, way down
Quite obviously apathy has set in with the electorate for such a fall in turnout.
No UKIP Breakthrough there when they actually lost support
The lib Dems gained 5%
Bit by bit Support for Brexit is fading away.
33% who voted at the General Election had lost interest.
And in a Tory heartland couldn't bring themselves to vote for anything, and seemingly just hope it will all go away?
Well there is good news for Saint Teresa, as from now on she can discount the UKIP as being a threat as they failed utterly to attract Tory Voters, and frankly the Labour Party are irrelevant anyway, which is hardly news is it?
She now has to watch out for the Lib Dems.
Caroline Johnson (Cons) 17,570 (53.51%, -2.68%)
Victoria Ayling (Ukip) 4,426 (13.48%, -2.21%)
Ross Pepper (Lib Dem) 3,606 (10.98%, +5.33%)
Jim Clarke (Lab) 3,363 (10.24%, -7.02%)
Marianne Overton (Lincs Ind) 2,892 (8.81%, +3.59%)
Sarah Stock (Ind) 462 (1.41%)
The Iconic Arty-Pole (Loony) 200 (0.61%)
Paul Coyne (ND) 186 (0.57%)
Mark Suffield (ND) 74 (0.23%)
David Bishop (BP Elvis) 55 (0.17%)
Cons maj 13,144 (40.03%)
Electorate 88,712; Turnout 32,834 (37.01%, minus 33.23%)
The Tories inevitably won
Labour failed miserably as expected.
UKIP made no bigger an impression that the last time
And are endangered by a rise in popularity of the Lib DEms
The turnout was abysmal way, way down
Quite obviously apathy has set in with the electorate for such a fall in turnout.
No UKIP Breakthrough there when they actually lost support
The lib Dems gained 5%
Bit by bit Support for Brexit is fading away.
33% who voted at the General Election had lost interest.
And in a Tory heartland couldn't bring themselves to vote for anything, and seemingly just hope it will all go away?
Well there is good news for Saint Teresa, as from now on she can discount the UKIP as being a threat as they failed utterly to attract Tory Voters, and frankly the Labour Party are irrelevant anyway, which is hardly news is it?
She now has to watch out for the Lib Dems.
Last edited:
The two parties which support BREXIT, Conservative and UKIP, between them took 67% of the vote. A very clear endorsement of the EU referendum result and certainly more meaningful than Richmond.
I am very pleased to see the Liberal Democrats and Labour squeezed into insignificance in 3rd and 4th place respectively. Well done to UKIP on their continuing journey towards glory.
Nice try but as usual way off target, look art the figures again 30% less turnout and reduced majorities, and you see that as increased support?
Great Joke!
Brexit can't afford too many victories as damaging as that one.
The UKIP has failed to take away any conservative supporters, which makes the referendum even more of a joke as it was an unnecessary ploy against a none threat.
And their party of no consequence whatever.
When viewed from you position on reality.
OG, nothing can be read into the reduced turn out because the reality is that we do not know how those people would have voted. They may have lost interest in BREXIT, as you suggest, or they may be content with the referendum result and have faith that democracy will prevail. We simply do not know. That is reality, anything more is wishful thinking, whichever way we look at it.
One hard fact is that 67% of the people who did vote still support political parties committed to BREXIT. That is all that we can take from the numbers. Anything else requires guess work as to why people didn't vote and how they would have voted had they done so. You do not have the answers to those questions. You might think that you do, but you most certainly do not.
Once again, I have never at any time said that those who didn't vote were necessarily Remain voters, that is simply the way you have attempted to spin the argument.
What I have said and this is indisputable is that they are NOT committed to it.
Therefore it follows like night follows day that a reduction in turn out cannot be seen as anything other than indifference, and as the support of the Parties who are in favour of Brexit have fallen in percentage terms, and the one against it raised.
You lose your case. "Get over it" as the popular saying goes.
It isn't a case of my opinion, but hard facts.
the elephant in the room, to state the obvious, is whether we revert to WTO rules (i.e. hard brexit). I suspect the electorate may not be that different from the business community in being in wait and see mode
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37592866
with a submarine may hoping she can play hide and seek until it's all fudged away
I disagree.
The reasons why a person didn't turn out to vote are many, but the main reasons can be classed as:
1) Because this a by election feel that it is not as important is a general election.
2) Content that BREXIT will happen so no requirement to vote.
3) Content that we will not leave the EU, therefore voting is pointless.
4) Fed up with the whole situation, leave or remain, so disengaged.
You are making the assumption that 3 & 4 are the reasons. That a person did not vote because they no longer support BREXIT. You can not and should not make that assumption.
I do not know why fewer people voted and neither do you, but we both know that 67% of those who did vote, supported a party who's stated aim is to take us out of the EU.
And inside that envelope, UKIP failed to make any perceptible impression on the Tory vote, or are you maintaining it did?
And the lib Dems didn't increase their vote because people liked the cut of their Jib?
Sorry tillson lower support levels by 30%, losses to the party opposed to Brexit, and the UKIP not Damaging the Tories either in fact losing support only beating the none existant Labour Party, (Pro Brexit too remember) and the lid Dems even you can't make a silk purse out of that Sows Ear