Brexit discussion thread IV

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Flights to and from the UK and over other EU countries will continue. What may change are the rights of UK airlines to operate within the EU. So EasyJet can fly from Gatwick to Alicante but not from Frankfurt to Alicante.

No. Currently UK relies on EU certification of aircraft, licensing of pilots, to fly to third countries. In a complete crash-out Brexit with no deal of any kind, UK aircraft would lack certification, and UK pilots would lack licensing, needed to fly to any third country, EUL or non-EU. They'd have no insurance cover, and no airline will fly without insurance and, even if they were willing to fly, few if any countries would allow an uncertificated aircraft, or an unlicensed pilot, to land.

The business of not being able to undertake intra-EU flights is a different matter, and has to do with the ownership of airlines - are they EU-owned or not? - not certification or licensing.

Note: Aircraft/pilots from other countries could still fly to/from the UK (unless the UK decided in a fit of retaliatory pique to ban them, but that's unlikely) so the UK wouldn't be completely cut off. But it would still be an intolerable situation for the UK govt.

Yes, but the certification issue will be sorted seperately from Brexit terms. Airlines from all over the world fly into Europe. Nothing to do with EU membership.

Intra-EU flights is very much an EU matter - a compeitition/single market issue.

lawred2

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but the certification issue will be sorted seperately from Brexit terms. Airlines from all over the world fly into Europe. Nothing to do with EU membership.

Intra-EU flights is very much an EU matter - a compeitition/single market issue.

The EU is the certifier or has agreements in place with peer certifiers

First Up

lawred2 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but the certification issue will be sorted seperately from Brexit terms. Airlines from all over the world fly into Europe. Nothing to do with EU membership.

Intra-EU flights is very much an EU matter - a compeitition/single market issue.

The EU is the certifier or has agreements in place with peer certifiers

I'm just pointing out that an airline doesn't have to be from the EU in order to fly to the EU.

There's enough problems around Brexit without inventing some.

trellheim

The EU is the certifier or has agreements in place with peer certifiers

and the CAA is going ape trying to get back to being a certifier

Rhineshark

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but the certification issue will be sorted seperately from Brexit terms. Airlines from all over the world fly into Europe. Nothing to do with EU membership.

Intra-EU flights is very much an EU matter - a compeitition/single market issue.

I think the point is that they are to do with EU membership insofar as it is the EU group doing the recognising for all incoming planes based on a collectively agreed set of safety criteria. Once Britain is out of the EU, they will need to, at the least, submit a huge amount of paperwork to apply to be recognised as a third country that doesn't do stupid things with their planes/regs/parts used that could endanger people in the EU.

The EU can't even just recognise them automatically because the first minor repair done after March 29th can't be automatically validated as having been done by a recognised qualified UK engineer. Hell, soon as a plane lifts off without the recognised regulated checks being done, which do have to match checks done on the continent or in Ireland, that plane is barred from landing in EU territory bar emergency* (which would be down to the country).


As I understand it anyway.

* Which I believe is a "law of the high seas" sort of thing, accepted if not specifically written down. You let a plane in trouble land regardless of agreements due to imminent risk to life. Also, it's probably coming down somewhere so better on a runway than a highway.

First Up

Rhineshark wrote: »

I think the point is that they are to do with EU membership insofar as it is the EU group doing the recognising for all incoming planes based on a collectively agreed set of safety criteria. Once Britain is out of the EU, they will need to, at the least, submit a huge amount of paperwork to apply to be recognised as a third country that doesn't do stupid things with their planes/regs/parts used that could endanger people in the EU.

The EU can't even just recognise them automatically because the first minor repair done after March 29th can't be automatically validated as having been done by a recognised qualified UK engineer. Hell, soon as a plane lifts off without the recognised regulated checks being done, which do have to match checks done on the continent or in Ireland, that plane is barred from landing in EU territory bar emergency* (which would be down to the country).


As I understand it anyway.

* Which I believe is a "law of the high seas" sort of thing, accepted if not specifically written down. You let a plane in trouble land regardless of agreements due to imminent risk to life. Also, it's probably coming down somewhere so better on a runway than a highway.

Yes, of course they will have to go through procedures and paperwork. So do airlines from Nepal and Burundi if they want to fly to Europe.

This will have to happen regardless of their Brexit terms or their future trading relationship with the EU.

breatheme

First Up wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that an airline doesn't have to be from the EU in order to fly to the EU.

There's enough problems around Brexit without inventing some.

Yes. But. Has the UK been taking the necessary steps to be able to fly into the EU (or, anywhere for that matter)? or is that another thing they've completely forgot about or haven't done their homework on post-Brexit?

For what it's worth, the Chequer's agreement was in favour of continued membership in the EASA (with no voting rights).

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

Yes, of course they will have to go through procedures and paperwork. So do airlines from Nepal and Burundi if they want to fly to Europe.

This will have to happen regardless of their Brexit terms or their future trading relationship with the EU.

I think it can take several months, maybe even years, for such airlines to get permission to fly to the EU.

Are you suggesting that British airlines will be unable to fly to Europe for up to a year after Brexit?

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

I think it can take several months, maybe even years, for such airlines to get permission to fly to the EU.

Are you suggesting that British airlines will be unable to fly to Europe for up to a year after Brexit?

Here lies the issue with the UK and Brexit.

They just assume that everything will remain the same until such time as they have got their own house in order. Sure we are the UK, why wouldn't things just continue on as before?

Well, for the very same reason that they voted to leave the EU in the 1st place, to take back control. And that means you have to make new agreements. The UK seem to want to take back control by simply using the agreements that others already have.

Of course the planes will fly, or course my licence will work, of course my insurance is valid. Some of that might be true, but there is a serious rick that it won't and the UK are requiring the EU to do a deal with them on it.

This is the same UK that is threatening to walk away without any deal and to welch on their financial commitments.

Fair enough, the EU is not want to see UK cut off, but what are the UK willing to give the EU in return. At present, there appears a very vocal set of UK politicians that want to simply walk away. They cannot have it both ways.

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

I think it can take several months, maybe even years, for such airlines to get permission to fly to the EU.

Are you suggesting that British airlines will be unable to fly to Europe for up to a year after Brexit?

I'm not suggesting anything; just pointing out that its not dependent on the UK's withdrawal terms or future relations.

If they forgot to apply, that's their problem.

trellheim

For what it's worth, the Chequer's agreement was in favour of continued membership in the EASA (with no voting rights).

However, even if EASA association ( and associated ECJ oversight) is accepted it is still all contingent on "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" and we continue to circle the plug hole

CelticRambler

"There are plenty of countries not in the EU ..." is one of the favourite Brexiteer defences. They then (usually) go on to cite examples of countries that deal with the EU on the basis of a long-standing agreement of one kind or another, e.g. US aircraft flying into the EU. The concept of post-Brexit UK being a third country with the same standing as Nigeria or Cambodia doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, and rarely does any journalist challenge this particular case of cherry picking.

As for the cobbling together of a series of ad hoc arrangements to clear up a hard Brexit mess, isn't that the Swiss model that the EU so desperately wants to avoid? I would like to think that the EU will, in the event of a crash-out Brexit, allow just enough chaos to afflict the UK so as to ensure that subsequent negotiations take place against a backdrop of real life, not ToryUKIP one-upmanship.

breatheme

trellheim wrote: »

However, even if EASA association ( and associated ECJ oversight) is accepted it is still all contingent on "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" and we continue to circle the plug hole

Indeed. I'm just saying that the "plan" to deal with aviation is to not leave the relevant agency. So far. There is no plan in place to set up a competent body in the UK.

CelticRambler wrote: »

"There are plenty of countries not in the EU ..." is one of the favourite Brexiteer defences. They then (usually) go on to cite examples of countries that deal with the EU on the basis of a long-standing agreement of one kind or another, e.g. US aircraft flying into the EU. The concept of post-Brexit UK being a third country with the same standing as Nigeria or Cambodia doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, and rarely does any journalist challenge this particular case of cherry picking.

I agree, it comes from a very ignorant place. Fact of the matter is, for better or for worse, the UK does not know how to be outside the EU.

As for the cobbling together of a series of ad hoc arrangements to clear up a hard Brexit mess, isn't that the Swiss model that the EU so desperately wants to avoid? I would like to think that the EU will, in the event of a crash-out Brexit, allow just enough chaos to afflict the UK so as to ensure that subsequent negotiations take place against a backdrop of real life, not ToryUKIP one-upmanship.

Yeah. I tried to read Chequer's in full. It's actually a really embarassing document. (I may give it another go at some point.) However, a lot of the things in it are... very cringe. "UK airlines are used to flying intra-EU flights outside the UK, there's a lot of money there, so let's keep it that way" or the faux CU they presented as well: "oh, there are all these just in time supply chains and I want to keep businesses happy, so we should have free movement of goods to keep things the way they are, but we also want to have our own tariffs and tax so here's how we'll get your tariffs to you".

If you want to keep things the way they are then you remain. The argument of "these things are working for us and there's money there so it should stay the same" could be used by any EU country. The UK can't get away with undermining the union.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything; just pointing out that its not dependent on the UK's withdrawal terms or future relations.

If they forgot to apply, that's their problem.

Once again you're showing your ignorance on the issue; no UK airline or government agency can apply for ANYTHING until they have left the EU because it's an EU competency (same way they can't sign trade deals while in EU). Hence this is not something they can request in advance; they can only request this once they have left EU on 30th March. Hence day 1 they can submit the applications etc. but that is only the start of the evaluation & recognition process if there's no deal agreed and also requires the UK agencies to have every area EU does covered (such as engineers to review every part of an air plane design for part approval for example) and until recertified their planes, parts etc. can't land in EU. I'll give you a hint; the CAA are not prepared for a no brexit crash out.

CelticRambler wrote: »

"There are plenty of countries not in the EU ..." is one of the favourite Brexiteer defences.

Actually fun fact on that one; if you take the world's GDP about 25% is in EU; the block UK is leaving. Another 25% in NA which EU has a FTA and UK is leaving from. The third quarter is in Asia were EU has FTA/bilaterial agreements with most major nations leaving about 25% of the world GDP with the rest of the 160 countries in the world were EU once again has FTA with the major nations making up the GDP. Hence UK is leaving the largest ever FTA collaboration in terms of GDP value because "there's plenty of growth in the countries outside EUs FTAs". Yet those countries are in general considered developing markets. The individual largest market EU does not have a FTA is with Russia; yet they are smaller than Australia in terms of GDP...

Someone should show the below picture to a Brexiteer MP and ask which country are you going to get a better FTA with than EU and enjoy the fluster...


Picture & article can be found at Foreign express.

First Up

Nody wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything; just pointing out that its not dependent on the UK's withdrawal terms or future relations.

If they forgot to apply, that's their problem.

Once again you're showing your ignorance on the issue; no UK airline or government agency can apply for ANYTHING until they have left the EU because it's an EU competency (same way they can't sign trade deals while in EU). Hence this is not something they can request in advance; they can only request this once they have left EU on 30th March. Hence day 1 they can submit the applications etc. but that is only the start of the evaluation & recognition process if there's no deal agreed and also requires the UK agencies to have every area EU does covered (such as engineers to review every part of an air plane design for part approval for example) and until recertified their planes, parts etc. can't land in EU. I'll give you a hint; the CAA are not prepared for a no brexit crash out.

And you continue to miss my point.

There have been posts here saying that a crash out (WTO) Brexit will ground aircraft. That is nonsense; there may be procedural and sequencing problems to do with licensing but they are not to do with whether the UK stays in the CU or EEA or reverts to WTO trade terms.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

There have been posts here saying that a crash out (WTO) Brexit will ground aircraft.

Indeed, including the one you are replying to, which explains why.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

There have been posts here saying that a crash out (WTO) Brexit will ground aircraft.

Indeed, including the one you are replying to, which explains why.

Give me patience.

The UK will have to revisit its air travel arrangements NO MATTER ON WHAT TERMS IT LEAVES THE EU.

The terms on which it does so MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

The UK will have to revisit its air travel arrangements NO MATTER ON WHAT TERMS IT LEAVES THE EU.

The terms on which it does so MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

Except if they agree a deal to stay in the relevant EU organization, or join the EEA and remain, or agree a transition period where they remain in the existing framework or....

...or almost anything except crash out with no deal, which would, to use your typography GROUND AIRCRAFT.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The UK will have to revisit its air travel arrangements NO MATTER ON WHAT TERMS IT LEAVES THE EU.

The terms on which it does so MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

Except if they agree a deal to stay in the relevant EU organization, or join the EEA and remain, or agree a transition period where they remain in the existing framework or....

...or almost anything except crash out with no deal, which would, to use your typography GROUND AIRCRAFT.

No it wouldn't but if having had it explained to you at least half a dozen times hasn't worked, I'll leave you to it.

brickster69

Peregrinus wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

You are missing the point. For the vote to get approved or rejected it is down to the % of the population to accept or reject any vote. If you take out the UK then if  Germany, France, Italy & Spain for example vote in this instance, they would win.
The voting % next to Ireland is 0.93% of the population without the UK.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN#page=108

Again, brickster, from the top:

For a proposal to be approved in the Council of Ministers by a qualified majority, two tests have to be passed.  

First, the votes in support of the proposal must represent (in this case) at least 72% of the participating member states (on a one-state, one-vote basis).  Ther will be 27 participating member states in this vote; at least 20 states must support it, or the resolution will not pass.  Any 8 states can block it.  Population is irrelevant here.

Secondly, the votes in support of the proposal must be from states which include at least 65% of the total population of the participating member states.  

In round figures, the EU-27 have a combined population of 446 million.  65% of that is 290 million.  Germany, France, Italy and Spain between them have a population of 257 million.

So your claim fails both tests.  German, France, Italy and Spain are not 20 participating member states; they are four.  And the do not represent 65% of the population of the EU-27, but 57%.  They can't pass either of the two tests, never mind both.

The whole point about the qualified majority rule is that it's designed to give smaller member states a voting strength which is disproportionate to their population.  The big four can't railroad through a measure on which they are all agreed.  Despite their large populations, even acting together they need to secure the support of another 16 member states.  The smallest 8 member states (which does not include Ireland, by the way) could block this deal, despite having between them just 3% of the population of the EU-27.

Understood. However those 4 countries could veto a deal together as a group, even if 23 voted for it. So in effect the veto power is based on members population in this instance. In a FTA agreement any single veto vote would be enough regardless of population size.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything; just pointing out that its not dependent on the UK's withdrawal terms or future relations.

If they forgot to apply, that's their problem.

They are caught in a fix.

They can't apply until after Brexit, because until then they are not eligible to apply as third-country airlines.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, with a hard exit, then they can apply on Day 1 of the new era. That is when the problems will begin, if the applications take time.

The airlines need a transition period whereby they are allowed to continue flying as an EU airline while simultaneously being allowed to apply as a third-country airline for future operations.

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

The airlines need a transition period whereby they are allowed to continue flying as an EU airline while simultaneously being allowed to apply as a third-country airline for future operations.

If only the bloody intransigent EU would come up with a deal that included a transition period.

Fecking rotters!

trellheim

DOnt forget that uk airlines have been establishing companies in the EU . I suspect you will see a lot more of CAA licenses transferring over soon .

An Ciarraioch

Sterling seems to have fallen considerably in recent days:

https://xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=GBP

Gerry T

One of the problems for aviation is airbus UK makes wings for all it's aircraft, post a hard brexit those parts can't be used on new planes or spares. Not until the UK gets their aviation sector set up for certification.
Would the EU a low those parts to be shipped to the EU and have them go through a certification process in the EU

flatty

I honestly think even as a reluctant UK resident, that the chequers deal or any such deal will simply be a running sore. It would be best for everyone, not least the UK youth, that brexit be hard, fast and unequivocal, so it's resultant damage is equally hard fast and unequivocal, otherwise fox, Davies, gove, jrm, Boris et al will have the opportunity to hide and to obfuscate and to pretend it's not happening. The best result for all in the medium term is political upheaval in the UK, and a new generation taking the reins, and longer term, hopefully, re integration with Europe. Any fudge will simply draw this out. I hope the eu bend not one jot, and put their energy instead into PR aimed at the UK youth, if they are even inclined to try.

flatty

Gerry T wrote: »

One of the problems for aviation is airbus UK makes wings for all it's aircraft, post a hard brexit those parts can't be used on new planes or spares. Not until the UK gets their aviation sector set up for certification.
Would the EU a low those parts to be shipped to the EU and have them go through a certification process in the EU

As an aside, I've heard that it is extremely difficult to make the airbus profitable, and that handed back end of lease planes are already being parked in the desert.

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Sterling seems to have fallen considerably in recent days:

https://xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=GBP

At the end of August last year, it was 92.6 p to the Euro so it can get worse but not be as bad as it was. The market are still not sure how it will go - deal or no deal.

murphaph

trellheim wrote: »

DOnt forget that uk airlines have been establishing companies in the EU . I suspect you will see a lot more of CAA licenses transferring over soon .

That doesn't really help. British airports themselves would be uncertified in a crash out.

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

At the end of August last year, it was 92.6 p to the Euro so it can get worse but not be as bad as it was. The market are still not sure how it will go - deal or no deal.

The markets shouldn't care the uncertainty should be pushing it higher

There is something amiss with the price of sterling . I'm not quite sure what but it's not right and its certainly not a reflection of current circumstances