Originally Posted by
Denti
UK government proposed some fudged thing in their white paper where the ECJ is not the final and sole arbiter of the law, which would be required by the EU, but rather that the UK would take those judgements into consideration. Which in the end is simply not the same thing.
Does sound awfully like the arrangement with Switzerland's EASA membership (and maybe other EFTAs - not sure) though doesn't it? Switzerland appears to have issues with ECJ jurisdiction.
Personally I think (and this applies to both sides) that what should be being asked for (at least at this stage) is things that already have precedent, ie. what other non-EU states already get or give. Once you've reached agreement in all the areas where there precedents, then you can move onto the areas where a full-custom-never-done-before solution would be required. Of course I'm not running things so both the sides have gone headlong into "full custom never done before" mode, and a pantomime where the EU says "tell us what you want", the UK says "we want X Y Z cake+eat+knobs-on" and the EU says "that's impossible, tell us what you want".
If, in terms of EASA, the UK did just ask for what the EU already gave someone else then that ought to be progress - the EU can no longer say "that is impossible" for a start. The EU can still say "**** off, you're not having that because we don't like you as much as X" or suck their cheeks in and say "well, that'll cost you...", or whatever, but at least we will have moved from the "impossible" to the negotiable.