UK aviation and BREXIT

cent05zr70

On ROPS
On ROPs
No, I think I'm tired of you particular brand of strawman drivel.

You posted a link you clearly didn't read about something you clearly know bugger all about. Find someone elses time to waste with your tedious oneline responses.
Thank you for your important comment.
QED.
 
Meanwhile, back in reality outwith the legal "knowledge" of internet randoms mashing things into Google, we find that:

The UK is still asking to stay in EASA and accept the role of the ECJ;
The EU offer for non-EU EASA members still uses the ECJ for dispute resolution;
Current non-EU members of EASA still use the ECJ in that very narrow role.

I am therefore forced to conclude that the only driver towards setting up an alternative arrangement is the voices in people's heads.
 
And further to the "let's leave the ECJ" fantasy above, I note that the UK has just signed up to the new European Patent Court. That has similar links to the ECJ to those remaining in EASA would involve.

So it's clear that there is no will on the part of government to seek alternatives. It's also clear that Brexit in name only is the plan.

Subscribe to read
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
The BIG problem is the GFA (which never had the EU in mind when it was drafted) as it gives the north a vote/referendum on all this. NI was in favour of staying in the EU by a marge majority (add in the republicans who want union and subtract the unionists who don't :) ) and you will get a vote to stay inthe UE/merge with the south. (which will horrify the politicians inthe south)

Then the Scots who aslo had a large majority to stay in the EU will also demand a vote (not that they are legaly entitled to one) So either Westminster gives them a vote (and rishk that the Scots say: we separate from England and stay in the EU) or the Scotts scream blue murder than the bastard English are screwing Scotland again and we are on to another Independance referendum.... loose-loose.

So it is not just NI and the GFA Scotland will get pulled into it.
I’m afraid the GFA had a lot to do with Europe, quite a lot. Socially and economically.

Edit....seen.
 
And further to the "let's leave the ECJ" fantasy above, I note that the UK has just signed up to the new European Patent Court. That has similar links to the ECJ to those remaining in EASA would involve.

So it's clear that there is no will on the part of government to seek alternatives. It's also clear that Brexit in name only is the plan.

Subscribe to read
It's been clear from the off that there is no will on the part of government to deviate any further from the status quo than that which allows them to cling to power.

At any cost.

HMG only offered the referendum to appease the Eurosceptics in the party, and to stem the haemorrhaging of support to UKIP, because the result was in the bag.

They campaigned hard for that status quo and invested heavily. The EU is a politicians wet dream. High reward for low effort. No accountability to boot.

Ba$tard proletariat got in the way, though. Called their bluff. Now they are dancing on the head of a pin.

Walking a tightrope and time is running out.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
If you read and understood the link you'd understand it backs my assertion.
No, it doesn't, the ECJ will pay no part in the European Patent Court as stated here:-
"But why did the member states not place the litigation system under the existing EU Court of Justice?"
"Margot Fröhlinger, principal director for unitary patent and international legal affairs at the EPO, explained that businesses and inventors did not want specialised chambers embedded in the EU court.
“It was not welcomed by the users, because they wanted independent judges, with technical knowledge and a special procedure,” she explained.
Neither did the EU judges have the “appetite” to create specialised chambers, she said.
She added that the legal basis of the court was an international treaty because it was sealed as an agreement between the EU and the EPO members, which include 38 countries."
 
No, it doesn't, the ECJ will pay no part in the European Patent Court as stated here:-
"But why did the member states not place the litigation system under the existing EU Court of Justice?"
"Margot Fröhlinger, principal director for unitary patent and international legal affairs at the EPO, explained that businesses and inventors did not want specialised chambers embedded in the EU court.
“It was not welcomed by the users, because they wanted independent judges, with technical knowledge and a special procedure,” she explained.
Neither did the EU judges have the “appetite” to create specialised chambers, she said.
She added that the legal basis of the court was an international treaty because it was sealed as an agreement between the EU and the EPO members, which include 38 countries."
So what body of law is this new Court based on and where does it go to, for instance, clear up definitions of terms and other such legal minutiae? Clue, the initials of the body it is based on and refers matters to to are E, C and J.

See, detail matters. Its also why we'll be in EASA with links to the ECJ and the government will be able to spin away from their previous fundamentalist position. Because those most firmly wedded to Brexit appear least able to deal with the complexity of the task.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
So what body of law is this new Court based on and where does it go to, for instance, clear up definitions of terms and other such legal minutiae? Clue, the initials of the body it is based on and refers matters to to are E, C and J.

See, detail matters. Its also why we'll be in EASA with links to the ECJ and the government will be able to spin away from their previous fundamentalist position. Because those most firmly wedded to Brexit appear least able to deal with the complexity of the task.
Care to explain why the two times that the ECJ is mentioned is when they state that it won't be used?
This is the thing about you Remainers, you see the letters "E" & "U" together in a word and automatically assume that it's means the EU and will mean the ECJ as well. In this case it doesn't, what with the European Patent Organisaton being set up in 1977, before the EU was even a twinkle in the Common Market's eye.
 
Care to explain why the two times that the ECJ is mentioned is when they state that it won't be used?
This is the thing about you Remainers, you see the letters "E" & "U" together in a word and automatically assume that it's means the EU and will mean the ECJ as well. In this case it doesn't, what with the European Patent Organisaton being set up in 1977, before the EU was even a twinkle in the Common Market's eye.

Because those two times are not referring to the areas in which the ECJ is linked to the new Patent Court. I know it's all dry head of a pin legal stuff, but detail matters when it comes to putting agreements in place. Quoting stuff that deals with different parts of the setup won't change that.
 
Care to explain why the two times that the ECJ is mentioned is when they state that it won't be used?
This is the thing about you Remainers, you see the letters "E" & "U" together in a word and automatically assume that it's means the EU and will mean the ECJ as well. In this case it doesn't, what with the European Patent Organisaton being set up in 1977, before the EU was even a twinkle in the Common Market's eye.

Im still waiting for an example of when this all omnipotent ECJ had to arbitrate on some EASA matter…
 
Im still waiting for an example of when this all omnipotent ECJ had to arbitrate on some EASA matter…
I've told you more than
once that any time the ECJ rules on aviation it arbitrates on an EASA matter. It's that easy.
1525270560306.png
 
Care to explain why the two times that the ECJ is mentioned is when they state that it won't be used?
This is the thing about you Remainers, you see the letters "E" & "U" together in a word and automatically assume that it's means the EU and will mean the ECJ as well. In this case it doesn't, what with the European Patent Organisaton being set up in 1977, before the EU was even a twinkle in the Common Market's eye.
I thought he was refering to the Unified Patent Court.

Here: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf

Despite the absence of the letters "E" & "U" it does mention the ECJ quite a few times.
 
Fascinating, so the ECJ now can rule on international law?
As opposed to which court? The ECJ is THE court for many European (not EU) laws and countries. As noted in this thread the ECJ covers 34 countries for Civil Aviation (for the EASA) etc which all 34 out of 34 countries Civil Aviation industries are happy with and no one wants to change. Somewhere above it mentions the ECJ covers 38 countries for something else.

Like it or not as >50% of UN business is throught the EU and other European countries covered by the ECJ the UK is still going to have to work with the ECJ despite voluntarily loosing any seat on the ECJ.

If you are thinking of the ICJ or International court. The UK does not have a presence on that any more we just have to do as we are told by foreigners.
 
Last edited:
Well, this could be a bit novel but I wonder if there's any sensible replies or opinions on this matter. Perhaps an answer that would avoid people who spend all day, every day on here slagging off people who spend all day, every day on here or sock puppets accusing others of being sock puppets etc. Here goes.

Now, back in March, the PM said UK wanted to stay in EASA (and the medicines agency, the finance agency, atomic agency etc etc). I think that, no matter what the outcome, the chances of UK flights being suddenly grounded on Leave Day would be virtually nil as some compromise/treaty/agreement will be signed before then (unless a hard Brexit takes place) and not a lot will happen.
However (there's always a however) reports seem to be a bit contradictory on what will happen.
For example, on the very same day it was reported that:

Following the UK’s vote to the leave the EU, however, the alarming possibility has been raised of EASA losing one of its founding and key members.
If that happened, it would certainly be worse news for the UK than for EASA. ADS, the trade body for British aerospace, reckons it would take 10 years for the country’s civil aviation authority to create the necessary certification infrastructure.
“It would be catastrophic for [UK] industry if there was a backlog of parts not being certified. Maintaining access to the certification regime in Europe is absolutely critical as there is no UK replacement that can get up to speed quickly enough,” says Jeegar Kakkad, chief economist for ADS.


That would seem to imply that UK wants to set up its own regulatory body (CAA) but doesn't have the means to do so for at least 10 years after we leave (which has been posted on here and, of course, shouted down).

On the same day, this also appeared:
The UK has historically made a substantial contribution to EASA both in terms of skills and funding – providing about 50 members of staff and paying over Eu5 million per year to the budget. It is one of the biggest technical contributors to EASA’s working groups,” says Mark Bisset, partner at Clyde & Co and author of a special Brexit report published by the European Business Aviation Association. “The UK has also always been willing to share with EASA the expertise of the Civil Aviation Authority. It’s encouraging to see that EASA is being raised at the highest political levels – let’s hope the same now applies to other Brexit-related issues for aviation such as traffic rights.”

That would seem to imply that the EU would be the one losing out and the CAA could set up its own body but doesn't say if this would be recognised by the EU or, indeed, any other country's regulatory body (FAA being one).
“Continued membership of agencies like EASA and the ECHA is key to achieving these ambitions, and both UK and EU negotiators must take the opportunity to agree practical solutions, including on judicial oversight.”
(Jeegar Kakkad, chief economist of UK aerospace trade-body group ADS in a press release. )


Which would seem to be saying "get your fingers out and decide who is going to oversee membership of some description.
And then we have:

The UK will have no choice but to leave the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after Brexit, according to reports that EU negotiators are taking a hardline on aviation.
“UK membership of EASA is not possible,” the European Commission said in a recent presentation. The main reason is that the UK has ruled out accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
This raises the possibility of the UK CAA having to create new departments to certify aircraft and parts, as well as operating its own licensing regime for pilots and maintenance engineers.
So far, the line of the UK government and the CAA has been to remain part of EASA after Brexit in March 2019.
“It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator,” said CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines last September. “At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers.”


Which seems to be that we have to leave, or we don't have to leave, or we abide by the ECJ as judicial overseers, or we set up our own body, or the EU can't do without our people, or the EU can do without our people, or the CAA can do it all straight away, or the CAA can do it but it'll take 10 years, or (well, you get the picture).

So, any meaningful comments on the way it's going? Should we start thinking about not booking flights after March next year or go for it? Apart from a few throwaway lines, has anything seriously been done about this problem (or the chemical, monetary, pharmaceutical problems)?


 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top