[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Mayhem]

Firstly that does not make the point that the UK will have to leave the EASA because it will not accept ECJ oversight relevant or correct.

Yes it does, for being part of EASA the UK will have to accept ECJ oversight, as do all other non-member states that participate. Pointed out in 6) "The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards
its decision-making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third-country to
EU Institutions, agencies or bodies. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union
will also be fully respected."

Leaving aside the respective negotiating stances EASA membership does not require a country to be a member state, as evidenced by 4 non-member states' membership. The link you have posted makes no mention of the EASA and is focused on the EMA.

The article focused on the EMA, but the provided document doesn't. Quite obvious or else you couldn't quote the parts about aviation...

I would also draw your attention to;

8.i. regarding aviation, the aim should be to ensure connectivity between the UK and the EU after the UK withdrawal. This would require an air transport agreement, combined with an aviation safety agreement, while ensuring a strong level playing field in a highly competitive sector.

8.ii. regarding certain Union programmes, e.g. in the fields of research and innovation and of education and culture, any participation of the UK should be subject to the relevant conditions for the participation of third countries to be established in the corresponding programmes in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

As you can see from 8.i there is a desire for EU/UK aviation safety agreement and 8.ii states that the UK could join/retain membership certain EU programs on the same terms as other third countries.

Of course there is a desire for EU/UK aviation safety agreement, but not as a member of EASA without also accepting ECJ and also not in some form of cherry picking as dreamed up by May with assocation to the parts the UK want's to retain membership status. You're confusing agencies with programmes.

But, in the future, the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. That means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end. It also means that the ultimate arbiter of disputes about our future partnership cannot be the court of either party.

And it won't unless the idea of associate membership to some EU agencies also is of the table.

[Slant]

Firstly that does not make the point that the UK will have to leave the EASA because it will not accept ECJ oversight relevant or correct.

Leaving aside the respective negotiating stances EASA membership does not require a country to be a member state, as evidenced by 4 non-member states' membership. The link you have posted makes no mention of the EASA and is focused on the EMA.

I would also draw your attention to;

8.i. regarding aviation, the aim should be to ensure connectivity between the UK and the EU after the UK withdrawal. This would require an air transport agreement, combined with an aviation safety agreement, while ensuring a strong level playing field in a highly competitive sector.

8.ii. regarding certain Union programmes, e.g. in the fields of research and innovation and of education and culture, any participation of the UK should be subject to the relevant conditions for the participation of third countries to be established in the corresponding programmes in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

As you can see from 8.i there is a desire for EU/UK aviation safety agreement and 8.ii states that the UK could join/retain membership certain EU programs on the same terms as other third countries.

Anyway thank you taking the time to look into this and I am sure Dizzeeyoo is grateful for you doing the work for him.

- - - Updated - - -



The UK does not want to participate in the single market. How do think the ECJ works now? The ECJ only rules on European Union law it does not rule on matters that specific to member states' laws. Theresa May has acknowledged that the ECJ will continue to the ultimate arbiter of EU law;

"When we leave the EU, the Withdrawal Bill will bring EU law into UK law. That means cases will be determined in our courts. But, where appropriate, our courts will continue to look at the ECJ’s judgments, as they do for the appropriate jurisprudence of other countries’ courts."

she has also proposed a system of binding commitments where both UK and EU would be in line with each other (although what areas this covers and how it will work in practice is yet to be determined);

"And if, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes an identical law to an EU law, it may make sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments so that we both interpret those laws consistently.

As I said in Munich, if we agree that the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard.

But, in the future, the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. That means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end. It also means that the ultimate arbiter of disputes about our future partnership cannot be the court of either party.

The next hard fact is this. If we want good access to each other’s markets, it has to be on fair terms. As with any trade agreement, we must accept the need for binding commitments – for example, we may choose to commit some areas of our regulations like state aid and competition to remaining in step with the EU’s"

But the ECJ still needs to be the court for appeals. And that's something that you don't want apparently.

[Mormolyce]

It's a timely reminder that no matter how far apart our countries might appear to be at the moment that we still share many things in common and will come to the aid of each other in times of trouble.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43415271

I, like many in the UK, am grateful to France and Germany, as well as the US, for their support.

Ah, the many benefits of the common enemy.

[dribbles]

Ah, the many benefits of the common enemy.

The Europeans had and have no choice but to support their UK paymasters. Ruling aside nuclear armageddon, should a conflict arise those Russian boots would have to stomp through Europe like a knife through butter to reach UK shores. Good job the EU are funding their armed forces properly to put up a proper defence of their territory, oh wait.....

[Pann]

Yes it does, for being part of EASA the UK will have to accept ECJ oversight, as do all other non-member states that participate. Pointed out in 6) "The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards
its decision-making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third-country to
EU Institutions, agencies or bodies. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union
will also be fully respected."

The point is irrelevant because the UK has said that it will respect the ECJ oversight.

"The second hard fact is that even after we have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us."

"...where appropriate, our courts will continue to look at the ECJ’s judgments, as they do for the appropriate jurisprudence of other countries’ courts.

"...if we agree that the UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard."

The article focused on the EMA, but the provided document doesn't. Quite obvious or else you couldn't quote the parts about aviation...

I don't quite understand the point you are making here.

Of course there is a desire for EU/UK aviation safety agreement, but not as a member of EASA without also accepting ECJ and also not in some form of cherry picking as dreamed up by May with assocation to the parts the UK want's to retain membership status. You're confusing agencies with programmes.

The UK has said it will accept the ECJ's oversight.

And it won't unless the idea of associate membership to some EU agencies also is of the table.

They are two different points. The UK accepts that membership to EU agencies will require ECJ oversight however that does not extend to areas of UK law that are currently overseen by the ECJ.

- - - Updated - - -

But the ECJ still needs to be the court for appeals. And that's something that you don't want apparently.

For issues of UK law, no, that is not currently in the UK's plans. For issues of EU agencies and programs the UK seems to accept that it has to be overseen by the ECJ. Personally I'm not bothered whether the highest court of appeal is based in London or Luxembourg but I think that seems to be first sensible approach to the realities of the ECJ since the whole Brexit saga began.

- - - Updated - - -

repeating myself:
In addition to the member states of the union, the countries part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), i.e. Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, have been granted participation under Article 66 of the Basic Regulation and are members of the Management Board without voting rights
surely you would not be proposing that the UK become a vassal state of the EU regarding air travel legal arrangements?


whatever next, will she acknowledge that the sky will continue to be blue and the grass will continue to be green after Brexit also?

https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-s...-line-11151049

ah well

Why are you linking an article from December of last year as proof that what has been put forward this month being wrong?

[Mayhem]

They are two different points. The UK accepts that membership to EU agencies will require ECJ oversight however that does not extend to areas of UK law that are currently overseen by the ECJ.

And the EU has said the UK can't cherry pick membership to EU agencies.

[Pann]

And the EU has said the UK can't cherry pick membership to EU agencies.

Yeah, both sides have said a lot of things.

Rather than continue to go around in circles I want to bring this point of debate back to the beginning, explain my reasoning and, perhaps, clarify my position a little better. Initially it was claimed that the UK would have to leave the EASA because it was leaving the EU which I disputed, that is not to say that the UK will not end up leaving EASA once it leaves it the EU but based on the available information I don't think that one necessarily follows the other.

My reasons for thinking that the UK could continue to be members of the EASA are, in no particular order, as follows;

Both the EU and UK wish to have an aviation safety agreement as obviously no-one wants planes falling out of the sky.

EASA membership is not dependent on being an EU member state.

The UK has stated a desire to continue EASA membership.

The UK has stated it would pay the required membership fees and agree to ECJ oversight in these areas.

The UK's Civil Aviation Authority is, reportedly, behind roughly 40% EASA's technical expertise.

The CAA wants the UK to remain a member.

Both European and British aviation industries believe that EASA membership is mutually beneficial and the UK should work to retain membership.

Based on the above in my, admittedly non-expert, opinion is not necessarily a given that the UK will have to leave the EASA. But of course it is entirely possible that the politicians on either side could rule this out (despite those in the industry seemingly believing it to be mutually beneficial and the best course of action) in pursuit of winning the negotiations.

[Slant]

For issues of UK law, no, that is not currently in the UK's plans. For issues of EU agencies and programs the UK seems to accept that it has to be overseen by the ECJ. Personally I'm not bothered whether the highest court of appeal is based in London or Luxembourg but I think that seems to be first sensible approach to the realities of the ECJ since the whole Brexit saga began.

You haven't answered any of the other questions that I asked really. The EU doesn't interfere with UK law as it stands today, so telling me the UK wouldn't accept interference of the ECJ in issues of UK law isn't just redundant, it's absolutely missing the point.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, both sides have said a lot of things.

Rather than continue to go around in circles I want to bring this point of debate back to the beginning, explain my reasoning and, perhaps, clarify my position a little better. Initially it was claimed that the UK would have to leave the EASA because it was leaving the EU which I disputed, that is not to say that the UK will not end up leaving EASA once it leaves it the EU but based on the available information I don't think that one necessarily follows the other.

My reasons for thinking that the UK could continue to be members of the EASA are, in no particular order, as follows;

Both the EU and UK wish to have an aviation safety agreement as obviously no-one wants planes falling out of the sky.

EASA membership is not dependent on being an EU member state.

The UK has stated a desire to continue EASA membership.

The UK has stated it would pay the required membership fees and agree to ECJ oversight in these areas.

The UK's Civil Aviation Authority is, reportedly, behind roughly 40% EASA's technical expertise.

The CAA wants the UK to remain a member.

Both European and British aviation industries believe that EASA membership is mutually beneficial and the UK should work to retain membership.

Based on the above in my, admittedly non-expert, opinion is not necessarily a given that the UK will have to leave the EASA. But of course it is entirely possible that the politicians on either side could rule this out (despite those in the industry seemingly believing it to be mutually beneficial and the best course of action) in pursuit of winning the negotiations.

I agree with everything except that the quote i posted from the EU was in direct response to Mays last speech talking about membership to some EU agencies which was ruled out.

So if the UK wants to retain EASA membership it will have to be part of all other agencies as well. In conclusion if the UKs position is to keep membership to just some agencies then that will ulitmately fail as by the EUs response meaning that EASA can't be singled out by anyone talking about this topic.

[Kallisto]

The Europeans had and have no choice but to support their UK paymasters. Ruling aside nuclear armageddon, should a conflict arise those Russian boots would have to stomp through Europe like a knife through butter to reach UK shores. Good job the EU are funding their armed forces properly to put up a proper defence of their territory, oh wait.....

The paper bear would be stuck in Poland, would be super lucky to even see Berlin if it was just EU vs Russia.

Russia is 20 years technologically behind at their best. Training is a joke compared to western methods.

[Pann]

You haven't answered any of the other questions that I asked really. The EU doesn't interfere with UK law as it stands today, so telling me the UK wouldn't accept interference of the ECJ in issues of UK law isn't just redundant, it's absolutely missing the point.

EU law takes priority over national laws and the ECJ sits above the UK's Supreme Court this will, supposedly, not be the case once the UK leaves the EU. The current suggestion is that UK will no longer be subject to EU law and will be free to alter existing laws that were created by the EU as a result the ECJ will no longer be the most superior court.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with everything except that the quote i posted from the EU was in direct response to Mays last speech talking about membership to some EU agencies which was ruled out.

So if the UK wants to retain EASA membership it will have to be part of all other agencies as well. In conclusion if the UKs position is to keep membership to just some agencies then that will ulitmately fail as by the EUs response meaning that EASA can't be singled out by anyone talking about this topic.

I see this as a stumbling block, although not an insurmountable one, I think it is important to take in account that it is common in negotiations to say that A cannot have x in the hope that A will offer y in return and that it is possible that what is publicly stated is not necessarily the same as what is thought internally.

My point is that the UK's membership of certain EU agencies, of which the EASA is just one, is a direct benefit to both the UK and EU therefore they will both (hopefully) work towards to achieving this end. I suspect the most likely outcome is that the UK will be given something that looks similar to membership, costs the same as membership, has less say than membership but is called something completely different to satisfy the Brexit headbangers.

[Slant]

EU law takes priority over national laws and the ECJ sits above the UK's Supreme Court this will, supposedly, not be the case once the UK leaves the EU. The current suggestion is that UK will no longer be subject to EU law and will be free to alter existing laws that were created by the EU as a result the ECJ will no longer be the most superior court.

What you've just spelled out can be summarized as "no access to any EU agencies or markets." Just sayin'.

[Mayhem]

I see this as a stumbling block, although not an insurmountable one, I think it is important to take in account that it is common in negotiations to say that A cannot have x in the hope that A will offer y in return and that it is possible that what is publicly stated is not necessarily the same as what is thought internally.

My point is that the UK's membership of certain EU agencies, of which the EASA is just one, is a direct benefit to both the UK and EU therefore they will both (hopefully) work towards to achieving this end. I suspect the most likely outcome is that the UK will be given something that looks similar to membership, costs the same as membership, has less say than membership but is called something completely different to satisfy the Brexit headbangers.

To all EU agencies? Well that's a possibility, sure.

[Pann]

To all EU agencies? Well that's a possibility, sure.

I am not ruling out any possibilities, including it all going pear shaped, at the moment.

[Deleted]

The EU is facing increasing pressures

Totally man, that's why the UK has given in on everything so far.

If the EU was a true economic union they would want to make a quick break as soon as possible. Current EU has drifted away so much from the current economic union paradigm

No one outside the UK has ever been under the delusion that the EU ever was or was ever intended to be a 'economic union'.

that it is trying to legislate its way to economic prosperity which is preposterous.

I think you will find that outside a legal framework to regulate the economy, there is no such thing as 'prosperity' - If you don't believe me visit Wakanda Somalia.

[Demolitia]

Firstly that does not make the point that the UK will have to leave the EASA because it will not accept ECJ oversight relevant or correct.

Any EU regulation, that include founding regulations for any EU body, is subject to oversight and review by the ECJ.
Here is one of EASA's founding papers. I will not dig out all of them for all agencies but all the Union's legal acts are subject to it, by status.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...R0216-20160126
you can just search the doc but points 19, 26 and 36 in the recital mention it already.

[Pann]

Any EU regulation, that include founding regulations for any EU body, is subject to oversight and review by the ECJ.
Here is one of EASA's founding papers. I will not dig out all of them for all agencies but all the Union's legal acts are subject to it, by status.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...R0216-20160126
you can just search the doc but points 19, 26 and 36 in the recital mention it already.

I have not once made the argument that the ECJ does not oversee EU agencies.

[Mafic]

Totally man, that's why the UK has given in on everything so far.
No one outside the UK has ever been under the delusion that the EU ever was or was ever intended to be a 'economic union'.

I think you will find that outside a legal framework to regulate the economy, there is no such thing as 'prosperity' - If you don't believe me visit Wakanda Somalia.

If Somalia is one extreme end then Europe is on the extreme of the other end. There is plenty of room in the middle which is what most Western countries not in Europe precisely do.

UK hasn't given in on anything of significance so far which is why the longer this drags on the better it is for the UK. The EU has the strongest position at the start but their position weakens as this drags on. It also gives the UK greater confidence that they can actually make Brexit happen when many were unsure that it would actually work. The Brexiters were called dreamers, idealists and very optimistic. But these days the Brexiters seem to be the most realistic to economic sovereignty being returned to the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

The paper bear would be stuck in Poland, would be super lucky to even see Berlin if it was just EU vs Russia.

Russia is 20 years technologically behind at their best. Training is a joke compared to western methods.

That isn't true in terms of technology. Polish military is well trained and have some of the best tank crews in the world but they simply don't have the numbers or quality to counter anything realistically. Germany is simply not interested in having an army in general which leaves France, Italy, Greece and the Nederlands.

Russia, like China have modernized their forces the last 20 years and have adapted new methods for urban conflict.

[Kiri]

If Somalia is one extreme end then Europe is on the extreme of the other end. There is plenty of room in the middle which is what most Western countries not in Europe precisely do.

UK hasn't given in on anything of significance so far which is why the longer this drags on the better it is for the UK. The EU has the strongest position at the start but their position weakens as this drags on. It also gives the UK greater confidence that they can actually make Brexit happen when many were unsure that it would actually work. The Brexiters were called dreamers, idealists and very optimistic. But these days the Brexiters seem to be the most realistic to economic sovereignty being returned to the UK.

Do they really? There still is no solution for a whole slew of issues, including the Irish border one. Nothing has changed about that in the past few weeks, with both sides only making minor concessions. Brexiters still claim that they can get the benefits with none of the responsibilities. Well, aside from people like Reese-Mogg, whose position is basically 'hardest Brexit asap, problems will just cease to exist if we stop talking about them'. I am still waiting for a Brexiter to give me a working concept for the Irish Border alone that fulfills all the criteria:
1) No hard border between the Irelands or within the UK
2) Full economic sovereignty --> not part of the single market
3) Would be acceptable to the EU and SI in particular
I just haven't.

[Dizzeeyooo]

I am still waiting for a Brexiter to give me a working concept for the Irish Border alone that fulfills all the criteria...I just haven't.

maybe this will ease your concerns then?

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/sta...86105793261568

Sky News understands non-disclosure agreements the Government is asking businesses in the UK to sign include a plan not to enforce a customs border if no deal is reached on Brexit

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/brexi...unnel-11291767

"The scenarios described to Sky News have been broadly interpreted by the industry as "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" and "no deal". It is the last scenario that has raised the most eyebrows in industry.

This is what we call the 'Throw Open the Borders option,'" said one operator. The scenario involves the UK on day one of Brexit unilaterally deciding not to enforce customs checks, and other border checks, and presuming that a reciprocal approach will be taken by the European Union, and thus at least temporarily maintaining a non-negotiated form of frictionless trade in goods.

amusingly, this story was confirmed by the UK Transport Secretary on TV soon afterwards -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43428802

It comes after Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said there won't be any border checks at Dover when Britain leaves the EU in March next year.

He said it would be "utterly unrealistic" to have checks and trade would be managed electronically.