Icarus2001 I believe that the mistake you in turn are making (in company with Theresa May & Co) is your assuming that the EU is "negotiating" on the basis of being a commercial organisation and that the current state of play between it and the UK "is a cross between a poker game and chicken". This is not the case and the present UK "government" has yet to realise the actualité and similarly realise that the EU is supremely indifferent to the idea that one party would be "waiting for the other to blink".
The EU is and always has been a rule based organisation (not a commercial organisation) that requires member nations to adhere 100% with laws and all directives including those originating with its agencies, of which, EASA is one. Hence, in its Article 50 "negotiations" it merely states its rules and requirements during the process of UK disengaging and becoming a Third Country and makes clear that there is no commercial "quid pro quo" haggling as one would expect in a Turkish carpet souk. The EU stance is that UK wishes to leave the Union and hence the EU will facilitate this, using its rule base.
In respect of Airbus and a potential withdrawal from UK, the
following from, again, Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum, who seems to be a consistently reliable, accurate, detailed and even-handed researcher/commentator and who puts the above in Aerospace sector context:
It is not only the case that aircraft and the components that go into their making must be certified, but the companies which design and make them must (except under very specific exemptions) also be approved. Respectively, they are called design and/or production organisations and they must undergo an elaborate approval process, conforming with criteria set out in Annex1 of Regulation 748/2012 (known as Part 21).
Approval of these organisations is not undertaken by EASA, but by the "competent authorities" of countries in which they operate. And here, we begin to have problems. Competent authorities, in the case of EU members, are appointed by the Member States. Third country competent authorities have to be approved directly by EASA.
Currently the UK competent authority is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and it has approved design and production organisations within the UK. However, come Brexit, the UK will become a third country and, therefore, the CAA will no longer be a valid competent authority. It must apply to EASA for recognition.
In the interim, there is then the question as to whether companies in the UK which have been approved to design or make aircraft or aviation products will retain their approvals. EU law on this is unhelpful – and unsurprisingly so, as there is no provision of countries in the EU ceasing to be Member States.
Those looking for inspiration might refer to the relevant "
Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material" where it is made abundantly clear that approvals are issued by the "competent authority of a Member State of the European Union" or EASA. On that basis, it is arguable that products designed and/or produced by UK companies after Brexit no longer hold valid approvals, until such time as the status of the "competent authority" has been regularised.
Such matters, clearly, are precisely those which need to be addressed during the Article 50 negotiations and one might need (and therefore request) a statement from the Commission and EASA to the effect that the CAA remains a relevant competent authority and that approvals issued by it remain valid. Without that, a vital industry could be at risk.
The danger, of course, lies in the possibility that UK could either "walk away" from, or accidentally disengage from Article 50 talks, leaving a situation of no continuity arrangements in place and hence a UK shut-down of the sector (amongst many others) until such time as talks on re-certifying as a Third Country could be complete (don't expect the EU to be particularly cooperative in this circumstance).
Interesting times and it will be instructive to note not only Barnier's words, this afternoon, in Brussels but also the tone of delivery, which will no doubt speak volumes.