Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725463
It's the political declaration.

I don't wish to get incur the wrath of the mods by getting into a non-aviation public Brexit debate. So, I'll just say that having read both, no, I don't think that this is a reheated May deal, I think it's substantially different. It's also pleasingly short and quite easy to read.

G
By PaulB
#1725464
johnm wrote:@Genghis the Engineer I'll get round to reading that I hope, thanks for the link, which of the 3 documents is the extract from?? I've assumed (though not checked) that the core of the WA is Maydeal and it's the protocols and Political Declaration that have changed.


It’s in the new PD, not the WA as GtE’s quote suggests.

The new PD also says this (which I think is taken from the old PD)


Regulatory aspects
23. While preserving regulatory autonomy, the Parties will put in place provisions to promote regulatory approaches that are transparent, efficient, promote avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade in goods and are compatible to the extent possible. Disciplines on technical barriers to trade (TBT) and sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) should build on and go beyond the respective WTO agreements. Specifically, the TBT disciplines should set out common principles in the fields of standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessment, accreditation, market surveillance, metrology and labelling. The Parties should treat one another as single entities as regards SPS measures, including for certification purposes, and recognise regionalisation on the basis of appropriate epidemiological information provided by the exporting party. The Parties will also explore the possibility of cooperation of United Kingdom authorities with Union agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).


Does the above imply co-operation with EASA rather than membership?
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725467
Does the above imply co-operation with EASA rather than membership?


I would say that the door is open for either and we'll see full membership in some scenarios and co-operation in others..

I think once the detail starts to move, the "red line " on ECJ role might start to go a bit fuzzy through the implementation of the Swiss style model currently under development.
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1725483
With all the hysteria over EASA I am happy that I didn't jump on the band wagon just yet and rush to change my licence to another country.

Lockhaven wrote:I have been led to believe from someone who has inside knowledge that provisions are being made to remain within EASA.


Of course it maybe a slightly modified version of EASA but not crashing out and burning in hell as suggested.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725500
Having now read the political declaration it leaves a good deal of room for "interpretation", I am guessing that the original WA is substantially the same with variations on the backstop and the protocols. So the door is definitely open for a Swiss style EASA scenario IMHO.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725507
Gertie wrote:
johnm wrote:Having now read the political declaration

The PD is only a wish list anyway. You can't rely on anything in it actually happening.


Precisely it lays out some principles to be followed and opens opportunities, whether they are taken sensibly is currently in the lap of the Gods.
By Overflight
#1725510
The way I've always understood it, we stay bound to EASA rules/alignment during the transition period to December 2020 but then we are categorically out of EASA. The aim is to have renegotiated some alignment/cooperation/agreement that broadly adheres to EASA protocols by December 2020, but we will not be a full member and therefore oversight/jurisdiction on our UK regulation is not overseen by the ECJ.

Of course most UK aviation and aerospace industry would see this as a disaster. Pretty much every notable stakeholder has reiterated that it is essential that we remain a member (full) regardless of all forms of Brexit. The CAA have categorically stated they could not be ready for extracting ourselves from EASA for several years, requiring several hundred new people employed to carry the additional burden.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725512
Overflight wrote:The way I've always understood it, we stay bound to EASA rules/alignment during the transition period to December 2020 but then we are categorically out of EASA. The aim is to have renegotiated some alignment/cooperation/agreement that broadly adheres to EASA protocols by December 2020, but we will not be a full member and therefore oversight/jurisdiction on our UK regulation is not overseen by the ECJ.

Of course most UK aviation and aerospace industry would see this as a disaster. Pretty much every notable stakeholder has reiterated that it is essential that we remain a member (full) regardless of all forms of Brexit. The CAA have categorically stated they could not be ready for extracting ourselves from EASA for several years, requiring several hundred new people employed to carry the additional burden.


I think that once the passions have eased a bit and pragmatism moves in we'll see something akin to the Swiss model, because the PD already allows for an arbitration body which will consult the ECJ on interpretation of EU law and that's pretty much what the Swiss model is.

However HoC has not bought the deal yet...…...
treborsnave, Lockhaven liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725539
johnm wrote:
I think that once the passions have eased a bit and pragmatism moves in we'll see something akin to the Swiss model, because the PD already allows for an arbitration body which will consult the ECJ on interpretation of EU law and that's pretty much what the Swiss model is.


I was talking about Brexit with a Swiss friend recently. His comment:

"The problem is you are trying to negotiate in 3 (2?) years what we have only managed to hammer out with the buggers in the last 30 years..."

Applies to the whole thing or the EASA bit...
(see how I added that aviation bit there to stay in the rules?? :mrgreen: )

Regards, SD..
kanga liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725543
The side issue of disentangling 40 years of integration is obviously a consideration, but the PD specifically references the model already established for Switzerland and so I would be cautiously optimistic that we could adapt from where we are pretty easily in an EASA context.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725577
Getting back to Aviation.... Im covered, got both EASA and UK PPLs now... but it sure would be cool if the CAA & EASA licencing (Ok, French for me) authorities were to keep recognising that a Medical for one was good enough for the other and likewise with the revalidations every 2 years... :pray:

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1725578
UK local interpretation and application of EASA regulations, with presumably a reasonable number of Brits "providing advice to" the drafting committees...

Why, it would look almost exactly like the JAA days. And, whilst the UK application of JAR-FCL was admittedly a right mess, most other aspects of that worked really well.

G
kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13