EU Negotiating Position on Brexit: "aviation agreement"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: From UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Negotiating Position on Brexit: "aviation agreement"
The EU member states have just agreed upon their negotiating points for their relationship with the UK after the transition period.
The mandate says that they want to have 'a typical aviation agreement not a special one'.
It doesn't sound particularly good for anyone who is hoping for the UK to remain a member of EASA.
(Note all the usual caveats of nobody knows what will actually happen!).
The mandate says that they want to have 'a typical aviation agreement not a special one'.
It doesn't sound particularly good for anyone who is hoping for the UK to remain a member of EASA.
(Note all the usual caveats of nobody knows what will actually happen!).
Pegase Driver
.I see that the EASA web site has now removed the UK from its membership list : https://www.easa.europa.eu/country-c...-states?page=2
Very sad indeed and a big loss for us all, But that was the UK choice I understand ,,
Well why would they get a special status ? They can still be a non-EU member just like Norway or Switzerland are .,
Very sad indeed and a big loss for us all, But that was the UK choice I understand ,,
Well why would they get a special status ? They can still be a non-EU member just like Norway or Switzerland are .,
After 20+ years membership of JAA and then EASA, the UK CAA is a shadow of what it was before those joint organizations. If we are going to go our own way (necessary if we are to follow the Government's position of having no oversight by the ECJ), how long will it take to redevelop all the capabilities that the CAA does not currently have?
At the risk of letting the facts get in the way of a good story:
EU Draft Negotiating Directives, February 2020.
Aviation safety.
The envisaged partnership should facilitate trade and investment in aeronautical products, parts and appliances through cooperation in areas such as certification and monitoring, the production oversight and environmental approval and testing. Negotiations should be based on both Parties being satisfied with the other Party’s requirements, regulatory processes and capacity to implement them.
Nothing in the envisaged partnership should entail reciprocal acceptance of the standards and technical regulations of the Parties. Rather, it should limit duplication of assessments to significant regulatory differences and allow, to the extent possible, reliance on the certification system of the other Party. It may also specify modalities, based for example on the respective experience and knowledge of the other party, for the respective level of involvement of the authorities. To facilitate the achievement of the objective set out above, the envisaged partnership may also provide for regulatory co-operation.
The acceptance by one Party of findings or certificates of the other Party shall only take place when, and as long as, the first Party is able to establish and maintain confidence in the other Party’s ability to discharge its obligations in accordance with the envisaged partnership. The envisaged partnership should include appropriate co-operation mechanisms to verify on a reciprocal basis the continued fitness and ability of the regulatory bodies involved in its implementation.
The envisaged partnership should facilitate trade and investment in aeronautical products, parts and appliances through cooperation in areas such as certification and monitoring, the production oversight and environmental approval and testing. Negotiations should be based on both Parties being satisfied with the other Party’s requirements, regulatory processes and capacity to implement them.
Nothing in the envisaged partnership should entail reciprocal acceptance of the standards and technical regulations of the Parties. Rather, it should limit duplication of assessments to significant regulatory differences and allow, to the extent possible, reliance on the certification system of the other Party. It may also specify modalities, based for example on the respective experience and knowledge of the other party, for the respective level of involvement of the authorities. To facilitate the achievement of the objective set out above, the envisaged partnership may also provide for regulatory co-operation.
The acceptance by one Party of findings or certificates of the other Party shall only take place when, and as long as, the first Party is able to establish and maintain confidence in the other Party’s ability to discharge its obligations in accordance with the envisaged partnership. The envisaged partnership should include appropriate co-operation mechanisms to verify on a reciprocal basis the continued fitness and ability of the regulatory bodies involved in its implementation.
DR:
Yes, that is all very well, but...………….. the UK govt's stated position is no oversight by the ECJ - and that oversight appears to be necessary to the EU. Standby for fundamental disagreement.
Yes, that is all very well, but...………….. the UK govt's stated position is no oversight by the ECJ - and that oversight appears to be necessary to the EU. Standby for fundamental disagreement.
I might be wrong (I often am), but I thought the ECJ oversight only applied to the proposed level-playing field agreement (unique to the UK), covering employment law, state aid etc, and that the multitude of lower level regulatory agreements would be handled via existing regulatory cooperation/enforcement mechanisms (as applied to regulatory alignment by/with any third-party state).
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very difficult for the UK to diverge much from the EU on Aviation regulation, we don’t have an independent aviation industry accepting the existing standards seems a no brainer. That need not affect labour or environmental regulation but maybe maybe contract aerospace projects with other countries is envisaged by No 10.
