highcirrus:
So you agree with me - EASA membership is not "open only to EU members". Thus in this case, one or other of the two have got their facts wrong and do not know what they are talking about. Whether we can negotiate a suitable basis for membership in the time available is a different issue, but since both the UK and EU negotiators have said that this is their desired outcome, it is not unreasonable to think that a mechanism will be found. So this paper from a functionary at EASA is at best bureaucratic arse covering and at worst political **** stirring.
Nemrytter:
The government have already stated that, for the purposes of membership of EASA and various other bodies, the UK can accept the ECJ on the basis of the fact that they are not the final arbiter. Not being a member of the EU gives the UK the ultimate option of withdrawing from the body if there is a dispute that is unresolvable. I don't see this as a major issue; how many EASA questions have gone to the ECJ? I suspect zero.
On another point, all the Chicken Little running around shouting "the sky is falling", saying that the CAA couldn't run a system independent from EASA obviously comes from people who are not aware that the CAA in fact runs two other systems in parallel to EASA already. There is the National Licencing and airworthiness system for non-EASA aircraft in the UK, and the Overseas Territories system that covers licencing and airworthiness for all types of aircraft that are registered in Bermuda, Cayman Islands and other places. This is a significant operation that, among other things, includes a large portion of Aeroflot's fleet! I do not downplay the administrative effort that would be involved in changing, but the structures are all already in place.
Therefore the whole EASA question is a small point in the whole scheme of current affairs. The route licencing/open skies on the other hand is a major problem that we can only hope the powers that be are addressing urgently. I am not confident...