European Aviation Safety Agency - Britain confirms it's departure

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51783580?at_custom4=72CC9D4C-607B-11EA-8DB1-A5B24744363C&at_custom3=%40BBCNews&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_medium=custom7

UK will leave EU aviation safety regulator at end of 2020


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/111A9/production/_111175007_gettyimages-479508414.jpg


The UK will leave the European aviation safety regulator after the Brexit transition period, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has confirmed.

He said UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency - responsible for certifying the airworthiness of planes - would end on 31 December.


He said the UK's Civil Aviation Authority would "bring expertise home".


But the owner of British Airways said the CAA lacked world-class knowledge and could not be ready in time.


Mr Shapps told Aviation Week much of the Cologne-based European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) expertise came from the UK and that a lot of its leaders were British.


He said the agency's powers would revert to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) "and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we'll do it in a gradual way".

Well this is good news. Shows this government isn't messing about when it comes to independence.

Remainers are kicking off on Twitter, not understanding that staying in the EASA would mean allowing ECJ supremacy over British law as well as having no say in the EASA. So, like nearly every other country in the world, we'll do it ourselves. It isn't rocket science.

[xxMATTGxx]

I wouldn't exactly call this good news or a win. We currently can't take on the role of the EASA - It will take a lot of money, time and people to get up to the standards required. I don't remember seeing that on a side of big red bus.

Also we were pretty much kicked out. The CAA is currently a clusterfuck and are not great. So good luck everyone who has to deal with this mess now.

[FlyingJesus]

its*

But yeah CAA (with no govt funding) is an interesting one... hopefully some of these supposed British leaders at EASA pop over to sort it out but seems unlikely if they already have top jobs for a multinational body. Time to sell it to the FAA lololol

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't exactly call this good news or a win. We currently can't take on the role of the EASA - It will take a lot of money, time and people to get up to the standards required.

Also we were pretty much kicked out. The CAA is currently a clusterfuck and are not great. So good luck everyone who has to deal with this mess now.

You make it sound as though we're being asked to come up with the cure for cancer before 1st January 2021. The EASA was only established and began operating in 2003, we're simply reverting back to what almost every other country manages to do. Even Uganda operates its own aviation authority. Our own institutions, having been carved inside out by Europe, obviously aren't in the greatest shape as a result.

The way to look at this is, would you accept replacing OFCOM (broadcast regulator) with America's FCC (broadcast regulator)?


I don't remember seeing that on a side of big red bus.

I do, I also remember it printed across leaflets and repeated by everyone in Vote Leave every interview/speech. Take Back Control.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't think Matt was saying it can't be done, just (in his own exact words, in fact) that it will take a lot of money, time and people. We currently do not have an alternative to EASA, and CAA have themselves said they'd prefer to stick with EASA because they don't have the capacity to take on the added functions - it will cost a lot of money from somewhere, and CAA is currently not funded publicly, so if the govt want them to take on these extra roles it's the govt who will have to pay

[dbgtz]

undertaker your fcc/ofcom analogy is poor as we had input in the EASA (and like any other body we are/were involved in, continued to have input), it wasnt like it was a french aviation authority imposed on us
hell even in your article it says a lot of the expertise were british - i suspect a lot of those people do not hold the same level of blind nationalism as you and will stay if they can (assuming similar pay)

as always though theres only considerable upsides to brexits, no downsides!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't think Matt was saying it can't be done, just (in his own exact words, in fact) that it will take a lot of money, time and people. We currently do not have an alternative to EASA, and CAA have themselves said they'd prefer to stick with EASA because they don't have the capacity to take on the added functions - it will cost a lot of money from somewhere, and CAA is currently not funded publicly, so if the govt want them to take on these extra roles it's the govt who will have to pay

That's the current situation though. Obviously that is now going to change as these powers are transferred back to Britain.

And a lot of money? Uganda, not the richest country in the world, manages. As does every country with an airport. We're the 5th richest in the world. I don't seem to remember all this concern for money when the EU was jacking up our £10bn+ budget contribution every few years.

Obviously now we have our own agencies we'll have to pay. But we've been paying into European agencies anyway so it's not like it was free.


undertaker your fcc/ofcom analogy is poor as we had input in the EASA (and like any other body we are/were involved in, continued to have input), it wasnt like it was a french aviation authority imposed on us
hell even in your article it says a lot of the expertise were british - i suspect a lot of those people do not hold the same level of blind nationalism as you and will stay if they can (assuming similar pay)

as always though theres only considerable upsides to brexits, no downsides!

We no longer have input into the EASA. That's why we're leaving it, it is the suggestion we stay in it with no input that I can't fathom.

Staying in it now would be like replacing OFCOM with the FCC and allowing the US Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in this country.

[FlyingJesus]

Money has to come from somewhere Dan. It has to happen because as you said that's the current situation, but for this to be funded something and someone has to lose out enormously

[-:Undertaker:-]

Money has to come from somewhere Dan. It has to happen because as you said that's the current situation, but for this to be funded something and someone has to lose out enormously

Sure, evidently with our own agencies we'll have to pay for them. But we've been paying for European agencies, it isn't like we've had everything for free for the last 47 years (or since 2003 in regards to aviation) and in fact we've been paying over the odds given we have to subsidise poorer countries.

The only "added" costs will be the start up costs in re-establishing these agencies whether it's on aviation, fisheries, customs arrangements or agricultural oversight. But that just shows we (well, our politicians) were stupid to have gutted our own institutions in the first place by being in the European Union. These things will need to be rebuilt, but it isn't beyond our capacity to do what the Republic of Uganda does.

[dbgtz]

That's the current situation though. Obviously that is now going to change as these powers are transferred back to Britain.

And a lot of money? Uganda, not the richest country in the world, manages. As does every country with an airport. We're the 5th richest in the world. I don't seem to remember all this concern for money when the EU was jacking up our £10bn+ budget contribution every few years.

Obviously now we have our own agencies we'll have to pay. But we've been paying into European agencies anyway so it's not like it was free.



We no longer have input into the EASA. That's why we're leaving it, it is the suggestion we stay in it with no input that I can't fathom.

Staying in it now would be like replacing OFCOM with the FCC and allowing the US Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in this country.

no it isnt as we still had input into the easa to begin with but whatever

on the point of money, part of the point of consolidating things like this is to make it cheaper to run. if i take the easa budget for 2018, the eu paid around 37 million (i guess euros) into it. in 2018 we put in just under 12% of the total eu budget, so in rough numbers we put in €4.44 million. It's going to cost an estimated £40 million to do it ourselves. even if we took the entire easa budget of 143 million we still would only be putting in <17.16mil of that. so no, it wasnt free but it was a hell of a lot cheaper so maybe before saying we were paying over the odds to subsidise poorer countries you should look at the numbers lmao

on the eu budget, that is something agreed by member states so it is not the "eu jacking up the budget" and even then it actually went up and down over time

in reality though, instead of reflecting on your assumptions youre just going to say were taking back control and money doesnt matter, because thats what you usually revert to when you make false claims

[-:Undertaker:-]

no it isnt as we still had input into the easa to begin with but whatever

Does Britain, as a non-EU third party state, have a say on the European Commission and European Court of Justice who oversee the EASA? No. As membership of the EASA requires legislation, this would mean ECJ oversight over British law which isn't taking back control.


on the point of money, part of the point of consolidating things like this is to make it cheaper to run. if i take the easa budget for 2018, the eu paid around 37 million (i guess euros) into it. in 2018 we put in just under 12% of the total eu budget, so in rough numbers we put in €4.44 million. It's going to cost an estimated £40 million to do it ourselves. even if we took the entire easa budget of 143 million we still would only be putting in <17.16mil of that. so no, it wasnt free but it was a hell of a lot cheaper so maybe before saying we were paying over the odds to subsidise poorer countries you should look at the numbers lmao

Those prices are actually peanuts when it comes to budgets. For context, the new Royal Liverpool Hospital was estimated at £429 million.


on the eu budget, that is something agreed by member states so it is not the "eu jacking up the budget" and even then it actually went up and down over time

Up and down, but broadly in one direction.

Let Germany and France subsidise the Romanian and Estonian aviation quangos.

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/190708_historic_spending.png


in reality though, instead of reflecting on your assumptions youre just going to say were taking back control and money doesnt matter, because thats what you usually revert to when you make false claims

It isn't a "reversion" it's the entire reason why I voted Leave. Had the EU been paying us £10bn a year to stay, I still would have voted out.

[dbgtz]

Does Britain, as a non-EU third party state, have a say on the European Commission and European Court of Justice who oversee the EASA? No. As membership of the EASA requires legislation, this would mean ECJ oversight over British law which isn't taking back control.

so what youre saying is by having a say in the ecj we never lost control?


Those prices are actually peanuts when it comes to budgets. For context, the new Royal Liverpool Hospital was estimated at £429 million. thats completely irrelevant to your claim we were paying over the odds. youve also just compared a fixed cost to an ongoing cost




Up and down, but broadly in one direction.

Let Germany and France subsidise the Romanian and Estonian aviation quangos.

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/190708_historic_spending.png i've just proved to you it's cheaper for us (and, by extension, likely cheaper for everyone).




It isn't a "reversion" it's the entire reason why I voted Leave. Had the EU been paying us £10bn a year to stay, I still would have voted out.

it is, because you try to make an economic argument which flops so you just fall back to it

[-:Undertaker:-]

so what youre saying is by having a say in the ecj we never lost control?

If you think having a 1 in 28 voice is control then lay off the space cakes.


thats completely irrelevant to your claim we were paying over the odds. youve also just compared a fixed cost to an ongoing cost


For EU membership, we were. Indisputable - wealthier nations pay in, and poorer nations in the East take out. Subsidisation.


i've just proved to you it's cheaper for us (and, by extension, likely cheaper for everyone).

Not overall when it comes out of our EU membership contributions.

Britain was paying £10bn or so in, and now we'll have to pay a few million for our own Civil Aviation Authority. A net benefit to HM Treasury.


it is, because you try to make an economic argument which flops so you just fall back to it

I don't know how many times I have to say if the EU was paying us the £10bn a year, I would still want to Leave.

As it happens, we were paying them the £10bn a year.

[dbgtz]

honestly youre just making me want to bash my skull in

[-:Undertaker:-]

Public opinion already going as I said it would. IMO will be a long term trend in that direction.

1240404417439989766

[dbgtz]

that has bugger all to do with aviation
even if it did the public has just panic bought bog roll as part of this blitz spirit

[-:Undertaker:-]

that has bugger all to do with aviation
even if it did the public has just panic bought bog roll as part of this blitz spirit

Just interesting seeing the flight path of public opinion when we were all supposedly regretting our decision the day after the 23rd June 2016.

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93WRQ8HT_WA