EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those readers who would like to get an accurate picture of current Brexit state of play in relation to the UK Aerospace Industry, I'd recommend a browse through Dr Richard North's latest piece at his blog EUReferendum.com . Dr North references the European Commission Notice to Stakeholders, dated 13 April 2018.
Dr North further writes.
Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!
This (Notice to Stakeholders) sets out in four pages just how totally dependent our aviation industry is for everything it does on authorisations granted by EASA, applying to every tiniest detail of how we make aircraft, to the running of our airports, to air traffic control, to the airworthiness of aircraft, to the certification and licensing of pilots, cabin crews, engineers, medical staff and trainers; in short, to every last item of what allows our aviation sector to function.
But as the document repeatedly makes clear, the moment the UK leaves the EU to become what it classifies as "a third country", every one of these authorisations and approvals will lapse. Unless each of them is replicated in time, our factories will close, our aircraft will be grounded, our airports and our entire £31?billion-a-year aerospace industry will shut down overnight.
But as the document repeatedly makes clear, the moment the UK leaves the EU to become what it classifies as "a third country", every one of these authorisations and approvals will lapse. Unless each of them is replicated in time, our factories will close, our aircraft will be grounded, our airports and our entire £31?billion-a-year aerospace industry will shut down overnight.
The only clue Mrs May has given as to how she thinks this chaos can be avoided, as she said at the Mansion House, is that we should be allowed to remain in EASA. This was echoed by our own Civil Aviation Authority, which knows it would take years for us to create our own system. But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
And we cannot even apply for the right for our airlines to fly to the EU and other countries until the moment we become a "third country", by a process that could then take months or even years to negotiate. Some of the biggest industry players have been waking up to the threat all this poses. Airbus and Ryanair, for instance, have both spoken of the possibility that their UK operations could "grind to a halt".
In fact, easyJet has already relocated its base to Austria; and Rolls-Royce, the world's second-largest aero-engine manufacturer, we learned last week, is making preparations to move part of its operations to Germany.
And we cannot even apply for the right for our airlines to fly to the EU and other countries until the moment we become a "third country", by a process that could then take months or even years to negotiate. Some of the biggest industry players have been waking up to the threat all this poses. Airbus and Ryanair, for instance, have both spoken of the possibility that their UK operations could "grind to a halt".
In fact, easyJet has already relocated its base to Austria; and Rolls-Royce, the world's second-largest aero-engine manufacturer, we learned last week, is making preparations to move part of its operations to Germany.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Skies? Storm Clouds ahead
Sobering reality, courtesy of Business Insider Deutschland of 10 March 2018 in respect of Open Skies/Air Service Agreements.
Further.
However, two events this week show that it (Trade Deals) will not be anywhere near as easy as Brexiteers had promised. The first was Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on trade with Europe. The second is an alarming new row over Britain's rights to fly across the Atlantic.
The row centres around attempts to keep planes flying across the Atlantic after Brexit. As things stand, Britain is set to leave the EU-US 'Open skies treaty' when it leaves the EU. In order to ensure planes can still fly, Britain will need to negotiate a replacement agreement with the US.
However, according to an explosive FT report this week, the US offered Britain in January a far worse "open skies" deal after Brexit than it currently has as an EU member. According to their report, accepting such a deal could seriously damage the flying rights of major UK airlines and — in the event of failure — see flights grounded between the two countries.
The row centres around attempts to keep planes flying across the Atlantic after Brexit. As things stand, Britain is set to leave the EU-US 'Open skies treaty' when it leaves the EU. In order to ensure planes can still fly, Britain will need to negotiate a replacement agreement with the US.
However, according to an explosive FT report this week, the US offered Britain in January a far worse "open skies" deal after Brexit than it currently has as an EU member. According to their report, accepting such a deal could seriously damage the flying rights of major UK airlines and — in the event of failure — see flights grounded between the two countries.
The row over Open Skies is just one example of the huge and complex difficulties that Britain faces in renegotiating its relationship with the world after Brexit.
The scale of the task is difficult to comprehend. The UK reportedly needs to renegotiate at least 759 other treaties with 168 countries before it leaves the EU on everything from transport, to fish, to farming. And while some of these negotiations will be relatively straightforward and end up in Britain's favour, many others will not.
With just over a year to go until Britain leaves, some who campaigned for Brexit have still failed to face the scale of the task ahead. In the past week, that reality has finally started to become clear.
The scale of the task is difficult to comprehend. The UK reportedly needs to renegotiate at least 759 other treaties with 168 countries before it leaves the EU on everything from transport, to fish, to farming. And while some of these negotiations will be relatively straightforward and end up in Britain's favour, many others will not.
With just over a year to go until Britain leaves, some who campaigned for Brexit have still failed to face the scale of the task ahead. In the past week, that reality has finally started to become clear.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
Last edited by BizJetJock; 30th Apr 2018 at 08:59. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory:
EASA is only open to countries that accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK has previously said it doesn't want to accept the ECJ and thus, unless the UK position has changed (again), the UK cannot be a member of EASA. That's what the EC said and that's what the rules say.
EASA is only open to countries that accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK has previously said it doesn't want to accept the ECJ and thus, unless the UK position has changed (again), the UK cannot be a member of EASA. That's what the EC said and that's what the rules say.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BizJetJock EASA comprises the following: the 28 EU member States all of which have full voting rights. The 3 European Economic Area (EEA) member States(Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) plus Switzerland. The latter 4 States have reduced voting rights but in all other respects are regular EASA members.
Despite your assertion, both the Commission and Dr North have consistently demonstrated that they "know what they are talking about". In this particular case, the point being made is that on "Hard Brexit" with no agreement, UK becomes a "Third Country" (an EU legal term) and thus, by default, a non-EASA member as membership is only open to EU and EEA member States plus Switzerland which has a special deal and which, according to the Commission, will never be repeated.
The solution to the problem is either stay in the EU or leave EU but retain EEA/Single Market membership (we are current EEA members under the EU banner) by rejoining EFTA (European Free Trade Association - UK was a founder member but we left to join the EEC) and thus join Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland under the EFTA banner (Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA - confused yet?).
Incidentally, going the EFTA/EEA route following Brexit will not only take us out of EU but keep us in the EEA/Single Market and also solve the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border conundrum. As they say, "what's not to like?".
Despite your assertion, both the Commission and Dr North have consistently demonstrated that they "know what they are talking about". In this particular case, the point being made is that on "Hard Brexit" with no agreement, UK becomes a "Third Country" (an EU legal term) and thus, by default, a non-EASA member as membership is only open to EU and EEA member States plus Switzerland which has a special deal and which, according to the Commission, will never be repeated.
The solution to the problem is either stay in the EU or leave EU but retain EEA/Single Market membership (we are current EEA members under the EU banner) by rejoining EFTA (European Free Trade Association - UK was a founder member but we left to join the EEC) and thus join Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland under the EFTA banner (Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA - confused yet?).
Incidentally, going the EFTA/EEA route following Brexit will not only take us out of EU but keep us in the EEA/Single Market and also solve the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border conundrum. As they say, "what's not to like?".
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“In addition to the member states of the union, the countries part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), i.e. Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, have been granted participation under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board without voting rights. There are also numerous working relationships with other authorities.”
I doubt any country, other than Member States, could participate with voting rights. (Re)joining EFTA would also pose problems for the U.K., but they likely would be welcome to.
Of course the Basic Regulation could be amended to allow this, but that would likely be another drawn out process.
I doubt any country, other than Member States, could participate with voting rights. (Re)joining EFTA would also pose problems for the U.K., but they likely would be welcome to.
Of course the Basic Regulation could be amended to allow this, but that would likely be another drawn out process.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arch brexiteers should realise that a hard exit, including leaving the single market, which was categorically stated as "not on the table" during the referendum campaign, will result in future generations voting for re-integration, as soon as the demographic changes.
Long term, brexit to remain within the EEA has to be the solution which will keep both sides of the fence compromised but content.
Long term, brexit to remain within the EEA has to be the solution which will keep both sides of the fence compromised but content.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BizJetJock
I think that you might be stretching the point somewhat by writing that I agree with you. The nub of the matter is that the Commission was entirely factual stating and Dr North entirely correct in reporting that UK cannot remain in EASA on leaving the EU. It is not for the Commission to suggest remedies to the British Government and, indeed, is politically dangerous to do so. Any attempt by the Commission to point out that the simple expedient of UK remaining in EEA/Single Market as an EFTA member rather than an EU member, post Brexit, would be seized upon by all and sundry as "interfering in UK politics" (and quite rightly so). Hence the merely bald statement of fact.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by:
Can you expand?
But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by:
So this paper from a functionary at EASA is at best bureaucratic arse covering and at worst political **** stirring.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that there are several countries that are not EU members that are in EASA. Whether the UK wishes or would be allowed to use the mechanism they employ does not alter the fact that the statement "is open only to EU members" is false.
Both sides in the negotiations have stated that their preferred outcome is for the UK to remain in EASA and several other bodies, and negotiations on this are ongoing. Yet this paper dismisses that in a footnote and concentrates entirely on the "no deal" option. So the conclusion I draw is that publishing this now is either showing the world that EASA have considered all eventualities - "bureaucratic arse covering" - or deliberately trying to give the impression that no deal is possible - "political **** stirring". It would appear from this thread that if that was the intention it has been successful.
Both sides in the negotiations have stated that their preferred outcome is for the UK to remain in EASA and several other bodies, and negotiations on this are ongoing. Yet this paper dismisses that in a footnote and concentrates entirely on the "no deal" option. So the conclusion I draw is that publishing this now is either showing the world that EASA have considered all eventualities - "bureaucratic arse covering" - or deliberately trying to give the impression that no deal is possible - "political **** stirring". It would appear from this thread that if that was the intention it has been successful.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speech by Michel Barnier at the Eurofi High-level Seminar 2018
Sofia, 26 April 2018
“”So, Brexit will come at a cost.
And this cost will be substantially higher for the UK than for the EU. Let me make 4 points:
Sofia, 26 April 2018
“”So, Brexit will come at a cost.
And this cost will be substantially higher for the UK than for the EU. Let me make 4 points:
- Trade dependency is far higher on the UK side. The EU27 accounts for around 50% of UK export and imports. The UK market represents around 7% of EU exports and 4% of imports. Some EU regions are of course more exposed to the UK than others. We will be very attentive regarding this impact.
- The UK attracts Foreign Direct Investment to serve broader EU markets. With unavoidable friction and non-tariff barriers, some companies will need to rethink their business models.
- EU talent may find the UK to be a less attractive place. This could generate skills shortages, for instance in the health sector.
- Finally, the UK is currently covered by 750 international agreements as an EU Member State. After Brexit, the UK will have to negotiate its own agreements – not only in trade – but also, for instance, in aviation. The UK will need a new administrative capacity.””
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the EU are only now realising what a great target Aviation is - people fade away when you mention the ECJ, or effects on the City but stop people flying to the USA or Spain, or drive the cost through the ceiling and Joe Public will notice FAST - and will start looking for scapegoats. D Davis might need a witness protection programme....................
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliamentry Response to question
On 25th April, Chris Grayling The Secretary of State for Transport said
Quote: During the time-limited implementation period, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. However, as set out in the terms of the agreement, common rules will remain in place. The EASA basic regulation will therefore continue to apply, so all UK-issued certificates, approvals and licences will be automatically recognised as valid in the EASA system (and vice versa).
As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech last month, beyond the implementation period we will want to explore with the EU the terms on which we could remain part of the relevant agencies, such as EASA. This will form part of the negotiations with the EU and Member States on how best to continue cooperation in the field of aviation safety and standards post-exit. Endquote
There is also a very informative and balanced paper that examines the options- available from the Royal Aeronautical Society
RAeS Civil Aviation Regulation- What Future after Brexit? published September 2017.
Quote: During the time-limited implementation period, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. However, as set out in the terms of the agreement, common rules will remain in place. The EASA basic regulation will therefore continue to apply, so all UK-issued certificates, approvals and licences will be automatically recognised as valid in the EASA system (and vice versa).
As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech last month, beyond the implementation period we will want to explore with the EU the terms on which we could remain part of the relevant agencies, such as EASA. This will form part of the negotiations with the EU and Member States on how best to continue cooperation in the field of aviation safety and standards post-exit. Endquote
There is also a very informative and balanced paper that examines the options- available from the Royal Aeronautical Society
RAeS Civil Aviation Regulation- What Future after Brexit? published September 2017.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BizJetJock
You write:
I'm genuinely confused - please confirm which "paper" , which footnote and please provide a link.
You write:
Yet this paper dismisses that in a footnote and concentrates entirely on the "no deal"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm, the paper that this thread is about????
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ion-safety.pdf
Footnote 1, Page 1
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ion-safety.pdf
Footnote 1, Page 1
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BizJetJock
Ah. The Notice to Stakeholders. Thank you. The clue to my confusion could be that the text under discussion is called a "notice" and not a "paper".
However, I'm still confused as to what you actually mean. The Notice is a factual statement of what will happen if/when UK leaves the EU and becomes a "Third Country".
The Footnote 1, on Page 1 to which you refer clearly states: "Negotiations are ongoing with the United Kingdom with a view to reaching a withdrawal agreement".
How can any of this be construed as "political **** stirring"?
Ah. The Notice to Stakeholders. Thank you. The clue to my confusion could be that the text under discussion is called a "notice" and not a "paper".
However, I'm still confused as to what you actually mean. The Notice is a factual statement of what will happen if/when UK leaves the EU and becomes a "Third Country".
The Footnote 1, on Page 1 to which you refer clearly states: "Negotiations are ongoing with the United Kingdom with a view to reaching a withdrawal agreement".
How can any of this be construed as "political **** stirring"?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All such publications are called papers. Even the EASA website describes them that way.
The fact that they have put "notice" in the title is part of the reason I think it is stirring, since that gives the impression of some kind of official declaration of what will happen, rather than one possible outcome. That and the fact that the possibility of an agreement doesn't merit being in the main body of the text.
As I said, it has obviously worked.
The fact that they have put "notice" in the title is part of the reason I think it is stirring, since that gives the impression of some kind of official declaration of what will happen, rather than one possible outcome. That and the fact that the possibility of an agreement doesn't merit being in the main body of the text.
As I said, it has obviously worked.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: South of England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA has issued a response to the EASA letter on the CAA website under Hot Topics.
It says:
Quote
There is also a statement by the CAA's Chief Executive Andrew Haines:
Quote:
In response to the FT's article on 19 March ('MPs warn of Brexit damage to UK aerospace'), Andrew Haines said:“Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK formerly withdraws from the European Union. The international nature of aviation regulation has improved safety outcomes for passengers, and it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global system.In a speech I gave in September 2017, I was clear that I believe the UK should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system. If continued membership of EASA is unachievable, we should adopt the existing EASA regulatory system, rather than developing a new framework from scratch. This option is available to any third-party country, and is one that, I believe, would provide clarity and certainty for the aviation industry.” Unquote.
Enough said!
It says:
Quote
Brexit
The following is in response to the European Commission’s publication ‘Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU aviation safety rules’ (13 April 2018):The Government, the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the entire aviation industry have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK withdraws from the European Union (EU). The EU paper describes what the situation will be if this is both not achieved and no other agreements are in place, including an implementation period. While this a matter for government, we believe this to be a highly unlikely scenario. However, we continue to make the necessary contingency plans.Unquote.There is also a statement by the CAA's Chief Executive Andrew Haines:
Quote:
In response to the FT's article on 19 March ('MPs warn of Brexit damage to UK aerospace'), Andrew Haines said:“Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK formerly withdraws from the European Union. The international nature of aviation regulation has improved safety outcomes for passengers, and it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global system.In a speech I gave in September 2017, I was clear that I believe the UK should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system. If continued membership of EASA is unachievable, we should adopt the existing EASA regulatory system, rather than developing a new framework from scratch. This option is available to any third-party country, and is one that, I believe, would provide clarity and certainty for the aviation industry.” Unquote.
Enough said!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes and no! what neither Andrew or any minister is fully conversant with what currently is the view from the other side of the table... and that view will be different to the outcome we are expecting that's for sure ... - it will not be an "ops normal" approach irrespective of the 3rd country capability, as the devil will be in the detail.. We all know the UK does not want to go from the top table to the tradesman door in priority but there does seem a huge amount of ignorance to the fallout that a less than palatable outcome is going to produce!