How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Sway said:
You don't have to be in the EU to be a member of EASA. Switzerland and Norway both are...
Switzerland and Norway have been granted participation in EASA under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board but without voting rights.The EU would, likely, be prepared to offer the UK the same participation but this would cross one of TM’s red lines.
Burwood said:
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Quite. The company's 'Brexit Assessment' only went as far as saying they would 'consider it's investment and long-term footprint' in the UK if there was a no-deal Brexit.Consider.
But what was the first thing I hear on the Today programme this morning "Airbus is theatening to quit the UK if a trade deal isn't agreed by next March".
I'm no rabid Brexiteer (in fact I voted Remain) but it seems to me that the 'transition period' is being used in large part to extend project fear and attempt to get a large part of the population to change their minds.
Certainly for me, it does the opposite and the more I'm told the country I live in is a worthless slug who'll amount to nothing if we don't continue our marriage to this most abusive of partners, the more I would vote to leave in the (ever more likely) event of another referendum.
mike9009 said:
Tuna said:
mike9009 said:
Did you not consider this when you voted? I 'think' it could equally apply to other employers within the UK. And I don't think it is an unreasonable position to take either.
I didn't vote to leave. Nor did I vote for Barnier to use Airbus as his mouthpiece.It's entirely a political position - and the contrast with Boeing is interesting to make. From February:
Boeing said:
When it comes to advanced manufacturing, Boeing’s new production facility in Sheffield is hard to beat. The plant, which is scheduled to open this year, will create spur gears, shafts and housing for Boeing’s next-generation aircraft, including the 737, 737 MAX and 777 planes.
...
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
So Airbus provides constant 'warnings' that it's entire staff are going to be whisked out of the UK if we don't do what they want; Boeing invests in the UK as it's first destination for 'European' manufacturing....
It is Boeing’s first manufacturing centre in Europe and is part of a wider effort to concentrate manufacturing best practice in-house.
Airbus is a commercial organisation and I accept political/ manufacturing decisions are co-dependent (see Trump) but surely a nation would protect its self interest and self governance (part of the fundamental reason for the Brexit vote). To call foul (or be critical) is a bit of a pot/ kettle/ black scenario.The Boeing move in Sheffield is a great win for British industry, providing 30 jobs for the people of Sheffield with an investment of £20M from Boeing. One main reason was to appease the UK governments purchase of £5Bn worth of Boeing Apache and Poseidon spy planes where the majority of the work will be completed outside of the UK. So maybe a bit of a political move for commercial gain?
Mike
swaying a National refendum to go against the wishes of the majority is another. The political ballon went up when Trump announced his protectionist market policy, what is the EU if it’s not the same thing
hoagypubdog said:
They may move to those great EU countries China or USA.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/22/a...
Assuming that aspect was true it would be part of a more general shift in their manufacturing. It'd be a real bhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/22/a...
h shipping wings from China or the US to Toulouse which would imply they'd only be cutting the UK operations as part of a move to reduce the French plant and beef up the Chinese and US operations instead.I know some right sociopathic
s who work at the top of Airbus and the infighting between the German and French sides is unbelievable. I could easily believe my German friends planning something like this just to fk over the French again, with kicking the British just a happy bonus..Brexit is just a fig leaf to hide the wider impact this would have if it actually happened. IF.
mike9009 said:
The CAA have sadly demised over the last decade, now employing a third of the staff it used to prior to EASA. It is now primarily a regulatory enforcement body acting and following the regulations set by EASA. The brain-drain from CAA to EASA has been quite dramatic over the past 15 years with little need to back fill within the CAA.
I have our Part 21G surveillance audit next month, and this is being completed by an EASA representative due to some resourcing issues. Our previous surveyor was seconded to EASA some two years ago.
The CAA are now followers rather leaders. (personal opinion.....)
Mike
Their reputation proceeds them then, fair enough I have our Part 21G surveillance audit next month, and this is being completed by an EASA representative due to some resourcing issues. Our previous surveyor was seconded to EASA some two years ago.
The CAA are now followers rather leaders. (personal opinion.....)
Mike
I'd not propose we introduce a divergent 'third' regime on leaving the EU, but if we've lost the political will to keep the CAA as a leading body, is it a big deal if we let the EASA rule the roost? Genuine question, I don't know how far handing over regulation would 'hurt' the UK if the goal is to share standards?
As I'm occasionally involved in the drone arena, some independence and agility when it came to regulation would not be unwelcome. The industry is still born in the Uk at the moment, waiting on a regime that supports commercial research and development.
Neither route seems to preclude planes being made here in the UK though. The bigger concerns are surely country of origin and export rules? In that respect, Mr. T's diversion still seems to me to be a red herring.
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
You don't have to be in the EU to be a member of EASA. Switzerland and Norway both are...
Switzerland and Norway have been granted participation in EASA under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board but without voting rights.The EU would, likely, be prepared to offer the UK the same participation but this would cross one of TM’s red lines.
They are both members. There are also rather a few "Management Board Observer" nations which are practically equivalent to Norway and Switzerland.
Frankly, it's irrelevant. There's no issue whatsoever with operating under EASA without having voting rights. Or indeed FAA, although that would be a ballache and would cause some real issues for pilot training in particular.
The world has moved away from competing regulatory regimes. ICAO is ultimately the daddy in any respect for much of the regulatory requirements.
crankedup said:
Burwood said:
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Quite. The company's 'Brexit Assessment' only went as far as saying they would 'consider it's investment and long-term footprint' in the UK if there was a no-deal Brexit.Consider.
But what was the first thing I hear on the Today programme this morning "Airbus is theatening to quit the UK if a trade deal isn't agreed by next March".
I'm no rabid Brexiteer (in fact I voted Remain) but it seems to me that the 'transition period' is being used in large part to extend project fear and attempt to get a large part of the population to change their minds.
Certainly for me, it does the opposite and the more I'm told the country I live in is a worthless slug who'll amount to nothing if we don't continue our marriage to this most abusive of partners, the more I would vote to leave in the (ever more likely) event of another referendum.
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
You don't have to be in the EU to be a member of EASA. Switzerland and Norway both are...
Switzerland and Norway have been granted participation in EASA under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board but without voting rights.The EU would, likely, be prepared to offer the UK the same participation but this would cross one of TM’s red lines.
As per here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/internatio...
They are members. There are plenty of others under the "Management Board Observer" status.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu...
Mike
Tuna said:
mike9009 said:
The CAA have sadly demised over the last decade, now employing a third of the staff it used to prior to EASA. It is now primarily a regulatory enforcement body acting and following the regulations set by EASA. The brain-drain from CAA to EASA has been quite dramatic over the past 15 years with little need to back fill within the CAA.
I have our Part 21G surveillance audit next month, and this is being completed by an EASA representative due to some resourcing issues. Our previous surveyor was seconded to EASA some two years ago.
The CAA are now followers rather leaders. (personal opinion.....)
Mike
Their reputation proceeds them then, fair enough I have our Part 21G surveillance audit next month, and this is being completed by an EASA representative due to some resourcing issues. Our previous surveyor was seconded to EASA some two years ago.
The CAA are now followers rather leaders. (personal opinion.....)
Mike
I'd not propose we introduce a divergent 'third' regime on leaving the EU, but if we've lost the political will to keep the CAA as a leading body, is it a big deal if we let the EASA rule the roost? Genuine question, I don't know how far handing over regulation would 'hurt' the UK if the goal is to share standards?
As I'm occasionally involved in the drone arena, some independence and agility when it came to regulation would not be unwelcome. The industry is still born in the Uk at the moment, waiting on a regime that supports commercial research and development.
Neither route seems to preclude planes being made here in the UK though. The bigger concerns are surely country of origin and export rules? In that respect, Mr. T's diversion still seems to me to be a red herring.
ICAO sits at the top, EASA/FAA convert to practical application/detail, National bodies monitor to those standards, Operators choose where to base themselves for certification.
No issue with operating under the purview of EASA without having a vote.
mike9009 said:
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
You don't have to be in the EU to be a member of EASA. Switzerland and Norway both are...
Switzerland and Norway have been granted participation in EASA under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board but without voting rights.The EU would, likely, be prepared to offer the UK the same participation but this would cross one of TM’s red lines.
As per here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/internatio...
They are members. There are plenty of others under the "Management Board Observer" status.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu...
Mike
Cheers.
crankedup said:
Run up to the referendum was the shouting threats from the finance industry, leave the EU and we will pack our bags and leave London. Now it’s airbus and blah blah blah. Smells like more of the remain campaign coming back from the dead.
Well a lot of financial services have already started leaving. Citi have packed up half their operations including most of their offices, only a select few services are available from their St Pauls location now. (as a Citi customer, if I need to see someone, I have to go to Frankfurt). Barclays have started moving things offshore as well.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are moving to Frankfurt.
Hundreds of FS jobs have already gone... Not that the Daily Mail would dare report that.
Sway said:
You just wouldn't. Virtually the entire globe adopts either EASA or FAA - it just makes what it virtually by definition an international industry so much easier.
ICAO sits at the top, EASA/FAA convert to practical application/detail, National bodies monitor to those standards, Operators choose where to base themselves for certification.
No issue with operating under the purview of EASA without having a vote.
I would also be happy with that but as I say it breaks one of TM red lines.ICAO sits at the top, EASA/FAA convert to practical application/detail, National bodies monitor to those standards, Operators choose where to base themselves for certification.
No issue with operating under the purview of EASA without having a vote.
mike9009 said:
Didn't realise you voted to Remain - sorry! Airbus is a commercial organisation and I accept political/ manufacturing decisions are co-dependent (see Trump) but surely a nation would protect its self interest and self governance (part of the fundamental reason for the Brexit vote). To call foul (or be critical) is a bit of a pot/ kettle/ black scenario.
The only issue I have with Airbus is that the outcome of Brexit doesn't appear to be the issue they are making it out to be, and both parties are equally responsible for their operating environment. So that they have consistently put pressure on the UK (and even their own employees) to capitulate to a particular scenario appears to go beyond corporate good practise and into outright political 'kingmaking'. Airbus is a commercial organisation and I accept political/ manufacturing decisions are co-dependent (see Trump) but surely a nation would protect its self interest and self governance (part of the fundamental reason for the Brexit vote). To call foul (or be critical) is a bit of a pot/ kettle/ black scenario.Though I appear to be mainly pro-leave in these discussions, I was completely on the fence with the Referendum - there are good reasons to stay in the EU, and as an organisation it has achieved a lot. Equally though I can understand the Leave position. I'm very uncomfortable around both the hardcore Europhiles and the 'raise the drawbridge' Europhobes, but I don't think they represent the majority opinion on Brexit at either end of the spectrum even if they attempt to dominate the debate.
My biggest fear has been a 'compromise' Brexit where we both loose the benefit of full membership and fail to gain sufficient independence to compensate. I cannot see a realistic way to undo the Referendum, so we should commit to Leaving fully rather than becoming a zombie nation. I value independence over the sop of sort-of-frictionless access to the European Market that a compromise would entail at this point.
If the definition of a successful negotiation is both sides being equally unhappy, then I think it's likely that both sides flex their red lines a little.
In this instance, TM likely needs to accept that the EU uses the ECJ as it's arbiter for pretty much everything, and the Council likely need to accept that an arbitration panel comprising political a appointees from only one side is unlikely to be viewed as appropriate...
In this instance, TM likely needs to accept that the EU uses the ECJ as it's arbiter for pretty much everything, and the Council likely need to accept that an arbitration panel comprising political a appointees from only one side is unlikely to be viewed as appropriate...
Mrr T said:
I would also be happy with that but as I say it breaks one of TM red lines.
Does it? I understand people are lumping this into 'no ECJ jurisdiction', but if the EASA is essentially providing regulatory conformance to a global-ish standard, what exactly would we be giving up in the specific area of aviation? Or is this a case of people wanting to 'corner' May by inventing a logical impasse where none needs to exist?Or should we join the FAA?
It looks like flying is much more open in the US 
Edited by Tuna on Friday 22 June 16:43
captain_cynic said:
crankedup said:
Run up to the referendum was the shouting threats from the finance industry, leave the EU and we will pack our bags and leave London. Now it’s airbus and blah blah blah. Smells like more of the remain campaign coming back from the dead.
Well a lot of financial services have already started leaving. Citi have packed up half their operations including most of their offices, only a select few services are available from their St Pauls location now. (as a Citi customer, if I need to see someone, I have to go to Frankfurt). https://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/location.do
Free wi-fi AND refreshments. Sounds cool.
Citigroup have been moving offices away from high rental and staffing cost areas across the globe for a long time. But yeah, probably Brexit.
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
I would also be happy with that but as I say it breaks one of TM red lines.
Does it? I understand people are lumping this into 'no ECJ jurisdiction', but if the EASA is essentially providing regulatory conformance to a global-ish standard, what exactly would we be giving up?Or should we join the FAA?
It looks like flying is much more open in the US b
ks to moving to FAA. Some really stty interpretations that would seriously hamper the availability of commercial pilots. Hours requirements that have pilots renting light aircraft to fly in circles half asleep before they can continue training, etc. Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
You don't have to be in the EU to be a member of EASA. Switzerland and Norway both are...
Switzerland and Norway have been granted participation in EASA under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board but without voting rights.The EU would, likely, be prepared to offer the UK the same participation but this would cross one of TM’s red lines.
They are both members. There are also rather a few "Management Board Observer" nations which are practically equivalent to Norway and Switzerland.
Frankly, it's irrelevant. There's no issue whatsoever with operating under EASA without having voting rights. Or indeed FAA, although that would be a ballache and would cause some real issues for pilot training in particular.
The world has moved away from competing regulatory regimes. ICAO is ultimately the daddy in any respect for much of the regulatory requirements.
The red line is still that we would 'possibly' not have a say in future regulation by being a non-voting member. Who knows what regimes (Trump, for example) might introduce regulations which 'might' preclude the UK or make them uncompetitive. Have a look at the current charges for aircraft certification, modifications, certification of Production Organisations etc. It could be 'quite' easy to ramp these charges up for members with non-voting rights.
Mike
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
This is all above my pay grade, however from my understanding the Company have stated that they MAY pull out of the U.K. IF the U.K. leave the EU with NO DEAL. Being as the no deal scenario is last resort and very unlikely seems to me that threats are being made in an effort to garner political influence.
Nope. Not buying it. Commercial organisations would never do such things.
I asked for that!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff