Brexit Begins

[Hazir]

Ok, since you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference let me spell it out for you.

1. Every constructional part of an airplane needs certification before it can be used in an airplane.

2. The UK has no national internationally recognized system of certification. And will not have time to put this in place before march 29th of next year. This non existent organization can not ever start the process of accreditation for the EU before March 29th next year.

3. The EU certification for parts produced in the UK lapses at the moment the UK leaves the regulatory space of the eu. Those parts may no longer be used by airbus in their planes.

4. Airbus does not threathen to relocate its production process, airbus will be forced to relocate if it wants to build airplanes that are allowed to fly.

And by the way, similar obstacles will be faced by pharmaceuticals, automotive and chemical industries. Not to mention your airlines.

[RandBlade]

Bull.

[Aimless]

No, it is an accurate summary of Airbus's predicament in a no-deal scenario.

[RandBlade]

No, it is not. Airbus specifically said they were talking about long term not this fictional imagined immediate halt of Hazir's.

[Aimless]

Airbus's COO referred specifically to the problems they'd face as a result of a no-deal scenario where certification would be invalid immediately following Brexit or the transition period. The company's risk assessment specifically mentions the need for a very large buffer stock to ameliorate immediate Brexit-related disruption of their supply chain at the border and also the risk of discontinued airworthiness (presumably due to unavailability of certified components).

[Khendraja'aro]

No, it is not. Airbus specifically said they were talking about long term not this fictional imagined immediate halt of Hazir's.

Dude, it's the same as with your truck driver's licenses, landing rights, chemical / pharmaceutical products and so on. You currently have certifications for those under the umbrella of the EU.

When you leave the EU, those certifications will be revoked immediately. Now, what you may not grasp: This does not mean that your products become unsafe or something. It means that those certifications have strings attached which need to be renegotiated - for instance, take pharmaceuticals: You need to show that you have equivalent regimes in place which ensure quality. You need to show that you know what to do in case of a quality problem. You need to show how to comply with future changes in regulations.

And so on.

It's a problem of contracts, not of the products themselves. But as long as those certifications are not in place, anyone who uses uncertified products would become liable for any problems arising from their use.

Yes, you can pinky swear that your products are as good as they were before. Doesn't count for shit in a court of law.

[Khendraja'aro]

Except that the threat was that Airbus might pull out of the UK and move to ... China. So China has certification and we won't? Sure ... just how gullible do you think we are?

Yes, they have the certifications. You currently have them because you're part of the EU. After Brexit you will not because those certifications were dependant on your membership. As a result, you'll lose the certifications and will have to re-apply / renegotiate for them.

If you had ever been part of a certification process you'd know that this takes a metric shit-ton of time.

[Hazir]

And no Randblade you don't have certification of the sort you need. China does.

You keep believing that divergence is a model that works in international trade. It doesn't.

[RandBlade]

No I think re-certifying that which is already certified is a rubber stamping exercise that will not be as major a headache as you pretend.

[Hazir]

There is a big fat hole in your fantasy the size of a accredited organization that can issue internationally recognized certification. There is nobody there to put the rubber if it were as easy as you think it is.

[RandBlade]

But there is an accredited organisation: The EASA. Parts don't have to be manufactured within Europe to be accredited by the EASA. American companies can seek EASA accreditation in order to facilitate exports to Europe without moving manufacturing to Europe.

Hence the talk of delays rather than a complete halt. That is a fiction you've made up.

[Hazir]

In a no deal situation you are outside of EASA. The relationship with the FAA is one you cannot replicate because of the simple fact that you lack the required organization. It would take years to build it and then it would take years to get international recognition.

Airbus doesn't have the luxury of waiting for their parts for the better part of a decade.

And again : aviation is just one of many sectors that will be facing this problem. You have royally screwed yourselves with the vote for brexit. But then again; you can't possibly miss all of this because there wasn't anything you could like about the EU.

[RandBlade]

You don't need to be in the EASA to seek EASA accreditation. I'm not talking about the EASA recognising FAA accreditation (which it is now starting to do, thus meaning American companies don't need to seek separate EASA accreditation). I'm talking about seeking EASA accreditation in its own right. Companies manufacturing in non-EASA nations can still get EASA accreditation though there is more paperwork which can result in delays, not a total halt.

If the UK exits the EASA then that will mean it will take more paperwork to get EASA accreditation, it doesn't mean accreditation becomes impossible.

This idea that the world ends upon Brexit is absolute bollocks you're making up.

[Aimless]

What you're referring to here is EASA foreign part-145 org approval. This takes time. If all or even most relevant entities in the UK who need this approval don't have clarity on that issue long before Brexit day, they won't have enough time to sort it out before Brexit day, leading to the type of disruption Khen and Hazir mention (and that are also considered by your royal aeronautical society and your parliament). Similarly, the issue of component certification will take time. The easiest way to avoid extremely costly disruption is to agree to a withdrawal agreement, because the UK's CAA will not be able to take over from EASA for 5-10 years anyway.

[RandBlade]

I said it takes time didn't I?

Remaining in the EASA (as other non-EU nations are) is the easiest but not the only way. Hazir was making out like it was the only way.

[Aimless]

I said it takes time didn't I?

Remaining in the EASA (as other non-EU nations are) is the easiest but not the only way. Hazir was making out like it was the only way.

It is the only plausible way to avoid severe and costly disruption immediately after Brexit. The alternatives require advance notice that the UK isn't likely to be able to give anyone unless it is ready to announce tomorrow that there will be no withdrawal agreement and no transition period.

[RandBlade]

Indeed. If the EU continues to violate last December's agreement by attempting to annex Northern Ireland then the responsible thing to do would be to give as much notice as possible that we're leaving without a deal. Give as much notice to prepare for Plan B's.

[Hazir]

So, after Brexit we can now add 'no deal' to the concepts Randblade doesn't understand.

[RandBlade]

I do understand it's you that didn't.

[Hazir]

Says the man that a no deal situation actually means a very detailed deal.

[Aimless]

Indeed. If the EU continues to violate last December's agreement by attempting to annex Northern Ireland then the responsible thing to do would be to give as much notice as possible that we're leaving without a deal. Give as much notice to prepare for Plan B's.

No matter how you try to cut it, the conclusion is that, in a no deal Brexit scenario, there is likely to be significant and costly disruption of the operations of countries like Airbus the day after Brexit.

The Faragian/Daily Mail style drivel about the EU "annexing" NI is as ludicrous now as it was when you first brought it up, and it's no surprise that a search for the term in this context mostly brings up hits from the likes of The Sun and SputnikNews. The UK tried to fudge its way past the first few hurdles in the negotiations and now finds that it's actually expected to abide by the commitments it made in December instead of trying to fudge its way all the way to the finish-line with a time-limited backstop and no workable alternatives to present to the EU (because the UK's current red lines make a whole-UK backstop solution impossible; Barnier has acknowledged that the EU negotiators are willing to change their position on this if the UK's red lines change, but, until then, this is the only way to honor the GFA's commitment to abolishing a hard border on the island). You can try to Kellyanne this all you like, but it doesn't change reality.

[RandBlade]

The agreement was that the UK would have a backstop, not Northern Ireland only.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market

There is absolutely nothing there which is compatible of Barnier's new insistence that the backstop is NI only and that checks on ferries are OK. A hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a hard border in Ireland. So if you're insisting on a hard border somewhere then it needs to be within Ireland which is a foreign nation refusing to make a deal, not within a nation.

Barnier knew our red lines before that agreement for a UK backstop was signed last December.

[Aimless]

The agreement was that the UK would have a backstop, not Northern Ireland only.

There is absolutely nothing there which is compatible of Barnier's new insistence that the backstop is NI only and that checks on ferries are OK.

You sneakily emphasize the wrong parts of those paragraphs.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market

The only other way the UK can honour these commitments is if both NI and the UK fully remain in the SM and CU, which is only possible if the UK abandons its red lines, at least until a new, comprehensive FTA is negotiated that resolves this issue in some other way. That means no time-limited backstop and it means the UK doesn't get to restrict freedom of movement, liberate itself from the ECJ, independently negotiate trade agreements with third parties etc. That's the only way The UK can honour those specific commitments, which bind the UK and not the EU.

A hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a hard border in Ireland.

That is nonsense. The greatest emphasis in the GFA is the removal of hard borders on the island, between North & South. The focus is on "all island" and "cross-border". A border at sea- & airports would also be less intrusive because people and goods move back and forth between North and South much more frequently in the course of their day-to-day activities than they do between NI & rUK. For both these reasons, it is ludicrous to say that a border for goods at sea- & airports would be "as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a hard border in Ireland". At most you might argue that both constitute violations, but the latter is a far less egregious violation.

So if you're insisting on a hard border somewhere then it needs to be within Ireland which is a foreign nation refusing to make a deal, not within a nation.

That is of course more or less the position of people like Hannan, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Paterson and others who were responsible for a flurry of anti-GFA articles and statements not long ago. To them, a ensuring hard Brexit that preserves all red lines is far more important than upholding the GFA and preserving an Ireland without a hard border.

Barnier knew our red lines before that agreement for a UK backstop was signed last December.

Yes, and he realized it was time to remind your govt. of what those red lines mean so that it can finally resolve its internal conflicts and arrive at concrete, workable proposals. If the UK had no intention of honouring its commitments, it should not have made those commitments in December.

[Khendraja'aro]

I said it takes time didn't I?

You realize that "takes time for certification" is not the only problem? You need to add "massive backlogs at the border" to the list.

[RandBlade]

Backlogs are a matter of time too.

[Khendraja'aro]

Backlogs are a matter of time too.

Yes. Reconstruction after an earthquake of 9 on the Richter scale is also only a matter of time.

The problem is the amount of damage to the economy in the meantime. The rest of the world will not wait for you to get your shit together.

[RandBlade]

Indeed which is why we need to do better at getting our shit together. Whether that means agreeing a deal or making contingencies and walking away just hurry up and pick an option.

[Aimless]

Backlogs are not only a matter of time in this case. Rather they will require substantial increases in processing capacity in terms of competent personnel, holding areas, equipment etc. Backlogs are just a matter of time only if you have no new things to process or your capacity matches or exceeds demands. Which is not the case.

[RandBlade]

If capacity matches or exceeds demand with no new things to process then there's no backlog. It is when demand exceeds capacity that backlogs form.

[Khendraja'aro]

Backlogs are not only a matter of time in this case. Rather they will require substantial increases in processing capacity in terms of competent personnel, holding areas, equipment etc. Backlogs are just a matter of time only if you have no new things to process or your capacity matches or exceeds demands. Which is not the case.

Well, truth to be told, he might be right that the backlogs are a matter of time. When their economy crashes the line of trucks both in and out of the country will diminish rapidly in size.

Rand might finally get it.