|
CargoOne
Brussel is not that stupid to let UK enjoy single market without allowing free labour movement. Kitiara Excellent that you've posted Articles 112 and 113. We can see the facts. Could you maybe post the basis for your opinion expressed as: 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 10151135)
Kitiara Could you maybe post the basis for your opinion I specifically differentiated between the articles and interpretation I posted and the opinion I posted since the opinion was simply that - my personal opinion. It is not based on any specific research, but rather is informed by my life experiences and what I have taken on board over the years as I have read news stories, talked with people and generally lived and worked in the UK. Basically, I don't see the basis for a case that the UK has suffered as a consequence of free movement. Certainly where I live, local farmers have benefitted significantly from EU migrant labour as has both local hospital. My GP is a Chinese immigrant and presently the only GP at the practice due to lack of applicants to fill vacancies. One of my neighbours is a German citizen who has lived in the village for 25 years, operates a business and employs 18 people. I'm certain there are many that have different experiences to me, and thus hold different opinions, but my opinion is as it is. |
Kitiara
Thanks for your considered reply and I think that we certainly have points of agreement. Your observation of agricultural EU migrant labour is most pertinent and my understanding is that seasonal workers are now staying away from UK due weak Sterling, a perceived "hostile environment" and higher wages in other EU countries. Perhaps free movement of labour is not only a "red line" but also a "red herring" and we are in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot (that's enough metaphors!)? The point I'm attempting to allude to is that this particular "red line" is a chimera that can be politically finessed by EFTA/EEA membership, whether Article 112 is invoked or not. |
Originally Posted by ZFT
(Post 10117227)
Why are you surprised?
If you leave any club, you lose club 'benefits' and/or privileges Chaos is quite likely in the short term. |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10140915)
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..."
|
In the case of Liechtenstein every single one of the parties has an interest that the, yes, technically time restricted, status quo continues. Liechtenstein for its own reasons, the rest to reduce the exodus of too many wealthy families (there is absolutely no restriction on family reunification in Liechtenstein, one person moving into Liechtenstein then can get his whole family into there) into a low tax environment.
That interest wouldn't be there in the case of the UK. And yes, while they can invoke the Article 112 unilaterally, it has to be done in a restricted manner in terms of time of application and scope of application or the corresponding parties can of course similarly Article 112 against the UK. |
ADS and GAMA letter to Michel Barnier on aviation safety talks
Looks like people are just starting to wake up to what is about to happen:
We are concerned that steps need to be taken urgently to make arrangements on aviation safety after the UK leaves the EU. As such, we have written to European Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier – in a joint letter with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), an international trade association for the sector – to request that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) begin technical and contingency planning discussions by June’s European Council, separately from political negotiations. If aviation safety arrangements have not been fully prepared to avoid any uncertainty over the legal status of UK certified aircraft designs and parts, or aircraft maintenance approvals, pilot and technician licences, aircraft could be unable to fly. |
Originally Posted by Brat
(Post 10151212)
But in most cases are not required to keep on paying club fees!
|
Originally Posted by NAROBS
(Post 10172077)
Has the government mouthpiece, the Bee Bee Ceeb, reported this yet - may be I missed it, along with the report on the Met. Office computer having a nervous breakdown.
N they'll only notice if and when they can't fly to Majorca for 20 quid |
So as of march next year my UK medical is no use flying a EU company? Charming!
|
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 10172732)
So as of march next year my UK medical is no use flying a EU company? Charming!
|
Only if........................
|
Denti,
Thanks, all this Exit-ment is no good for my blood-pressure! Nahh, no bother , Grown ups in the Government will sort it out to everyone's delight. Us commoners with responsibility for 200 plus people on a day to day basis must not get to exited, I suppose. Mind You , if John Clees and his old Flying Circus shows up for a ramp-check, I for one would not be surprised. |
FAA Prepared To Oversee Its U.K. MROs If Needed
Regulator plans for possibility of no new regulatory bilateral agreement being reached.
FAA, planning for a worst-case scenario, is prepared to take over surveillance of its 180 approved repair stations in the U.K. if a new regulatory bilateral agreement isn't in place when the country leaves the European Union (EU) next year. The UK government has not announced how it will regulate its aviation industry following the so-called Brexit--its decision to leave the EU effective April 1, 2019. One certainty: the UK will no longer be under the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) as an EU member. The UK's options--and the most likely outcome--include adopting EASA's regulations as a non-EU member, similar to what several countries, including Norway and Switzerland, have done. Another option is to use the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations as a foundation and go it alone. |
EU warns British airlines on post-Brexit flying
This was reported by Reuters on 13 December 2017. The British Government remains silent on the matter to the present day. Is anyone else getting a little worried by the increasing likelihood of a no deal "Hard Brexit" producing this catastrophe, or am I the only one?
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - British airlines will lose all flying rights the European Union has negotiated with third countries as well as those negotiated by individual EU states after Britain quits the bloc, the EU executive said in a note. In a notice to all airlines, a stark reminder of the risks facing the sector if there is no Brexit deal, the European Commission said UK air carriers would no longer enjoy traffic rights under any air transport agreement to which the EU is a party, such as the U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement. They would also lose flying rights under agreements between individual EU member states and third countries as they would not longer be considered EU airlines. In addition, all operating licenses granted by the British civil aviation authority will no longer be valid for the EU, the notice said, which means the airlines would be cut off from the intra-EU market. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10173599)
This was reported by Reuters on 13 December 2017. The British Government remains silent on the matter to the present day. Is anyone else getting a little worried by the increasing likelihood of a no deal "Hard Brexit" producing this catastrophe, or am I the only one?
|
Originally Posted by SamYeager
(Post 10173818)
It'll be alright on the night! ;)
This is going to be a catastrophe for the country, and aviation will likely feel the hits first and hardest. ...and no, this has nothing to do with ‘democracy’. |
For obvious reasons this forum is concentrating on the aviation issues
NONE of which are being reported in the press I wonder how many other industries are facing the same situation and likewise we know nothing about it? |
Bring on the catastrophe! It's amazing how much fear can be whipped up. We could still yet retain membership of EASA, but if we don't... Guess what? We still have exactly the same rights within Europe as anyany ot ICAO country. Our licences will still be ICAO licences (they just won't be EASA anymore) The concept of an EASA licence is a joke anyway - in theory you can use it on any EASA aircraft - in practice Ryanair will only accept an Irish licence!
The bottom line is that passengers are still going to want to fly, so the same number of aircraft and pilots will be needed to fly them. Maybe the Reg will change, maybe they won't. Anyway, there are bigger things than aviation. Brexit is supposed to be about bringing back democracy and boosting the economy. |
Rudestuff. Why don't you go and educate yourself about what the EU rules actually and then come back when you understand. |
rudestuff
Perhaps I could suggest that you read EU Referendum and get an idea of the disaster that would befall the nation if your call to "bring on the catastrophe" was actually heeded. The quote below gives an idea of the complexities involved and the huge dangers to UK Aerospace/Air Transport that such a reckless and irresponsible approach will bring. Unsurprisingly, Mrs May has expressed a preference for the status quo, with the UK retaining its membership of EASA. But that cannot happen. The EU's agencies are servants of the Union, established to service the Member States under the aegis of the European Commission. Concessions are made to Efta States, but even they with a form of associate membership of the EU, have no voting rights. But what can be readily established is that, outside Efta and the EEA, our target must be a bilateral agreement with the EU. These are highly formal and comprehensive arrangements which not only set up the areas of cooperation but also establish joint bodies which enable the agreements to be monitored, interpreted and developed. In the case of the United States, there is the "Bilateral Oversight Board" (no one seems to want to call it "Bob"); Canada has a less formal Joint Committee and Brazil has a Joint Committee of the Parties as well as Joint Sectorial Committees on Certification and Maintenance. The big problem we have at the moment is the same problem we have in agreeing a post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU. The aviation safety "bilaterals" are full-blown treaties so we cannot even begin to negotiate with the EU until after 29 March 2019, when we formally become a third country. Equally, we cannot enter into the less formal "working arrangement" type of relationship with EASA until we are a third country. This is where the ADS/GAMA letter to which I referred yesterday gets really interesting. These aviation bodies have become aware of the effects of Brexit and, in particular, the peril of withdrawing without a transition period. Ideally, they argue, the difficulties could be addressed by talks directly between EASA and the CAA, concluding a "separate aviation deal agreed prior to March 2019". However, the very solution that the industry seeks cannot be achieved which means that, if there is a "no deal" Brexit, catastrophic disruption to the aviation industry is inevitable. In legal terms, there is simply no way round this. What this effectively means is that – as I stated yesterday – "no deal" is not a serious option. The effect on the aviation sector alone is enough to rule it out. Factor in all the other problems, in other sectors, and no responsible government could allow it – and nor could MPs, individually or collectively, permit it. |
Well... whoever expected that a Brexit would not lead to economical war of secession with the EU must have been quite deluded. It is perfectly clear that the rump-EU will now do everything in their power to show to other possible separatists what will happen if you actually do. Britain will be economically isolated as much as the EU can manage lest they are willing to pay the tremendous separation charges which are part of the warfare Brussels is waging.
On the other hand, Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business, so what if Britan would unilaterally bring on large overflight charges for EU carriers just for starters? Or deny overflight? There are many ways an independent nation can make things very awkward and expensive for unfriendly nations who still need to do some business. Britain has chosen this way and now it is the time to see it through, not to wonder how to migate side effects. Being outside EASA might actually be a profitable business at the expense of current save havens like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or San Marino... and working in the direction of closer cooperation or adaption of ruling towards the FAA might make a lot of people happier than in the current state. |
AN2 Driver
Not sure that the EU thinks it's entering an "economical war of secession". I think this at http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogsp0t.com/ is probably nearer the case: ................The EU look on bewildered. Far from there being any sense that the British government has a clear and viable negotiating strategy that – as kept being claimed in the debates - the Commons votes might derail, there is growing alarm in the EU-27 that no such strategy exists. That same alarm is evident in the growing evidence of business slowdown in the face of a completely unknown future, and its gleeful counterpart in the pro-Brexit hedge funds betting on just that. It’s very likely that the average voter thinks that nothing much is happening except for irritating political rows: under the surface, the economic tectonic plates are shifting and really serious damage is now in prospect. And the clock is ticking very loud now. A Withdrawal Agreement (which, of course, is a completely different thing to the Withdrawal Bill being discussed at the moment) is meant to be ready for ratification by the EUCO meeting on 18 October. Given that almost nothing will be done in August because Westminster and Brussels close down, that means that, by my calculation, there are now just 62 working days left. If ever there were a time for political leadership, it is now. We already know that isn’t going to come from the Prime Minister or from the government. What we learned this week is that it isn’t going to come from the House of Commons, either. |
highcirrus,
well, the amounts of damage payments the EU has proposed the UK should pay if they leave pretty much has the smell of war reparation and in it's size alone is unacceptable. So what do you call it, if your opposite sets unmeetable conditions? To me, it pretty much looks like a hacked off wife asking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of the guy who finally figured out he is better off without her. But at state level, the way it is looks pretty much like economical warfare to me as the result would leave Britain in a very difficult financial mess if they accepted it, so it appears to me that the EU is pretty much trying to create a condition where there is an exit without agreement. Does it matter that both were not prepared? I don't think so. High statecraft can deal with the unexpected, those people obviously can't or are unwilling to. |
High statecraft can deal with the unexpected, those people obviously can't or are unwilling to. https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cwlw3xz0lvvt/brexit |
Just correct me if I am wrong , but Overflight right are old ICAO and Chicago stuff.
At no point can UK close airspace or overcharge any EU operator if a Hard Brexit is in place april 2019. Or if a Dumb Brexit is entered in April! ( A Dumb Brexit is a Hard Brexit with no plan or deal signed before 01:00 1 April 2019 Brussels Time! ) Anyone suggesting restrictions in UK airspace must be a moron. EU would use one nano second to retaliate and any Eastbound UK flight would face a new departure slot two to 5 years down the road. I can fly around the UK any time, but try avoiding European Airspace?. It goes from the North Pole to Africa! Remember UK airspace is tiny and has no effect on 90% of European flights. So who cares! I think it is only FAA that has taken this situation seriously, by sending over Inspectors. Interesting indeed. |
"are full-blown treaties " - which, with the USA, means you need Congressional approval........................
"Britain's hands are not totally bound in this. The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business," - hmm - they can fly round us - at some cost- try flying from the UK to anywhere but Americas without going through European airspace......................... |
Originally Posted by AN2 Driver
(Post 10174362)
The EU should not forget that they need the British airspace for their daily NATL business, so what if Britan would unilaterally bring on large overflight charges for EU carriers just for starters? Or deny overflight? There are many ways an independent nation can make things very awkward and expensive for unfriendly nations who still need to do some business. Britain has chosen this way and now it is the time to see it through, not to wonder how to migate side effects. Being outside EASA might actually be a profitable business at the expense of current save havens like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or San Marino... and working in the direction of closer cooperation or adaption of ruling towards the FAA might make a lot of people happier than in the current state.
What many do not really see is the fact that with every international agreement (whether trade or other stuff) you sign, you lose some part of control, usually in favor to some gains on the other side. Which puts the whole question of sovereignty in some very murky light indeed. |
AN2 Driver
I made an accurate and reasoned rebuttal of your premise re: "the smell of war reparation". I'm not sure whether you were able to read it before it was consigned to the moderated memory hole. Rgds highcirrus |
ADS and GAMA letter to Michel Barnier on Aviation Safety talks
The UK press yesterday reported in lurid terms the supposed adverse response by the European Commission to the recent ADS/GAMA letter addressed to Michel Barnier. For those Ppruners interested in the actualité rather than press hype/ignorance, Dr. Richard North's blog at EU Referendum is the place to go:
Thus, we had from The Times the claim that "Brussels bars aviation chiefs from preparing for no-deal", based on an unconfirmed assertion that the European Commission had intervened after the aerospace industry had contacted Barnier, specifically to prevent EASA and the CAA from holding talks. However, had the paper taken more note of what I had written in my second piece, they would perhaps have understood that – in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement and the transition period - it is not possible for EASA to enter into talks with the CAA to secure the optimum outcome, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). This, I observed, is a full-blown treaty and can only be negotiated by the EU and the UK government. And, to do that, they need to use the formal procedure set out in Article 218 of the consolidated treaties. Such negotiations are way above the pay scale of the agencies and, as with the broader post-Brexit relationship, the negotiation process can only be undertaken once the UK has left the EU and formally acquired the status of a "third country". Failing the settlement of a BASA, there is provision within the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) for inter-agency agreements between EASA and the "aeronautical authorities of third countries" (Article 27). But, once again, the qualifying requirement is for the UK to assume the status of a third country. |
Originally Posted by highcirrus
(Post 10176345)
Either of the above solutions, of course, as Dr. North says, would only be possible following a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement after which UK would become a "third country" and enter a transition period to 31 December 2020. A "crash out" Hard Brexit with no Agreement and hence no transition period, would lead to Aerospace/Air Transport Armageddon. The full blog text is well worth a read for anyone interested in the immediate (perilous) future of our industry.
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises. This clearly shows that the impact to aviation would be immense, not just from Britain but across Europe as Airbus aircraft cannot be flown as UK manufactured parts become no longer certified. Therefore it's not just Great Britain which has an interest in ensuring a deal is met but also Europe. If the impact was just Aviation in Great Britain, I would anticipate the EU allowing us to stew but as the issue has the possibility of major disruption across Europe, you can guarantee a resolution will be found. Heck, imagine MEPS in Brussels actually having to use the Bus home, instead of an Airbus...... |
Originally Posted by Steve6443
(Post 10176471)
I think you're missing the most critical point from his blog which, in my eyes, is the following:
However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises. This clearly shows that the impact to aviation would be immense, not just from Britain but across Europe as Airbus aircraft cannot be flown as UK manufactured parts become no longer certified. Therefore it's not just Great Britain which has an interest in ensuring a deal is met but also Europe. If the impact was just Aviation in Great Britain, I would anticipate the EU allowing us to stew but as the issue has the possibility of major disruption across Europe, you can guarantee a resolution will be found. Heck, imagine MEPS in Brussels actually having to use the Bus home, instead of an Airbus...... |
Steve6443
Yes, you are quite right, this is the critical point. However, we are also aware that, without such agreements and in the absence of a transition period, UK parts fitted to EU-registered aircraft will no longer be validly certified, the aerospace industries and airline operations of the EU Member States will be as badly affected as UK enterprises. (This) can be resolved by them with the flick of of a pen, generating a temporary fix for EU operators/part 145 organisations and AOCs. They are the regulator. Whilst the UK has no vote, no in and no ways of negotiating an arrangement for its licence holding organisations and people in the time remaining. |
Don’t think Spain and Greece will have much of a tourist trade in 2019 onwards�� |
Originally Posted by DON T
(Post 10176679)
Don’t think Spain and Greece will have much of a tourist trade in 2019 onwards�� 2) not heard of wizzair or Norwegian? There will be plenty of flying in the above scenario, just not with UK carriers. Most of the tourist industry have majority profit vs their airline groups, so will only knock trade slightly. 3) I doubt anyone will have the money to afford to go abroad on holiday once Brexit trashes the rest of UK industry. |
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10176762)
1) 3) I doubt anyone will have the money to afford to go abroad on holiday once Brexit trashes the rest of UK industry.
Secondary is the crash of goods heading towards UK - let's not forget that 12% of all German produced cars head to UK - so the german economy will suffer because who will buy these cars? Albanians? Turks? Finally, the aviation sector will suffer because, as you say, few will be able to afford to fly. So the shortage of pilots suddenly becomes a glut of pilots on the market; because of this, our terms and conditions will revert to how a certain Irish Gentleman wishes them to be - slave wages. Although personally I'm very relaxed about Brexit itself, I do see people in Brussels wanting to trash the UK economy in order to deter others from leaving, without realising that they will harm themselves more significantly. |
It strikes me that the issue of the UK being unable to negotiate any air related legislation post Brexit while still being part of the EU is simply the lawyers putting their narrow viewpoint on things. Remember, policies are devised by the politicians but drafted by lawyers - so it is up to the politicians to advise the lawyers to arrange the appropriate changes required! If one simply took a narrow legal view of everything then no laws would ever be changed!
|
Polax52. I think that - given we are still in the EU and bound by all the rules and obligations that go with that - the role has to be open to anyone who can demonstrate their right to work in any of EU28. It seems astonishingly late to be creating this job, and how do they expect to get anyone with serious negotiating ability at that salary level? |
Independent article covering the negotiation job posting Brexit Head Aviation Negotiator Job Only Just Advertised By Government A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “dedicated teams with many years of experience and expertise” are already working on post-Brexit aviation. “We are now are looking to supplement these existing teams with additional posts. “Our EU exit plans are well developed and we are working closely with business and trade associations to provide the certainty they need to understand the challenges and opportunities they may face in the coming months and year. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.