Just to drill down in to only one of these areas, aviation is particular example where you would expect there to be frenetic activity in preparation for Brexit, but which there appears to be none.Digby wrote:To somewhat borrow and marginally edit from an old(ish) article in the FT we need to get cracking on
Replacing more than 750 EU bilateral agreements with potential relevance to Britain, covering trade in nuclear goods, customs, fisheries, trade, transport and regulatory co-operation in areas such as antitrust or financial services.
This includes multilateral agreements based on consensus, where Britain must re-approach 132 separate parties. Around 110 separate opt-in accords at the UN and World Trade Organisation are excluded from the estimates, as are narrow agreements on the environment, health, research and science. Some additional UK bilateral deals, outside the EU framework, may also need to be revised because they make reference to EU law.
Some of the (750+) agreements are so essential that it would be unthinkable to operate without them. Air services agreements allow British aeroplanes to land in America, Canada or Israel; nuclear accords permit the trade in spare parts and fuel for Britain’s power stations. Both these sectors are excluded from trade negotiations and must be addressed separately.
All the agreements must be sifted, creating a huge legal tangle. With Switzerland alone there are 49 accords, while there are 44 with the US and 38 with Norway. Even in potentially consequential areas, some countries are barely aware of Brexit implications. When asked by the FT about a specific customs agreement, one sanguine Indian diplomat first denied it existed, then said it would not matter anyway: “I’m sure people have forgotten it.”
“The logistics are terrifying, even just to go through these commitments and treaties and scope them out,” says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a former trade official for Sweden and the EU now at the European Centre for International Political Economy. “Do you want revisions? Do they? Do you go there?"
And we can't even start with what should be some of the more straightforward progression of the EU withdrawal bill in our own parliament, it's not even from within the UK remotely clear what the government wants still (other than their cake and eat it) and how they think that can be accomplished. I don't know if the dallying has a long term view that we cancel Brexit as we're not remotely prepared, that we extend the transitional period and extend the uncertainty where people don't know what comes next, or whether refusing to engage on the issues is intended to see a hard brexit delivered.
https://skift.com/2017/06/20/faa-boss-o ... -aviation/
“With very limited exceptions the United Kingdom’s aviation products are currently certified by the European safety agency or EASA and service providers such as maintenance repair and overhaul facilities are certified using EU regulation and EASA procedure,”said Huerta.
“If the UK does not maintain an associated or working arrangement with EASA upon leaving the EU, the UK will quickly need to re-establish competencies in specific areas especially around certification of new aviation products. And additionally, the U.S.-UK bilateral aviation safety agreement has been largely dormant for a number of years. Well it needs to be updated and put in place to be enforced upon the UK’s exit from the EU. Now this is manageable but it will take time and it will depend on clarity around the UKs relationship with EASA going forward.”
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/6797/ ... brexit.pdfWhen the UK leaves the European Union it will be forced to replace thousands of regulations with some of its own.
Aviation is one of the areas where the EU plays a crucial role for the UK and if airports aren’t going to grind to a halt on March 30, 2019 , the UK needs to either re-establish its own regulatory framework or apply to retain certain memberships
It is critical to the aerospace sector that following Brexit there is an aviation regulatory regime in the UK and Europe that allows industry to be competitive and develop innovative products, that supports the provision of a choice of quality services for the consumer, and allows aviation safety standards to be maintained and improved using the latest technology. Moreover, for the UK there needs to be a fully-functioning regulatory system from day one – 20 March 2019 – otherwise there could be disruption to air travel and business operations impacting the air travelling consumer, business performance and, ultimately, the UK economy.
This paper identifies three options open to the UK and the EU. The UK could: remain a full member of EASA; [ii] take an off-the-shelf participation option as Switzerland and Norway have done; or [iii] withdraw from EASA and repatriate all regulatory powers back to the UK Civil Aviation Authority, potentially contracting some activities back to EASA
The main problems with Option :
As a member of EASA the UK would be subject, to some degree depending on negotiations, to the European Court of Justice.
and
As a full participant in EASA, the UK would retain a role in the EASA rulemaking process, to the extent that EASA recommendations would still have to go to the European Commission or Parliament or Council
Unlikely to be acceptable to the Brexit brigade.
How does Option [ii] look?:
For the same reasons provided under Option 1 for remaining members and participating fully in EASA, there is precedent for non-EU members to be full members of EASA, namely, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. This would retain the majority of benefits listed above but entail some loss of influence with respect to evolving regulations.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like "taking back control"
So, Option [iii], then:
the UK could empower the UK CAA to discharge all the UK’s ICAO responsibilities. This would require the UK CAA to rebuild its competence in the many areas of an NAA’s remit which are currently delegated to EASA
sounds good
Given the large number [around 300] of additional specialist staff needed, and the new systems and processes that would need to be put in place and used by industry, this could not be achieved by March 2019. Most of the specialists who carried out these tasks in the CAA prior to EASA taking them over have gone to EASA, taken on other work at the CAA, or retired.
Ah....
