|
Originally Posted by judge11
(Post 10117574)
Quite easily and happily.
EASA has brought nothing but **** to this industry. |
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.
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. 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. |
Open Skies? Storm Clouds ahead
Sobering reality, courtesy of Business Insider Deutschland of 10 March 2018 in respect of Open Skies/Air Service Agreements.
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 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. |
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. |
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. |
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?". |
“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. |
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. |
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... |
BizJetJock
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. |
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. |
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:
|
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....................
|
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. |
BizJetJock
You write: Yet this paper dismisses that in a footnote and concentrates entirely on the "no deal" |
Umm, the paper that this thread is about????
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ion-safety.pdf Footnote 1, Page 1 :ugh: |
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"? |
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 CAA has issued a response to the EASA letter on the CAA website under Hot Topics.
It says: Quote BrexitThe 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! |
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!
|
"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". |
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. 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 . |
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.
|
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. |
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. |
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........................ |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10140035)
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
Members: 28 EU countries + Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway |
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
|
Originally Posted by Elephant and Castle
(Post 10140892)
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
Brexit is a lovely idea but a practical catastrophe. |
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..."
|
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. |
Members: 28 EU countries + Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by John R81
(Post 10136058)
Is to remain within EASA; but our RED LINE is that we cannot be subject to the ECJ
. |
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 ...
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by paperHanger
(Post 10150931)
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 ...
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. |
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) 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. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10151011)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10151011)
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
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.