EC notice on BREXIT issued, licenses/certificates invalid

[John R81]

"Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference ....."

Is to remain within EASA; but our RED LINE is that we cannot be subject to the ECJ

OK, thanks for sharing your "preferences". Now, given that the other side has been consistent in its resolution that they won't agree UK taking the "good bits" without the "bad bits" (free movement, ECJ, etc), do we leave with "no deal" and the consequences outlined by the EU and various others, or do we tell British Voters that we must remain subject to the rule of the ECJ ?

Answers on a postcard to:
Theresa May
10 Downing Street
London


In the meantime, large businesses are planning for a hard Brexit (which is actually my day job) because progress is so slow and so fragmented that to do otherwise would be like driving towards a red traffic light without braking, but chanting "just wait, it will be OK, it will go green before I get there".

[ATC Watcher]

Andrew Haines said : it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global 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.

Well it is a bit incompatible I would say. as I see with the others third parties members of EASA, you do not have nay influence at all you just follow the rules without having a say in what the others decide..A sad situation for a Country like the UK with his history in both Aviation and Safety management. Let's hope reason will prevail at one stage or another.
That said, there are still quite a few people in the EU that believe there will be in the end another referendum that will reverse the first one .

[22/04]

I think I have said before that I hope there won't be a red line on the ECJ- that we "will have due regard" for its views and that will be the work around- but anyone know where UK government is on that one.

[BizJetJock]

22/04
The governemnt have already said that there is no problem with the ECJ and EASA or other agencies, because as a non-EU state the UK will have the option of withdrawing at any time if they don't agree with an ECJ judgement. The likelihood of that being an issue is not something I am going to lose any sleep over, since as far as I know nothing has ever been referred to the ECJ since EASA was formed.

[The Old Fat One]

I have not read the whole thread, but could I point out that these "notices" have been issued in all sorts of areas and applications (my own specialty being Data Protection). It's nothing whatsoever to do with politics/poo-stirring etc) it's purely functionary; they are basic statements of objective fact (albeit, of a necessarily temporary nature) intended to inform interested parties of changing circumstances, without speculating on potential outcomes.

Naturally, the press and all other interested parties are going to capture these statements and twist them to their own agenda, it was ever thus.

If I may borrow from my own specialisation, the equivalent notice for Data Protection simply points out the UK will become (under GDPR) a "third country" on the day we leave. That's not a political statement, it's a GDPR policy fact. How that alters as brexit progresses is speculative...obviously. No doubt when something is actually set in stone, all these notices will be amended and re-issued.

It's not rocket science.

PS

I'm neither brexiteer nor bremainer, so please don't tar me with either of those brushes, thanks.

[Heathrow Harry]

One of the issues that affects everything (including the Galileo satellite) is that many EU bodies have their membership legally limited to EU countries ONLY - often this was set up to keep out the US/China/Russia etc

The problem is no-one ever thought anyone would ever leave so there is no mechanism to allow ex-members to stay in. Of course they could change the rules but why would they - it would take years,cost s fortune in time and money and they'd have to get unanimous approval in most cases = even more internal argument and horse trading.

Far easier just say "Au-revoir" to the Brits and let them incur all the hassle and the costs - after all we brought it on ourselves........................

[SamYeager]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

One of the issues that affects everything (including the Galileo satellite) is that many EU bodies have their membership legally limited to EU countries ONLY - often this was set up to keep out the US/China/Russia etc

From Europa.eu:

Members: 28 EU countries + Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway

As always in things EU the rules/conditions can be bent/modified whenever the EU wants to.

[Elephant and Castle]

That is right. That is the way most clubs are run: for the benefit of members. You want the benefits? be a member. Don't want to be a member? loose the benefits. Not hard to understand. Is pathetic to leave a club and keep accusing the club of spite because they no longer give you the benefits of membership

[kungfu panda]

Originally Posted by Elephant and Castle

That is right. That is the way most clubs are run: for the benefit of members. You want the benefits? be a member. Don't want to be a member? loose the benefits. Not hard to understand. Is pathetic to leave a club and keep accusing the club of spite because they no longer give you the benefits of membership

I agree and if I was a "cake and eat it" theorist then I'd be a brexiter too.

Brexit is a lovely idea but a practical catastrophe.

[Heathrow Harry]

Yeah - "we don't like you, we hate the way you run things, we want to stand on our own and take our own decisions... but can you just let us back in this case.... please, please..."

[kungfu panda]

I think that people don't understand what negotiation is. It's about each side trying to blackmail each other based on the strength of their positions. At the end of the negotiations the party with the weaker position is blackmailed.

Complaining that you're blackmailed just suggests that you had the weaker position.

[ExXB]

Members: 28 EU countries + Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway

The later four are non-voting members.

Of course the U.K. is welcome to re-join EFTA, it is an original founding member. That would get it a non-voting seat at the table.

[highcirrus]

DUBLIN (Reuters) - There is still a possibility that flights will not be able to take place the day after Britain’s planned departure from the European Union next year, an EU official said on Friday.

Henrik Hololei, director general for Mobility and Transport at the European Commission, said the clock was ticking and that the effects on aviation could be significant after the March 29, 2019, exit day.

“The possibility still exists that on day one no flights operate. It hasn’t disappeared,” Hololei said at a CAPA Centre for Aviation conference in Dublin.

“One thing is clear, is that this is a very sad chapter currently being written,” he said.

He added that before any negotiations could be done specifically on aviation, or any other sector, the overall framework of Britain’s departure had to first be agreed.

[paperHanger]

Originally Posted by John R81

Is to remain within EASA; but our RED LINE is that we cannot be subject to the ECJ
.

And? Switzrland, Norway, Iceland et al are Full Members of EASA and do not accept the ECJ as final arbiter ...

[paperHanger]

It's worth also remembering that it rubs both ways ... if they want to be a PITA over EASA and do the "none of your licences are valid" thing .. we could do the same ...

[autoflight]

China is short of aircraft and crews. There will always be such places that a whole airline can fill with ACMI dry charters for several years until the dust settles.

[Denti]

Originally Posted by paperHanger

It's worth also remembering that it rubs both ways ... if they want to be a PITA over EASA and do the "none of your licences are valid" thing .. we could do the same ...

That, however, is not what the EASA note says. They do not say anything at all about UK licenses, they just say that EASA licenses issued by the UK, (hence not UK licenses) will be invalid as the UK will not be a part of EASA anymore if there is no agreement. Even the EU is aware that they have no say over UK laws and rules after the UK is out, until then, of course, they have for all areas where the UK didn‘t opt out. I don‘t see that note as a threat, rather a statement of facts according to current rules of the EU, which are, after all, largely written by UK experts.

While switzerland does not fall officially under ECJ rulings, they still had to accept them so far, for example in the final ECJ ruling over approach routes into ZRH, after switzerland dismissed the EU commission ruling over those.

Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are not full EU members, however they are part of the EEA which still contains the four basic freedoms and are subject to the EFTA court which corresponds to the ECJ in most areas except for those exclusive to the three EFTA states.

While China may be in demand for mainly captains (not so much aircraft, they get and park them until the have sufficient captains), they are apparently not really keen on wet leases and anyone operating there has to follow their rules, including CAAC checks and chinese medicals.

[highcirrus]

Denti

Good post.

On the subject of

Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are not full EU members, however they are part of the EEA which still contains the four basic freedoms (goods, capital, services, and labour)

Three of the four EFTA/EEA states (Norway, Liechtenstein Iceland) have the unilateral right (ie. EU has no say in this) to invoke EEA Agreement Article 112 despite being a party to this Agreement and which Article exempts from the requirement to permit unrestricted free movement of people (labour) within the EEA area, despite this apparently being a non-negotiable requirement of the Agreement. Fourth state, Switzerland, while a member of EFTA, is neither in the EU or in the EEA.

If our politicians ever got round to considering the EFTA/EEA route, post Brexit, UK would similarly enjoy the provisions of Article 112 (ie. could restrict free movement of labour in the national interest) and would, vitally, retain Single Market membership under the EEA umbrella, rather than the EU one. Also, as an EFTA/EEA member, UK would be able to retain the equally vital EASA membership. What's not to like?

Reference here.

[Kitiara]

Originally Posted by highcirrus

Denti

Good post.

On the subject of

Three of the four EFTA/EEA states (Norway, Liechtenstein Iceland) have the unilateral right (ie. EU has no say in this) to invoke EEA Agreement Article 112 despite being a party to this Agreement and which Article exempts from the requirement to permit unrestricted free movement of people (labour) within the EEA area, despite this apparently being a non-negotiable requirement of the Agreement. Fourth state, Switzerland, while a member of EFTA, is neither in the EU or in the EEA.

If our politicians ever got round to considering the EFTA/EEA route, post Brexit, UK would similarly enjoy the provisions of Article 112 (ie. could restrict free movement of labour in the national interest) and would, vitally, retain Single Market membership under the EEA umbrella, rather than the EU one. Also, as an EFTA/EEA member, UK would be able to retain the equally vital EASA membership. What's not to like?

Reference here.

CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES


Article 112

1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.

2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.

3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.


Article 113

1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.

2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.

3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.

For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.

4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.

5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application.

Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.





Here are articles 112 and 113 of the treaty. Please pay particular attention to the areas I've highlighted in bold. The provision is not a the silver bullet implied by the blog you cited. It is rather a way for members that are experiencing genuine hardship to obtain relief on a temporary basis. It has to be done in consultation with the EEA Joint Committee and the measures implemented need to be removed in the most expeditious timeframe possible.

My personal opinion is that the UK would not be able to make the case for experiencing hardship as a consequence of free movement of people that would be required to invoke article 112.

[CargoOne]

Originally Posted by highcirrus

If our politicians ever got round to considering the EFTA/EEA route, post Brexit, UK would similarly enjoy the provisions of Article 112 (ie. could restrict free movement of labour in the national interest) and would, vitally, retain Single Market membership under the EEA umbrella

Don't get illusion that EEA countries can apply provisions of Article 112 without any consequences. Yes they can call it out but that's will be their last call unless they have a very good reason of a short term nature. Brussel is not that stupid to let UK enjoy single market without allowing free labour movement.