Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > How Strong is the EU's Case For a Brexit Payment from the UK?

Sep 17, 2017 at 2:36 AM by michael hart

You are assuming that they, the Continentals, want any agreement at all, let alone a sensible one, and I would hope J-CJ's negotiations will be as effective as that Scottish Woman's efforts.

There are too many attempting to influencing beyond their lawful authority and it is delaying, or even preventing, what is lawful and certainly creating inefficiencies.

I think many Leavers have known for a long time just how much there was that was hidden from the British electorate. That is why they want to leave and why staying in would be a nightmare.

Sep 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

A "Federal Europe" is a concept that has always concerned me, because I was not entirely sure what it meant. Those that claimed to know what it meant seemed to have different reasons why it was necessary, and what it was supposed to achieve.

The only common theme being centralised control, out of touch with any electorate, financial control or reality. The only guaranteed beneficiaries would be the ruling elite, and their survival.

The only difference between a Federal Europe, and the communist/fascist regimes it is supposed to block, seems to be in the title. 97% of the people get no say at all.

Mark Hodgson introduces the European Development Fund. Something I am aware of, but with no idea how decisions are made about percentage allocated. Does it depend on PR and how "nice" the people are to EU delegates, and their personal political ideology?

A lot of money was spent, and wasted, preparing bids for the Football World Cup under the control of FIFA, when it was all predetermined by bribery and corruption.

Sep 17, 2017 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GolfCharlie. Is "centralised control, out of touch with any electorate, financial control or reality" your view of the US Federal Government?

Sep 17, 2017 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

GolfCharlie. Is "centralised control, out of touch with any electorate, financial control or reality" your view of the US Federal Government?

Sep 17, 2017 at 5:56 PM | Supertroll

No. The idea of a "United States of Europe" seems to be part of the deception. Whatever people may think about Trump v. Clinton, at least US Citizens were able to choose with a Vote.

Our Prime Minister did NOT get the overwhelming mandate she was hoping for over BREXIT, and not because Labour opposed BREXIT.

The key decision maker over BREXIT and the future of the EU, will almost certainly be Merkel. The UK does not a get a vote about her either. I hope that with her background in the German Democratic Republic, she does have experience of political dogma failing the population - whether or not they ever had a choice that they could vote on.

Sep 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie - I think I can answer your question.about a federal Europe. The original plan was to create a single country of Europe. They have the currency, the passport, the flag, the anthem, the foreign minister and policies, the external border. Juncker has plans to appoint a finance minister, raise taxes, create a military. They are nearly there.

During the four decades of the EU they tried very hard to get rid of the nation states. They tried to create regions of the EU that would have their own identities and would vote together at election time. The South of England was lumped together with Brittany. The North with the Netherlands if I remember correctly. That didn't work. They tried all sorts of PR schemes to make people feel European instead of French or British. That didn't work. If you ask EU officials what nationality they are, the say "European".

A few years ago they came to the conclusion that it was a step too far. It would be easier in the short term to have a federation. That means that the member states maintain their national identities but the integration continues. It has taken forty years to get this far, they can afford to wait a bit longer. A federation will have a treasury like the USA and central taxation will create treasury funds that can then be distributed to poorer areas just as in the UK or the USA. The Germans will only agree to that if the member states pass most of their sovereign powers to Brussels, especially financial matters.

Sep 17, 2017 at 7:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

golf charlie - having introduced the European Development Fund, I have to tell you that there's still more in the EU's position paper:

"The United Kingdom should respect in full its undertaking for funding EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey."

The reference to EU Trust Funds is footnoted, and they are listed in Appendix 1 to the position paper, as follows:

"European Union Trust Fund for Central African Republic “Bêkou EU Trust Fund”
European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, "the Madad Fund"
Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa
Trust Fund for Columbia".

Looking through the plethora of EU website pages on these subjects, I found this:

"Launched in July 2014, the Bêkou fund was the first of its kind managed by the European Commission. Its donors are the EU, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland, who have pledged a total of €146 million to support the Central African Republic’s exit from crisis and its reconstruction."

So, presumably the UK's share of the EU's contribution to €146 million isn't huge, but it would be nice to know how much it is.

The I found this about the Madad Fund:

"With contributions and pledges from 22 EU Member States and Turkey, amounting to €118.5 million, and contributions from various EU instruments, the Fund has reached a total volume of over to €1 billion to date."

Again it isn't clear how much has been funded by the UK, nor how much the EU thinks the UK's undertaking for funding it amounts to.

As to the emergency trust fund, I found this:

"The European Commission launched an “Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa” at the Valletta migration summit in November 2015. The Fund is made up of over €2.4 billion from the EU budget and European Develop­ment Fund, combined with contributions from EU Member States and other donors."

It sounds as though the UK's share here could be rather large. Again,it would be nice to know. It would also be nice to know how much the EU thinks we still have to pay.

As for Colombia:

"The EU Trust Fund is set to have close to €95 million at its disposal, from the EU budget and from contributions of 19 EU Member States (Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Slovenia)." Our contributions are presumably not huge, though we contribute twice, once via the EU directly, and once in our own right. Again, it would be nice to know how much the EU thinks we owe.

I wonder how many people before the Brexit referendum had the first idea about all this expenditure outside Europe? I confess it's coming as news to me.

Finally (for now): "Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT)".

"The Facility has a budget of €3 billion for 2016-2017. This is made up of €1 billion from the EU budget, and €2 billion from the EU Member States." And:

"As of beginning of September 2017, the EU has allocated €2.9 billion of the €3 billion and contracts have been
signed for 48 projects worth €1.66 billion out of which €838 million has been disbursed."

I wonder how much the EU still thinks we have to pay towards this?

Sep 17, 2017 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Sep 17, 2017 at 7:07 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

Your explanation of what Federalism means to the EU, matches what most in the UK fear - loss of sovereignty, even if they don't think of it in either of those terms. The fact that it has been occurring progressively, over the last 40 years, is more obvious to those over 50, than under 30.

For me (over 50) I just don't associate "the latest news and devolpments from the Common Market/EEC/EU" as being good news for me or the UK, apart from a few exceptions.

The loss of income and employment, caused by exporting manufacturing jobs to East Asia, so they can experience more absurd and non-existent Global Warming, has lead to EU employment shortages, as more unemployed flee West Asia and North Africa into the EU. Merkel encouraged the economic migrants, as they were branded Climate Refugees.

Cameron knew he had a problem with BREXIT amongst his party. Labour (and most in the UK?) underestimated it, perhaps thinking that the word "sovereignty" could be used as a smear word.

Every fresh claim now made or revealed by the EU, merely confirms how much Remainers were not honest about, especially to their own supporters. The EU Remainers are still arguing about money the NHS would or would not have benefitted from, when the 100s of millions involved represent such a small fraction.

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sep 17, 2017 at 7:51 PM | Mark Hodgson

The amounts of money squirrelled away, without an auditable trail about those authorised to spend it, just gets larger.

The amount of this money absorbed by salaries, travel and restaurant bills is presumably not revealed.

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie. The EU's position paper, Annex 1 - Lists of bodies or funds included in the financial settlement - is rather long! Remain campaigners didn't, to my recollection,mention just how many EU bodies and spin-offs exist. No wonder they still want our money:

A. ENTITIES IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS

1. Institutions and consultative bodies


European Parliament
European Council
Council of the European Union
European Commission
European Court of Auditors
Court of Justice of the European Union
Economic and Social Committee
Committee of the Regions
European Ombudsman
European Data Protection Supervisor
European External Action Service

2. EU Agencies

2.1. Executive Agencies

Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency
Innovation & Networks Executive Agency
Research Executive Agency
European Research Council Executive Agency

2.2. Decentralised Agencies

European Maritime Safety Agency
European Food Safety Authority
European Medicines Agency
European Railway Agency
European GNSS Supervisory Authority
Community Plant Variety Office
European Chemicals Agency
European Fisheries Control Agency
Fusion for Energy (European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy)
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
Eurojust
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)
European Institute for Gender Equality
European Police Office (EUROPOL)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
European Aviation Safety Agency
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
European Network and Information Security Agency
European Environment Agency
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
European Centre for the Development of Vocational training
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
European Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union
European Banking Authority
European Securities and Markets Authority
European Asylum Support Office
European Training Foundation
Office for the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)
European Union Intellectual Property Office
EU-LISA (European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice)
The Single Resolution Board (SRB)

3. Other entities

European Coal and Steel Community (in liquidation)
European Institute of Innovation and Technology

B. JOINT VENTURES

SESAR Joint Undertaking
Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
ECSEL Joint undertaking
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking
Shift2Rail
Galileo Joint Undertaking in liquidation

C. ASSOCIATES FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNTS

European Investment Fund

D. FUNDS NOT IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS

European Development Fund
Facility for Refugees in Turkey

E. TRUST FUNDS

European Union Trust Fund for Central African Republic “Bêkou EU Trust Fund”
European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, "the Madad Fund"
Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa
Trust Fund for Columbia

F. BODIES NOT IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS

European Central Bank
European Investment Bank
European Defence Agency
European Union Institute for Security Studies
European Union Satellite Centre
European Schools

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Yes but look for instance at the list of decentralized agencies. How many of them will the UK wish to be associate with or will need to set up a parallel agency? I suspect almost all of them, which will entail similar funding. With respect to entities like these, I suspect we will remain inextricably linked to Europe. These entities are not frills.

I get the feeling that many here consider Europe to be imposing its will upon poor little Britain. In reality the UK has probably exerted more influence on Europe than its size and wealth would suggest. For example, justice was predominantly influenced by British lawyers (as I'm sure Mark will confirm).

Sep 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Sep 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM by Supertroll

It hasn't been Europe imposing, it has been the EU imposing, and the results haven't been particularly successful because the politics has been more important than any success. The whole thing rolls on and accountability is non-existent.

And any recognition will go to Brussels.

Niger had a population of 10,000,000 in 2000, which they couldn't support, and 15,000,000 in 2015. They are projected to have 100,000,000 by the end of the century, and 'something needs to be done' to avoid the expected result. If the EU continues to carry on as before, spending money and exacerbating the problem, it would be better if there was a change in what happens.

Sep 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Please read"EU" for "Europe" in my 9.45am post. Now you were saying Richard?

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Sep 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM | Supertroll & Mark Hodgson

I am old enough to remember the last few years of the " Cod War"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

which was not a direct consequence of the Common Market, but did overlap with the collapse of the UK's North Sea Fishing Fleet, which was.

The North Sea was a limitless resource of fish production, that simply needed harvesting, providing cheap and nutritious food for all communities with access, from Shetland to Kent, and Holland to Norway, including the Baltic (Herring are to be found in many seas and oceans around the world, and are plankton feeders). As technology improved to catch, preserve and transport fish, once caught, demand increased to match increased supply.

Fish stocks were collapsing, and the UK Trawler Fleet was the first obvious victim of the Common Market.

Since then, what has the Common Market/EEC/EU actually done to restore the productivity of the North Sea? Nothing. Just a series of restrictions on harvesting, that rely on Member States to enforce, with varying degrees of integrity.

Fish farming is associated with salmon, and has attracted criticism from environmentalists, though I do not know how valid the criticism actually is. Fish farming is also used to stock rivers and lakes. Why hasn't the EU ever invested in captive breeding of herring and the release into the North Sea of viable fry? The individual initial investment would roughly match the cost of a wind turbine, running costs including maintenance would be similar, but long term productivity might be better. Trawlers or even North Sea oil rigs could be used for the release and dispersion of fertilised eggs or spry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring

I give this as an example of what the EU COULD DO, but it chooses to regulate, enforce and ban instead, unless it is a project that matches their political (Green?) interests, in which case, money is no object.

For those that like their legal cod latin, the Common Herring is clupea harengus. Clupea harengus rudus would be the red sub species.

ps I don't really eat fish as I don't like it, especially oily fish such as mackerel and herring.

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:01 PM by Supertroll

Everything in my post stands. The problem is that everything abides by the 'Ever Close Union' command when there is no demos. Inevitably, Germany wins out, and the smaller countries follow meekly, most of the time. At other times, Germany has already set the scene, so there is only one practical solution possible.

That is why we are leaving, so we need a clean break, otherwise we will be for ever haggling over historical precidents which only solve problems in the past, if that at all.

The problems are only political, and the countries are supposed to be civil.

Sep 18, 2017 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

But Robert this was a discussion about the necessity of maintaining either the UK's connection with multitidinous European organizations or institutions (or having to reintroduce them as UK equivalents). I was not discussing leaving the EU or the reasons for such an action. All I am saying is that in so many ways we have links with the EU, to the extent that complete separation is likely to be counterproductive. Such a separation might be imposed by an intransigent UK or by a vindictive EU. I hope not.

Sep 18, 2017 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM | Mark Hodgson

Thank you for that, it could be the start of a new thread, in terms of what it is worth the UK continuing to pay for. The UK has benefitted from them all, but whether, what we have ended up with, is any better for the UK is not always easy to judge, as we don't know where the UK might have been without the EU.

Topical issues include:

Improved insulation for tower blocks.
No compulsory liability insurance for cyclists.

I do not know how consistent the Law is across Europe on these two issues, but the EU has legislated to reduce carbon emissions.

Sep 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sep 18, 2017 at 2:12 PM by Supertroll

I can't see what the problem is.

When we leave we will be able to choose what we want to do. If I moved to a different part of the country, I wouldn't be worried about breaking links with the local shops. There is no intrinsic value with working with a politically dysfunctional grouping. It will be an opportunity to reassess how our money is spent. We might decide to do neither or something different.

Just because the EU is going something, it doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. There is no necessity about it.

Sep 18, 2017 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert. Try reading the list in question and asking yourself if you would wish to pursue a lonely path. How about aviation safety, intellectual rights or drugs?

Sep 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Sep 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM by Supertroll

I don't see how not being connected to an EU institution is lonely, especially as there are so many other countries in the world, and they are not so cowered by Germany.

Of course there are organisations that we could connect to, but they mustn't involve political interference from the EU any more than if we were in the Carribian.
For example, I am sure that Canada, the US and Brazil have international connections to organisations concerned with aviation safety, yet they don't let Brussels dictate internal policy.

Sep 18, 2017 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Supertroll and others. Sorry for the delay - I have been out all day.

At the risk of sitting on the fence, I can see merit in what both sides are saying here. The list I copied from the Annex to the EU position paper does contain some bodies that look as if they do work that might be interesting, valuable and important. It also includes a number of bodies that look as though they replicate the work of similar bodies at national level, and others that (depending on your political viewpoint) might be regarded as completely pointless. To me, that's an assessment, in its totality, that could apply to the EU itself as a whole.

In a sensible world, we will remain associated with some EU offshoots, because it will be mutually beneficial for the UK and the EU for us to do so. If and to the extent that it is appropriate to do so, I would have no objection to the UK continuing to contribute a fair and reasonable level of funding for any such. Equally, I would expect us to sever links with any such offshoots where continuing involvement would not serve much, if any, purpose, and at the same time, to cease paying for them. Whether the EU will adopt such a pragmatic viewpoint remains to be seen.

I'm not sure UK influence over EU justice has been particularly high of late, though each member state contributes one judge to the ECJ, to be increased to 2 each in 2019 (though presumably we won't be appointing a second judge given the date of increase). EU law is very different to our common law, but it has probably affected the UK more than the UK has been able to influence it. Having said that, UK lawyers have had a lot of influence in Europe beyond the EU, e.g. in helping to draw up the European Convention of Human Rights after WW2, which is separate from, but often confused with, the EU.

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Supertroll:

Most of the EU bodies are duplicates of what we have in the UK already (every EU state as well).

Take for instance, within my own area of knowledge, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).

In the UK we have the MCA (Maritime & Coastguard Agency). The MCA predates EMSA by decades. Every maritime law with very few exceptions is international and regulated at the UN level by IMO.

EMSA just copies international marine law into EU law. Pointless.

Its only use is for oil spill tracking via satellite, but member states do this as well.....

Drugs - international rules apply (if your about illegal ones)

Aviation - UN again - very international - just like shipping....

Patents - international by definition. EU patent protection costs big time....

All of these EU bodies just cut n paste existing international law into EU law, pointless unless you agree with the EU mentality of 'they have one so I want one as well'.
===================================================
Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency - we have one of these
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises - we have one of these
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency - we have one of these
Innovation & Networks Executive Agency - we have one of these
Research Executive Agency - we have one of these
European Research Council Executive Agency - we have one of these

2.2. Decentralised Agencies

European Maritime Safety Agency - we have one of these
European Food Safety Authority - we have one of these
European Medicines Agency - we have one of these
European Railway Agency - we have one of these
European GNSS Supervisory Authority - we have one of these
Community Plant Variety Office - we have one of these
European Chemicals Agency - we have one of these
European Fisheries Control Agency - we have one of these
Fusion for Energy (European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy) - we have one of these
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction - we have one of these
Eurojust - we have one of these
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) - we have one of these
European Institute for Gender Equality - we have one of these
European Police Office (EUROPOL) - we have one of these
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - we have one of these
European Aviation Safety Agency - we have one of these
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control - we have one of these
European Network and Information Security Agency - we have one of these
European Environment Agency - we have one of these
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - we have one of these
European Centre for the Development of Vocational training - we have one of these
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority - we have one of these
European Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators - we have one of these
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union - we have one of these
European Banking Authority - we have one of these
European Securities and Markets Authority - we have one of these
European Asylum Support Office - we have one of these
European Training Foundation - we have one of these
Office for the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication - we have one of these
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - we have one of these
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) - we have one of these
European Union Intellectual Property Office - we have one of these
EU-LISA (European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice) - we have one of these
The Single Resolution Board (SRB) - don't know about this one.

You may have to squint when looking at the names of the above when comparing them to the list of UK government bodies but every single one exists.

Currently we are paying twice, for our own in the UK and for the EU duplicate.

No good.

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM by Steve Richards

An amazing accumulation of information!

Either that, or you did well finding the list. :)

A while ago the EU had another attempt to take over the H&S of North Sea oil/gas rigs which has been developed by Al the participating nations.

It was Norway's strong response that saw them off. Not only was it reinventing the wheel, it would have been controlled by those who had never seen a rig, perhaps never even seen the North Sea!

Sep 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Steve. Thank you for your work upon the list. I thought I would investigate whether the agencies do indeed duplicate so started with the European Medicines Agency - simply because it resides in the UK (so we will lose it) and because it was in the news relatively recently - being outside its jurisdiction we may see delays in the introduction of certified new drugs.
However, it didn't take me long to realize I was asking the wrong questions. You take the view that any duplication of effort is the fault of the EU. But if we have been part of an integrated Europe for decades, why haven't we (and other European countries) integrated our agencies into their European counterparts? Didn't we trust the combined expertise of European medics and pharmacists, and preferred our own? Why on earth do we have a separate Aviation Safety Authority?

Sep 19, 2017 at 8:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Steve Richards & Supertroll - you are at the nub of the issue. I was going to suggest that this is the heart of the disagreement between remainers and Brexiteers, but between you, you've got there ahead of me.

IMO it's all about how you see the world. As a Brexiteer. I take the view that it was ridiculous for what was supposed to be a free-trade area (the EEC) to decide to become a regional superpower, and to trespass on the area's already covered by national governments. IMO the only area where such behaviour was legitimate was where supra-national rules and standards might contribute to the aim of free trade. It is my view that the EU has simply created another layer of bureaucracy at great cost to all concerned.

The alternative view is that ever-deeper Union and a federal state are good things, and instead of duplication and cost being the fault of the EU, it is the fault of the individual member states, who should sign up wholeheartedly to the project and allow their national QUANGOs and similar bodies to wither away, since their areas of activity are now covered by EU bodies also.

Neither view is objectively correct, IMO, and which you prefer depends on how you view the world. I take the view that the EU is out of control, and should never have got involved, at great expense, in things that shouldn't concern it.

Sep 19, 2017 at 8:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

As far as the EASA aviation safety outfit is concerned, they have gradually taken over from national agencies. They have been propagating their own standards over national standards in all sorts of areas, usually making trouble and expense for folks who were aviating perfectly well before. For instance, the hours of training required to get a license varies a little from country to country, as do the tests. It's no big deal, but standardising causes continual disruption. And it only has effect in the EASA area, pilots and aircraft from non-EU countries are allowed to fly into EU airports. The effect of EASA is only that they represent us on international bodies, whereas before (or soon?) the CAA had that responsibility which it was well able to handle. If EASA really does have some benefit that I'm not aware of, we can probably stay in it.

Sep 19, 2017 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda