in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
So do I - such people did however need to hold an "Aeronautical Engineering Certificate". In fact several of our supervisors were "approved" AEC holders and could sign a C of C, but not the Certificate Of Maintenance. Under A8-3 you needed a type rated licence to do that. So we had the anomaly by which a Lead Tradesman might sign off a C of M that his supervisor was not qualified to sign.
ICAO requires that unless they register a "difference", signatory states are responsible for licensing individuals to certify aircraft maintenance. Until now, with the exception only of France, all signatory states have done so. Note that the Civil Aviation Act ratified the Chicago Convention, using the ANO to state the requirements and regulations by which the ratification is made effective. Under the ANO BCAR A8 then set out the detailed licensing requirements.
The EC is not a state and EASA's position and authority under ICAO - which is concerned only with individual signatory states - remains unclear.The ALEA could perhaps make itself useful by raising the necessary cash and challenging either EASA's or at least the UK government's position on licensing, under international aviation law. Although individual states do have the right to register differences, EASA seems to be acting contrary to the
intentions of ICAO in this matter.
Consider that other EASA fiasco where, wishing to do away with "Permits to Fly" EASA required all aircraft to be maintained by approved organizations. They apparently failed to realize that the overwhelming majority of aircraft in Europe - more than 77,000 - are PTF aircraft. There are not enough approved organizations to undertake the work and even if there were, there could never be enough EASA people to regulate them.
With all this blundering about, one is driven to wonder if EASA actually have any idea what they are doing?