Commenting on the Flyer article referred to above, Cliff Whittaker - former CAA Head of Licensing Policy - posted the following:
------------------------“HMG and CAA may decide to leave the EASA regulatory system, but the UK industry and the licensed pilots and engineers working here don’t have to if they don’t want to. Outside of the EASA system we will be a third country. Pilots and engineers living in 3rd countries can hold European (FCL or 66) licences – they just have to choose the member State they want to be regulated by – e.g. Ireland? There are plenty of ‘European’ aircraft maintenance companies (Part M, 145) in 3rd countries and plenty of training schools offering Part-FCL courses in such countries too. Their approvals are regulated by EASA directly from Cologne. If the UK leaves EASA, any UK company can transfer its approval to EASA and any pilot or engineer can keep their Europe wide privileges by having their licence re-issued by another State. Training schools that want to continue to offer Part-FCL courses would have to do this and so would their instructors and examiners – UK national approvals and instructor/examiner certificates are not valid for Part-FCL. Companies and personnel that want to be UK national can stay with the CAA. UK airlines are already taking steps to stay European by moving their principal places of business to mainland Europe – So expect Easyjet etc’s Part-145/M to transfer to EASA and their engineers to another Member State, along with the pilots. And does anyone seriously think that Rolls-Royce is going to leave the EASA system? The fact is that if the UK leaves EASA it will hand over all remaining regulatory oversight of big commercial aviation in the UK to EASA and other Member States. So much for taking back control! Having lost control of the commercial industry to Europe, the DfT and CAA may as well make things easy for UK registered aircraft by leaving in place the ANO provisions that make EASA certificates and licences valid for UK aircraft. They could then make UK national approvals, licences valid for all UK-registered aircraft, including those that were ‘EASA aircraft’. Then those building, owning, maintaining and flying aircraft in the UK could carry on pretty much as now. The only real effect would be that the role of CAA and DfT would be greatly diminished.
That is why the UK should remain in the EASA system, whatever else happens.” ----------------
He mentions RR. To them you can add the Airbus factories, BAES Civil at Prestwick, and all the systems, parts and materials companies that supply them, who will remain in the UK but retain European approvals overseen direct from Cologne. Commercial industry from airlines, design and manufacturing companies, systems and equipment manufacturers, maintenance organisations, and flying schools running CPL and Type Rating courses are going to stay with EASA whatever the government decides or the British people allegedly want. To do otherwise would be commercial suicide. The DfT/CAA have a stark choice - stay in EASA and continue to have a seat at the rulemaking/decision making table, or leave aand let EASA regulate our companies and the other member states license our pilots and engineers. Sure, the UK could reinstate a full national system of company approvals, and personnel licences, but who is going to buy them? A small group of anti-European aviators who are happy to give up Europe-wide privileges to make a point? Also, bear in mind that the CAA has to be paid for by those it regulates. With the income from commercial industry gone, the cost of any national system will fall entirely on the (private) flyers who use it.
There is also an article by Cliff Whittaker in the January Flight Training News that explains that all of this happned before when Turkey was excluded from Europe by the abolition of the JAA system - and consequently the consequences for the UK of putting itself outside EASA are known. It's worth a careful read through.