The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world
I'm not sure that's true any more. Even in the Soviet days they had good subs and planes, but the Putin generation of kit looks really good: who the hell thought they'd do a very-long-range nuclear-tipped torpedo? How do we cope with what is effectively a deniable stealth ICBM? The 21st century Western stuff isn't really scary: drones are nice but are limited.
We cannot be sure of the effectiveness of their weapons systems. Their performance in Syria haven't been the best (leaving aside the ludicrous claims from someone on here that their cruise missiles systems never failed). Also note that many Russian weapons systems have equivalent development problems.
As I say above, making cool-looking prototypes is the easy part. Making a weapons platform out of those prototypes is the difficult bit.
I think we (the West) have a fairly good handle on Russian weapons systems and their capabilities. What we are much less sure of are the Chinese developments, e.g. the J-20.
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
Sovereign only when it suits Farage and UKIP. If Parliamentary Sovereignty involves legally having to ask MPs to vote on things like A50, then suddenly UKIP don't want it and it is a block on the the "people's" choices.
People reading the 2100 version of Wikipedia will look at European immigration policy 1960-2016 in disbelief.
Why have we done this to ourselves?
people looking at the past 1,000 years history will likewise wonder what on earth we were thinking of.
That is the way things are. We had the immigration policy for various reasons and we now have to work with it. You want it ended, presumably, or perhaps you are happy with Dave's version. Others are happy with the 1m. That's history in the making.
When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
That's not the way it works, for a whole host of reasons. Firstly, airframe life: planes (or more specifically components) have a fatigue life. If the plane gets beyond that life it becomes massively expensive to re-engineer them. Many of those planes were knackered, or had very little life left in them.
Then there is where you place all the new kit. The Harrier II's had no radar (the Sea Harriers did): where do you put that, and all the other modern kit? And how much do they weigh?
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Harriers are deeply flawed planes that have killed countless pilots. They are very unforgiving.
Partly. Boeing were not wildly experienced in combat aircraft and their use of large carbon-fibre elements slowed down their production times, to the point that they couldn't really field a finished aircraft in time. So technically Lockheed were worthy winners in the flyoff....
...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles) and the Lockheed plane used two engines: an engine in the back that can swivel downwards to lift the back, and another separate lift engine to lift the front. The Lockheed approach was heavy and complex, and the Boeing one was beautifully simple. If they had worked it out, it would have been good.
You wouldn't need recertification. If a plant (and its plants not drugs that are the issue) has EMA certification then it has it. We would need to put in place a certification process for the UK market (but would suggest we just use the current EMA rules).
On drug approvals, again if a drug is to be sold into Europe it would need EMA approval - and if it has it already it can't be taken away. Going forward MHRA would continue to review drugs for approval in the UK, although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs.
The obvious solution is, of course, to remain inside the EMA and I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to kick us out - not patients, not doctors, not drug companies and not governments*. And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
* Except Sweden who have their eyes on our rapporteur business
"although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs."
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
Partly. Boeing were not wildly experienced in combat aircraft and their use of large carbon-fibre elements slowed down their production times, to the point that they couldn't really field a finished aircraft in time. So technically Lockheed were worthy winners in the flyoff....
...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles) and the Lockheed plane used two engines: an engine in the back that can swivel downwards to lift the back, and another separate lift engine to lift the front. The Lockheed approach was heavy and complex, and the Boeing one was beautifully simple. If they had worked it out, it would have been good.
But they couldn't say that, or display it, because the X32 was nothing like how the final aircraft would be.
@viewcode "Boeing were not wildly experienced in combat aircraft"
Well, they did build the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-29 (also B-50) Superfortress, the latter being state of the art at the time. Stalin even copied the B-29 as the "Tupolev Tu-4".
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
@viewcode "Boeing were not wildly experienced in combat aircraft"
Well, they did build the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-29 (also B-50) Superfortress, the latter being state of the art at the time. Stalin even copied the B-29 as the "Tupolev Tu-4".
Partly. Boeing were not wildly experienced in combat aircraft and their use of large carbon-fibre elements slowed down their production times, to the point that they couldn't really field a finished aircraft in time. So technically Lockheed were worthy winners in the flyoff....
...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles) and the Lockheed plane used two engines: an engine in the back that can swivel downwards to lift the back, and another separate lift engine to lift the front. The Lockheed approach was heavy and complex, and the Boeing one was beautifully simple. If they had worked it out, it would have been good.
But they couldn't say that, or display it, because the X32 was nothing like how the final aircraft would be.
"although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs."
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable
You'll need to back that claim up, as others disagree with you.
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
Yes but who's the final authority to enforce those standards? Or doesn't it work like that?
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
Don't mention the Brexit!
This is Naval.air_engineering.com
I prefer Jane's Air and Space.com myself. We haven't started discussing NASA's proposed removal of Orion capsule construction from the existing contractors to an open auction
The Orion command module is the modern-day equivalent of a sixties Apollo command module. It is conceptually very simple, but the existing contractors have overcomplicated things and are over budget and schedule.
Go on. Have a guess who the "existing contractors" are...
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
Brexiters don't care about "high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class."
They will either dispute that we have such a position; assert that the business will continue regardless outside the EU; or claim it is a price worth paying for freedom.
The first is post-truth but regards digging around in economic stats, which can be scoffed at as coming from "experts". The second is a prediction, which cannot be argued with. The third is also inarguable, as sovereignty and wealth are ultimately irreconcilables.
Meanwhile the economy continues to grow on the back of ultimately unsustainable domestic consumption.
Edinburgh North and Leith one of the more interesting constituencies in the coutry with the hugely Pro-UK and Pro-Remain 'North' (the city centre and stock broker Stockbridge/Trinity) and the vastly Pro-Indy Leith.
Perhaps we could make a virtue of neccessity and use the planeless carriers as prison hulks parked off the South coast.
We could have one each for failed asylum seekers, and one for EU deportees.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of a Dickension Victorian Christmas.
I'm all for transportation, as I have argued here before.
I'm entirely for a penal colony on some uninhabited island with crap weather.
But won't someone think of the wildlife?
I'd propose somewhere like Heligoland that could be the EU "transit" station for people who have lost all their papers. These people can stay there until they remember where they put them....or somebody can vouch for their identity in their home country. Their details could be put on an internationally available website asking "Do you know this person?"
Heligoland could be isolated - no phone, no mail, no internet. If they want food, they grow food. Seeds and tools will be provided.
The problem is, these people are the world's cheats, chancers, geezers, wideboys, crooks, thieves, villains and ne'er-do-wells. Nobody wants them. The countries they left are happy to see the back of them. They are trouble wherever they go, have no respect for national or international norms, and have broken the asylum system by abusing it for their own ends. The only thing you can do to protect your own people is take them out of circulation from the general population.
But far too many here in Europe are too squeamish about this. Although, one wonders how many of the "MIGRANTS WELCOME HERE" posters are still up in German windows this week?
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
Don't mention the Brexit!
This is Naval.air_engineering.com
I prefer Jane's Air and Space.com myself. We haven't started discussing NASA's proposed removal of Orion capsule construction from the existing contractors to an open auction
The Orion command module is the modern-day equivalent of a sixties Apollo command module. It is conceptually very simple, but the existing contractors have overcomplicated things and are over budget and schedule.
Go on. Have a guess who the "existing contractors" are...
The Orion module is a farce, given how quickly the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo modules were designed and built. SpaceX have also done rather well with the Dragon (and soon Dragon 2).
However, I *think* the Orion module is a step-up from those in capability though, with options for sustained time in space. I think...
"...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles)..."
Just like the Harrier then.
I did chuckle at the comment upthread that we could just use drones. As if remotely piloted aircraft, to give them their proper name, were immune from the laws of physics.
Anyway, this article may be of interest to those considering if the F35 will be could be scrapped:
Andrew Neil @afneil 2h2 hours ago ONS trims pre-ref growth, increases post-ref. Q1: 0.3% (0.4) Q2: 0.6%, (0.7) Q3: 0.6% (0.5) Treasury "project fear' f/casts now a shambles.
Mr. Code, well, the regulations for the next season are apparently the biggest change in decades.
They're attempting to stop the aero problem of following and passing a slower car being tricky by increasing the size of the front wing and shrinking the rear (think I got that the right way around). In addition, the tyres are being significantly increased in size (although driver feedback suggests the new Pirellis, intended to allow more flat-out pace, will be just like the current ones).
Possibly/probably sandbagging, but Red Bull reckon Mercedes will retain a decisive advantage. A huge regulation shift does present opportunity for substantial leaps forward in relative performance, though. McLaren will be the most intriguing to watch. Probably too soon for Renault to rebound, but that could happen come 2018.
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
It would all be so much easier if we didn't derive so much benefit from membership of the EU.
You lost that argument 6 months ago.
It would all be so much easier if arguments could be settled by plebiscite.
On 'lost' ID papers: may I propose the Morris Dancer Amnesia-Defeating Cold Water Submersion System?
By seating the afflicted comfortably in the cushioned seat of a Memory-Enhancement Module (trebuchet) and then rapidly applying a dramatic alteration of position culminating in a refreshing plunge into healthy, if cold, water, the amnesia will be banished.
Of course, repeated doses may be required in extreme cases.
More interesting use of a thread than having the same people repeat the same arguments that they have made for the past God knows how many months.
Of course, I would prefer Railway_engineering.com, but that would just get bogged down in much rehearsed arguments about HS2. So as no one on the entire planet seems to know how tower cranes, those used for building jolly tall structures, get put up (one of the great mysteries of the modern world - I reckon it is done by magic), I'll settle for naval engineering, at least it gives us the opportunity to give a well deserved slagging off to some incompetent, if not downright malicious, politicians.
On 'lost' ID papers: may I propose the Morris Dancer Amnesia-Defeating Cold Water Submersion System?
By seating the afflicted comfortably in the cushioned seat of a Memory-Enhancement Module (trebuchet) and then rapidly applying a dramatic alteration of position culminating in a refreshing plunge into healthy, if cold, water, the amnesia will be banished.
Of course, repeated doses may be required in extreme cases.
Alternatively, their relatives could be given chunky financial incentives to prove their familial DNA link. Then try and argue "nothing to do with us, Guv...", Tunisia.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
Yes but who's the final authority to enforce those standards? Or doesn't it work like that?
You know where I'm heading here...
Local regulators. If you are selling a non-compliant drug in the UK it is the MHRA that takes it off the market.
I don't know where you're going, but I'm sticking to the facts
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
Yes but who's the final authority to enforce those standards? Or doesn't it work like that?
You know where I'm heading here...
Local regulators. If you are selling a non-compliant drug in the UK it is the MHRA that takes it off the market.
I don't know where you're going, but I'm sticking to the facts
ok cool thanks so no supra-national body overseeing it all? Or is it indeed the supra-national body? If so what if a local regulator dissents from the majority?
"...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles)..."
Just like the Harrier then.
I did chuckle at the comment upthread that we could just use drones. As if remotely piloted aircraft, to give them their proper name, were immune from the laws of physics.
Anyway, this article may be of interest to those considering if the F35 will be could be scrapped:
This is the telling line: "Despite the Pentagon’s plan to save money with shared features, the F-35A, B and C variants only have 20 to 25 percent of their components in common."
I think the target was something much higher, like 70% (although less for one of the variants, I think the carrier one).
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
Yes but who's the final authority to enforce those standards? Or doesn't it work like that?
You know where I'm heading here...
Local regulators. If you are selling a non-compliant drug in the UK it is the MHRA that takes it off the market.
I don't know where you're going, but I'm sticking to the facts
ok cool thanks so no supra-national body overseeing it all? Or is it indeed the supra-national body? If so what if a local regulator dissents from the majority?
It's a mechanistic structure for mutual recognition. The Rapporteur makes a recommendation on approval and others follow. The only common body is the tactical EUGMP manufacturing standards and approval process. If UK disagrees it can refuse approval in grounds of safety or to reimburse on grounds of efficacy.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
There isn't dispute resolution required. It's application of common standards.
Yes but who's the final authority to enforce those standards? Or doesn't it work like that?
You know where I'm heading here...
Local regulators. If you are selling a non-compliant drug in the UK it is the MHRA that takes it off the market.
I don't know where you're going, but I'm sticking to the facts
ok cool thanks so no supra-national body overseeing it all? Or is it indeed the supra-national body? If so what if a local regulator dissents from the majority?
It's a mechanistic structure for mutual recognition. The Rapporteur makes a recommendation on approval and others follow. The only common body is the tactical EUGMP manufacturing standards and approval process. If UK disagrees it can refuse approval in grounds of safety or to reimburse on grounds of efficacy.
So the EU mandates GMP. This doesn't sound like sovereignty?
"...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles)..."
Just like the Harrier then.
I did chuckle at the comment upthread that we could just use drones. As if remotely piloted aircraft, to give them their proper name, were immune from the laws of physics.
Anyway, this article may be of interest to those considering if the F35 will be could be scrapped:
This is the telling line: "Despite the Pentagon’s plan to save money with shared features, the F-35A, B and C variants only have 20 to 25 percent of their components in common."
I think the target was something much higher, like 70% (although less for one of the variants, I think the carrier one).
That's going to hurt.
Yes, the F35 started off with good intentions but was disasterously manage with too many oars being inserted which has completely bajoed its value proposition.
"...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles)..."
Just like the Harrier then.
I did chuckle at the comment upthread that we could just use drones. As if remotely piloted aircraft, to give them their proper name, were immune from the laws of physics.
Anyway, this article may be of interest to those considering if the F35 will be could be scrapped:
This is the telling line: "Despite the Pentagon’s plan to save money with shared features, the F-35A, B and C variants only have 20 to 25 percent of their components in common."
I think the target was something much higher, like 70% (although less for one of the variants, I think the carrier one).
That's going to hurt.
Yes, the F35 started off with good intentions but was disasterously manage with too many oars being inserted which has completely bajoed its value proposition.
"... hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!)."
If memory serves, when the Coalition first came to power they looked seriously at converting the two QE class ships, then just starting to be built, into proper Cats and Traps carriers. The ability to do so was in the original design spec but to save money it had been quietly forgotten. I can't remember all of the published details of the study but essentially it was decided to be impossible to do the conversion. The fitting of an angled deck, catapults, upgrading the power systems installing arrestor wires etc. would have meant a complete redesign of the ships. So massive costs, massive delays to ships that were already late (due MoD incompetence and Gordon Brown repeatedly cutting the budget) - the original plan was for at least the first of them to be in service in 2012.
To try and do such retro fitting now that the QE is in the water and about to start sea trials and the PoW nearing completion would be a complete non-starter.
The alternative of buying back the Harriers also wouldn't work. I don't think many of them still exist for a start (having been canibalised for spares) and in any case they were the ground attack variant and no damn use as fighters. So would provide no sea power or means of fleet defence. The Sea Harriers, which could do both as per the Falklands, were scrapped in 2006.
So if Trump does scrap the F35B we would be left with two massive, but defenceless, helicopter carriers, which we don't need and almost the entire warfighting capability of the RN would have been sacrificed to provide.
The moral of the story is not to try to build capability on the cheap. For some value of cheap. Given the price of the carriers and the aircraft to fly off them we probably would have been better off building proper carriers from the outset.
A Nimitz class carrier according to Wiki is c $4.5bn that seems cheap compared with our buggering around.
"although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs."
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable
You'll need to back that claim up, as others disagree with you.
I haven't heard anyone suggesting the EMA would stay in London when we leave the EU. It is an EU organisation. How could it stay in London? I'd be delighted if that were the case, but I don't see how.
Comments
Former leader says Clacton MP Douglas Carswell does not believe in what Ukip stands for and has only caused division
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/23/nigel-farage-says-ukips-only-mp-douglas-carswell-clacton-should-not-be-in-party?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
As I say above, making cool-looking prototypes is the easy part. Making a weapons platform out of those prototypes is the difficult bit.
As an example, look at the superlative Mach-3 XB-70, which did not go much further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doYEIVapNtA
I think we (the West) have a fairly good handle on Russian weapons systems and their capabilities. What we are much less sure of are the Chinese developments, e.g. the J-20.
That is the way things are. We had the immigration policy for various reasons and we now have to work with it. You want it ended, presumably, or perhaps you are happy with Dave's version. Others are happy with the 1m. That's history in the making.
Then there is where you place all the new kit. The Harrier II's had no radar (the Sea Harriers did): where do you put that, and all the other modern kit? And how much do they weigh?
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Harriers are deeply flawed planes that have killed countless pilots. They are very unforgiving.
...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles) and the Lockheed plane used two engines: an engine in the back that can swivel downwards to lift the back, and another separate lift engine to lift the front. The Lockheed approach was heavy and complex, and the Boeing one was beautifully simple. If they had worked it out, it would have been good.
You wouldn't need recertification. If a plant (and its plants not drugs that are the issue) has EMA certification then it has it. We would need to put in place a certification process for the UK market (but would suggest we just use the current EMA rules).
On drug approvals, again if a drug is to be sold into Europe it would need EMA approval - and if it has it already it can't be taken away. Going forward MHRA would continue to review drugs for approval in the UK, although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs.
The obvious solution is, of course, to remain inside the EMA and I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to kick us out - not patients, not doctors, not drug companies and not governments*. And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
* Except Sweden who have their eyes on our rapporteur business
"although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs."
I think you are grossly underestimating the value of being the hub for decision making on drug licensing, at least by the way you phrase it. You obviously know what you are talking about, but for anyone who doesn't I feel I should clarify. Britain gets a lot of business out of the connections it has by having the EMA in London. There is no way of measuring it because it is all informal, but I can point to invoices in my books that I was only able to write as a result of being in the right place when some business was being placed. Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable and which may not come back when we rejoin - means losing high value business in one of the few sectors where we are world class.
Well, they did build the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-29 (also B-50) Superfortress, the latter being state of the art at the time. Stalin even copied the B-29 as the "Tupolev Tu-4".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6t5hCG9Ghw
[fix tangled quote]
Losing the EMA - which is now inevitable
You'll need to back that claim up, as others disagree with you.
This is Naval.air_engineering.com
You know where I'm heading here...
The Orion command module is the modern-day equivalent of a sixties Apollo command module. It is conceptually very simple, but the existing contractors have overcomplicated things and are over budget and schedule.
Go on. Have a guess who the "existing contractors" are...
They will either dispute that we have such a position; assert that the business will continue regardless outside the EU; or claim it is a price worth paying for freedom.
The first is post-truth but regards digging around in economic stats, which can be scoffed at as coming from "experts". The second is a prediction, which cannot be argued with. The third is also inarguable, as sovereignty and wealth are ultimately irreconcilables.
Meanwhile the economy continues to grow on the back of ultimately unsustainable domestic consumption.
Merry Christmas!
Surely there's room to discuss differential front end grip as well as naval engineering?
I'd propose somewhere like Heligoland that could be the EU "transit" station for people who have lost all their papers. These people can stay there until they remember where they put them....or somebody can vouch for their identity in their home country. Their details could be put on an internationally available website asking "Do you know this person?"
Heligoland could be isolated - no phone, no mail, no internet. If they want food, they grow food. Seeds and tools will be provided.
The problem is, these people are the world's cheats, chancers, geezers, wideboys, crooks, thieves, villains and ne'er-do-wells. Nobody wants them. The countries they left are happy to see the back of them. They are trouble wherever they go, have no respect for national or international norms, and have broken the asylum system by abusing it for their own ends. The only thing you can do to protect your own people is take them out of circulation from the general population.
But far too many here in Europe are too squeamish about this. Although, one wonders how many of the "MIGRANTS WELCOME HERE" posters are still up in German windows this week?
Merry Christmas, one and all....
However, I *think* the Orion module is a step-up from those in capability though, with options for sustained time in space. I think...
"...But the Boeing plane used one engine with vectored thrust (one engine sending thrust upwards or backwards by just swiveling nozzles)..."
Just like the Harrier then.
I did chuckle at the comment upthread that we could just use drones. As if remotely piloted aircraft, to give them their proper name, were immune from the laws of physics.
Anyway, this article may be of interest to those considering if the F35 will be could be scrapped:
https://warisboring.com/donald-trump-thinks-he-can-beat-the-f-35-eebbb7e63be5#.dsz3tb48m
ONS trims pre-ref growth, increases post-ref.
Q1: 0.3% (0.4)
Q2: 0.6%, (0.7)
Q3: 0.6% (0.5)
Treasury "project fear' f/casts now a shambles.
They're attempting to stop the aero problem of following and passing a slower car being tricky by increasing the size of the front wing and shrinking the rear (think I got that the right way around). In addition, the tyres are being significantly increased in size (although driver feedback suggests the new Pirellis, intended to allow more flat-out pace, will be just like the current ones).
Possibly/probably sandbagging, but Red Bull reckon Mercedes will retain a decisive advantage. A huge regulation shift does present opportunity for substantial leaps forward in relative performance, though. McLaren will be the most intriguing to watch. Probably too soon for Renault to rebound, but that could happen come 2018.
By seating the afflicted comfortably in the cushioned seat of a Memory-Enhancement Module (trebuchet) and then rapidly applying a dramatic alteration of position culminating in a refreshing plunge into healthy, if cold, water, the amnesia will be banished.
Of course, repeated doses may be required in extreme cases.
"This is Naval.air_engineering.com"
More interesting use of a thread than having the same people repeat the same arguments that they have made for the past God knows how many months.
Of course, I would prefer Railway_engineering.com, but that would just get bogged down in much rehearsed arguments about HS2. So as no one on the entire planet seems to know how tower cranes, those used for building jolly tall structures, get put up (one of the great mysteries of the modern world - I reckon it is done by magic), I'll settle for naval engineering, at least it gives us the opportunity to give a well deserved slagging off to some incompetent, if not downright malicious, politicians.
I don't know where you're going, but I'm sticking to the facts
This is the telling line: "Despite the Pentagon’s plan to save money with shared features, the F-35A, B and C variants only have 20 to 25 percent of their components in common."
I think the target was something much higher, like 70% (although less for one of the variants, I think the carrier one).
That's going to hurt.
new thread
Sounds like the EU...