Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 02-11-2017 11:01AM

Good morning!

Last post for today.

On the ownership front, I think it's an entirely reasonable rule in respect to the EU.

Simply put, these airlines can insist that UK and other shareholders sell enough shares to make the magic number of 51%. As you say already, foreign entities are already limited in respect to their shareholding of airlines.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zerbini Blewitt · 02-11-2017 11:43AM

I have yet to see an EU-sceptic (from any of the EU28) whose scepticism doesn’t show some element of glaring, wilful ignorance of the EU or the reasons why it has come to operate the way it does (or for example why the idea of a true federal superstate is a minority opinion that doesn’t have & will never have enough support at national government(s) level).

It’s interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be a commonly used label for someone who criticises the EU while representing it accurately!

Zubeneschamali · 02-11-2017 11:58AM

Calina wrote: »

Clearly you aren't protected against the risks faced by Britain as a whole

Of course he is. If it all goes tits up in the UK, solo can move anywhere in the EU to work with his nice EU passport.

This is why tens of thousands of UK citizens have been applying for Irish passports since this all kicked off.

demfad · 02-11-2017 12:02PM

Bad day for Brexit, yesterday.

The Commons unanimously passed a motion to release the 58 impact reports on Brexit.
Arron Banks investigated about the source of his £2.5 donations to Brexit groups. (He is already under investigation for his leave.eu donations)*
Fallon resigns thus weakening cabinet.

* Banks is already part of the Trump-Russia investigation:

The business tycoon has already been asked to supply information to the Senate judiciary committee investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential contest.

Now he claims he has been “tipped off” by the US authorities that he will be called to give evidence to the committee under threat of subpoena, which means he could be barred from America if he fails to attend.

** On Sky News yesterday Banks said "My only involvement with the Russians was a six hour lunch with the Russian ambassador. I had a great time." He declined to mention the Russian in question was a contact mentioned in the indictment paper of Trump campaign aide Papadopoulos, and in the Steele dossier.

ArthurDayne · 02-11-2017 12:12PM

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

I have yet to see an EU-sceptic (from any of the EU28) whose scepticism doesn’t show some element of glaring, wilful ignorance of the EU or the reasons why it has come to operate the way it does (or for example why the idea of a true federal superstate is a minority opinion that doesn’t have & will never have enough support at national government(s) level).

It’s interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be a commonly used label for someone who criticises the EU while representing it accurately!

Indeed -- and in truth, Eurosceptic is probably a better term for those who criticise the EU but represent it accurately. In a sense, we should all be Eurosceptics in the same way we should all be sceptical of our national governments. Criticism and challenge against the Irish government by the Irish people for example are healthy, democratic and indeed patriotic exercises. They do not automatically render someone anti-Ireland. There are many criticisms in respect of the EU that I would agree with and as EU citizens we should all educate ourselves on the strengths and flaws of the union -- and always be willing to be healthily sceptical on a rational/evidential basis.

The problem is that the Eurosceptic label has been adopted by those who could better be described as Eurocynics, or worse Europhobics. They point out the flaws of the EU, sometimes compellingly / correctly, but they advocate the flamethrower approach to weeding the garden. In many cases they successfully divert the whole nebulous strata of society's fears and frustrations into the responsibility of the EU and, following a tradition tried & tested throughout the centuries, encourage people to simply blame faceless foreigners -- whether the 'Brussels bureaucrats' or the immigrant population.

Perhaps there is something to be said for those of us who are pro-EU trying to reclaim the 'Eurosceptic' label and affirm that it is perfectly OK to support the EU but not consider it beyond reproach or reformation.

Leonard Hofstadter · 02-11-2017 12:32PM

I don't know if I'm a massive fan of the EU, in so far as I think it's far from perfect and I completely resent the attempts to erode our sovereignty by trying to force our hand on taxation.

I used to resent the fact we don't have control of our own currency, I always thought was a major mistake to abandon the punt as our biggest trading partners traditionally are the UK and US, the Euro has been weak when we needed a strong currency and vice-versa, it's only since Brexit that I've felt the Euro's value has been at the right level for a fast growing economy like ours. But with Brexit and the decreasing importance of the UK as a trading partner I'm less against it than I used to be and having the common currency is so handy going abroad, it's one thing I really miss as a UK resident.

The EU has completely transformed the wealth and prosperity of Ireland, it has made us much more socially liberal and there's all the benefits of free movement and the single market, one of the EU's crowning achievements (ironically done by the Tories under Mrs T), not to mention all the free trade deals we currently have not to mention the upcoming talks with Australia, India etc.

There is no way we could possibly have come on as a country if it wasn't for the EU, and besides, we haven't exactly excelled at self Government as our tendency to vote for FF despite everything shows.

So, on balance, the EU is overwhelmingly good for us and the advantages more than outweigh the disadvantages for me. The advantages for the UK are perhaps less strong than for us as they are a much bigger economy but it is still much better for the long term health of the UK to stay in the EU or at least for the short term seek the closest possible relationship, such as staying in the single market or at the very least, the customs union.

Lemming · 02-11-2017 02:25PM

murphaph wrote: »

I just hope for your sake that they don't come up with any more crazy ideas. They might find there are too many Irish there in a few years and make you become British and surrender your other citizenships. A quick read of the comments section of the Express reveals no end of British nationalists who think dual citizenship should be banned so people are forced to be British or get lost.

I'm still reading the posts just after this, but I'll point this out now given there has been much made of solo's privileged position in British law. There are not just Daily Fail/Express/Hate readers who want to end dual citizenship, but there are also members of the Lords (and I should imagine it wouldn't be too hard to find similar in Parliament) who want to scrap the privilege conferred upon Irish nationals as part of the CTA, namely automatic right to stay, vote, etc.

That cosy privilege might not end up being so cosy if such people manage to find a louder mouthpiece amonst the rag-media and ergo political traction on the matter.

A cynic might even find it credible to imagine a return to "no blacks, no dogs, no irish" malarky of old once all the other EU nationals have been "encouraged" to leave. After all, old habits die hard and racism most certainly appears alive and well in the UK these days.

A Dub in Glasgo · 02-11-2017 02:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

To be fair it's a silly question isn't it? You're effectively asking if I would become stateless to satisfy a silly what if scenario.

I'm entitled to be both Irish and support delivering Brexit as the British electorate voted for in 2016.

No, it is a perfectly legitimate question. I am working on the assumption that you would qualify, through residency, British citizenship therefore stateless is not the reason. Putting your money where your mouth is would mean you do not avail of a privilege that you want to deny to others in a similar situation to yourself

The bit in bold says it all really

LeinsterDub · 02-11-2017 03:35PM

"Would he look seriously at this so that British workers - particularly perhaps younger British workers - would have the opportunity to go and work in the European Union without a visa certainly for a limited, if not extended, period of time?

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1102/916964-brexit/

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but isn't the quid pro quo of this agreement is that EU citizens have the same opportunity?

So much for taking back control of their border.
You would assume the ECJ would involved in dispute settlements here.
The UK would have no veto in a future case of Turkish entry for example. They would be left with 2 options, accept Turks as now European citizens or withdraw from the agreement.

Professor Moriarty · 02-11-2017 03:49PM

This is a very important development. The research contains dozens of reports/forecasts on various aspects of Brexit - especially economic implications. While the government, understandably, is very reluctant to publish - they claim that it's because it would negatively affect their negotiating position - the real reason is that it almost certainly contains dire predictions. So they are hoisted by their own petard of lying to the electorate. Already the Tories are putting as many stumbling blocks as they can on the path to publishing but the research will be published soon.

There is an interesting side issue in all of this. The motion forcing the publication was passed unanimously. This is because the government is so afraid of being defeated by rebels that they didn't allow it go to a vote - so it went through unopposed. This is happening at an increasing rate.

One of the rebels that they are afraid of, Anna Soubry, put their dilemma regarding the research and the vote very succinctly:

The implication is quite clear: there’s something in them that’s not to be disclosed because it might prick this golden bubble, this balloon, of the promised land of Brexit.

With friends like this...

murphaph · 02-11-2017 03:59PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1102/916964-brexit/

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but isn't the quid pro quo of this agreement is that EU citizens have the same opportunity?
So much for taking back control of their border.

You would assume the ECJ would involved in dispute settlements here.

The UK would have no veto in a future case of Turkish entry for example. They would be left with 2 options, accept Turks as not European citizens or withdraw from the agreement.

It was the UK by the way that started agitating for Turkish entry to the EU. Germany is perfectly happy with things the way they are.

ambro25 · 02-11-2017 04:29PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is a very important development. <...>

It is, but I am wary of the apparent absence of a deadline, and the latitude apparently given to HMG to 'doctor' the reports for (allegedly-) preserving the national interest.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this release spun sufficiently to turn the affair into another Iraq/45-minutes dossier, with the actual truth/scale/info that really matters kept safely under wraps until the inevitable Parliamentary enquiry in 10 years' time.

Or maybe Leavers' consistent bad faith (and the free pass which the British public opinion seemingly gives them about it) has just turned me far too cynical.

Professor Moriarty · 02-11-2017 05:18PM

ambro25 wrote: »

It is, but I am wary of the apparent absence of a deadline, and the latitude apparently given to HMG to 'doctor' the reports for (allegedly-) preserving the national interest.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see this release spun sufficiently to turn the affair into another Iraq/45-minutes dossier, with the actual truth/scale/info that really matters kept safely under wraps until the inevitable Parliamentary enquiry in 10 years' time.

Or maybe Leavers' consistent bad faith (and the free pass which the British public opinion seemingly gives them about it) has just turned me far too cynical.

Reading about the vote, I do think the research will be published though it will be dragged out. Probably as important as the content, is the fact that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tory Remainers have a big stick to beat the government with until they are published. From now on, they will speculate as to the appalling vistas they contain and how the Tories are afraid to publish them for party political reasons. Basically, the Tories will now be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Cookie_Monster · 02-11-2017 09:10PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Simply put, these airlines can insist that UK and other shareholders sell enough shares to make the magic number of 51%

how do you suppose they can insist exactly?

Aristotle145 · 02-11-2017 09:57PM

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

MollsGap · 02-11-2017 10:00PM

A German Finance colleague of mine is full sure that Brexit will never happen. Was shocked by his statement but considering how well he has done in business for himself I find it hard ever find him wrong

Professor Moriarty · 02-11-2017 10:25PM

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

Is that all? Peanuts. They should be spending a lot more on humanitarian grounds. Tax a few Tory party donors properly.

Christy42 · 02-11-2017 10:47PM

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

365 million a year? That it? Less than that given you said almost so let's call it 350 million. So basically a week's worth of the money that nus was promising the NHS.

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

A Dub in Glasgo · 02-11-2017 11:05PM

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

FFS, spending 0.046% of UK government spending on housing and feeding asylum seekers is causing the finest example of self harm by a country in decades!!!! Go back to the Express and Mail sites

First Up · 02-11-2017 11:12PM

Christy42 wrote:

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

It is money already allocated to the UK's foreign aid budget. It is just being diverted from aid projects in Africa, Asia etc to dealing with refugees in the UK.

Germany has done something similar. Money allocated to development projects overseas is being used in help refugees in Germany.

LeinsterDub · 02-11-2017 11:24PM

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

You're aware that non of those claiming asylum are from Europe?

solodeogloria · 03-11-2017 08:33AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how do you suppose they can insist exactly?

Good morning!

Very simply. Explain to shareholders the consequences and ask people to come forward and sell shares to those in the EU.

If that doesn't happen hold an AGM to issue more shares to be sold to other parties in the EU, thus reducing the share of shares held by other parties. If it is under threat of fines by the EU then you'd imagine the other shareholders would vote for this at an extraordinary AGM.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 03-11-2017 08:48AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Very simply. Explain to shareholders the consequences and ask people to come forward and sell shares to those in the EU.

If that doesn't happen hold an AGM to issue more shares to be sold to other parties in the EU, thus reducing the share of shares held by other parties. If it is under threat of fines by the EU then you'd imagine the other shareholders would vote for this at an extraordinary AGM.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, solo, I don't know that they can. In general a listed company is not allowed to impose any restrictions on the holding, transfer, etc of its shares. If you hold shares in a UK airline, you can sell them to whoever you like, or keep them yourself, whichever you choose. There is nothing the airline can do to change this. And if the airline issues new shares, anyone can subscribe for them. Similarly if the airline buys back existing shares from shareholders, the same buyback terms must apply to all shareholders.

Most likely (unless a Brexit deal is made which allows the UK to participate in the Aviation Area, which is unlikely unless May is prepared for some pinkening of her red lines) affected UK airlines will have to demerge, splitting into two companies, or selling off a large chunk of their businesses and networks to EU airlines. Or they could just allow themselves to be taken over by EU airlines. But (a) that requires shareholder consent, and (b) it also depends to some extent on the UK's internal aviation market remaining open to EU-owned airlines, which is not something that could be taken for granted.

murphaph · 03-11-2017 08:54AM

Indeed. Luckily for Ryanair it is still cash rich enough to buy back shares to ensure it is majority EU owned before Brexit.

I see nothing but a big contraction of the UK aviation sector if no deal is reached. Brexit just keeps on giving.

I have a sneaking suspicion Dublin airport will be a big winner in all this though.

03-11-2017 10:28AM

I heard an interview with someone from Ryanair I think who mentioned that there was a clause in the companies constitution allowing them to force people to sell shares to maintain the nationality of the company.

LIMITATIONS ON SHARE OWNERSHIP BY NON-EU NATIONALS The Board of ...
PDF https://investor.ryanair.com › 2015/04

Peregrinus · 03-11-2017 10:37AM

OK. I think the must have obtained a stock exchange dispensation to include this; SFAIK it wouldn't normally be allowed.

It doesn't really answer the objections, though. Essentially, if the UK is carved out of the European Aviation Area, EU airlines won't be treated as domestic in the UK, and UK airlines won't be treated as domestic in the rest of the Area. This means that an airline will have to give up either its UK domestic network or its rest-of-area network. By changing ownership, they can choose which of them they give up, but they still have to give up one.

And, either way, this results in a destruction of value. Suppose they hold on to their rest-of-Area network; the value of this is diminished because it no longer extend to internal UK. The Rome-Paris-London-Edinburgh flight now only flies Rome-Paris-London, and misses out on the custom that patronised it because of the Edinburgh leg. So they have to give up their internal UK network, and they get to keep the balance of their network but its less valuable because it doesn't integrate with the internal UK business the way it used to.

This, of course,will be reflected in the share price that the UK shareholders can secure when they are forced to sell their shares. And in the market value of the shares retained by the EU shareholders. And it's going to affect travellers, for whom flight options will be fewer, or more expensive, or both.

It's not the only way in which airlines will be adversely affected. It hasn't happened yet, but already Monarch has collapsed, due to the falling pound (a consequence of the Brexit vote) driving up their fuel costs and driving down their bookings (fewer Britons holidaying abroad).

solodeogloria · 03-11-2017 10:48AM

Good morning!

Again - how much of domestic air traffic (e.g London to Edinburgh) is actually handled by non-British airlines in the UK? I couldn't imagine a great amount.

It isn't an insurmountable issue. There's still scope for some form of agreement if that is desired but it really isn't a headline issue. Airlines will deal with circumstances that regulate intra-EU travel and domestic UK flights.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007 · 03-11-2017 10:53AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is that all? Peanuts. They should be spending a lot more on humanitarian grounds. Tax a few Tory party donors properly.

Christy42 wrote: »

365 million a year? That it? Less than that given you said almost so let's call it 350 million. So basically a week's worth of the money that nus was promising the NHS.

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

FFS, spending 0.046% of UK government spending on housing and feeding asylum seekers is causing the finest example of self harm by a country in decades!!!! Go back to the Express and Mail sites

Look at the poster's history, best ingnored.

murphaph · 03-11-2017 11:22AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - how much of domestic air traffic (e.g London to Edinburgh) is actually handled by non-British airlines in the UK? I couldn't imagine a great amount.

Eh...all Ryanair flights and the BA ones are not really clear because IAG is a European company registered in Madrid. I'm not sure of the ownership breakdown but I suspect BA would need to split out from IAG, leaving Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vuelling as European airlines. Somehow.

But your post is just more hand waving. The European air travel market is by far the most liberal in the world. You may not have noticed how liberal it is but it will cost many British jobs when UK airlines are denied access to it.

You talk in vague terms of some deal being struck but time is running out and without accepting ECJ oversight you can forget access to Europe's open skies. And EASA.

solodeogloria · 03-11-2017 11:38AM

murphaph wrote: »

Eh...all Ryanair flights and the BA ones are not really clear because IAG is a European company registered in Madrid. I'm not sure of the ownership breakdown but I suspect BA would need to split out from IAG, leaving Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vuelling as European airlines. Somehow.

But your post is just more hand waving. The European air travel market is by far the most liberal in the world. You may not have noticed how liberal it is but it will cost many British jobs when UK airlines are denied access to it.

You talk in vague terms of some deal being struck but time is running out and without accepting ECJ oversight you can forget access to Europe's open skies. And EASA.

Good morning!

Again - UK flights into the EU can land under an arrangement similar to Israel's and vice versa.

For carriers like easyJet who do a lot of point to point travel within the EU, they can follow easyJet and incorporate as an EU airline.

I'm failing to see the apocalypse here. The impact seems to be that British carriers can't fly point to point within the EU. I don't have a major issue with this outcome. The inverse impact if the UK will reciprocate would be that EU carriers can't fly point to point within the UK. I also don't have a major issue with that.

If this is a consequence of not being in the single market and not having ECJ jurisdiction I'm OK with it as an outcome. If it is a price for being able to liberalise trade with the rest of the world, I think it's worth paying.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments