CargoOne

EFTA states have the right to invoke the Article unilaterally. Nothing to do with the EU. Please read the link provided.

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:

I'm sure you know that Liechtenstein has successfully invoked Article 112 for some years now.

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.

But in most cases are not required to keep on paying club fees!

Err well, perhaps not everyone is as keen to stay as you Harry.

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:

Just to refresh, the original Brexit Notice to Stakeholders refers.

you are if you want to drop in for the occasional snifter tho' - that's the issue here - some people want out and then complain they lose the benefits they would like to keep.................

absolutely no interest from the great British public in arcana like this

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!

Only if there is no deal, any deal will likely include the extended transition period (in which the UK has full access to the EU market, but no say anymore in its rules), so your medical should be fine ;)

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.

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?

It'll be alright on the night! ;)

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.