In a clear case of politics being seen to trump the concerns of business, the UK government has announced on 7 March 2020 that it will withdraw from the European Aviation Safety Agency ‘EASA’ after the end of the transition period and 31 December 2020.
The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps was quoted as saying that continued EASA membership is “not compatible” with the UK having “genuine economic and political independence”, presumably as a ‘rule taker’ subject to European regulation.
The aerospace and defence trade body A/D/S had argued that continued EASA membership would be the best option to maintain UK competitiveness, standards and investment, and that withdrawal would risk having to maintain expensive parallel systems. British Airways owner IAG has pointed out that if the intention is that the UK Civil Aviation Authority should take on these responsibilities, that Authority would require root and branch reform and reorganisation, which could not be done by the end of December 2020. Indeed the CAA states on its own website that –
“The CAA has been clear since the EU referendum that we consider the most positive outcome for UK consumers and the aviation industry would be one where the UK has continued participation in the EASA system with existing systems of mutual recognition between the UK and EASA Member States remaining in place.”
In a further twist, the Welsh Government (which, after all, has the Airbus wing-making plant at Broughton within its territory) recently published its own negotiating priorities for the future UK/EU relationship, and has underlined its view that –
“While we recognise our future relationship with the EU will be based on a Free Trade Agreement, the UK must have the fullest access to EU markets without tariffs and non-tariff barriers must be minimised. This means… participation in EU bodies and agencies such as the European Chemicals Agency to support dynamic alignment.”
and –
“In many areas it is simply not possible or would be highly inefficient to move away from well-established and respected arrangements. The UK Government needs to move further than continued cooperation with agencies such as the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. The Welsh Government believes the UK Government should negotiate continued membership of these agencies as part of a comprehensive deal.”
These arguments led the previous government led by Theresa May to seek closer regulatory alignment and continued participation in key European regulatory agencies, in effect trading some regulatory independence for clear business advantages, which is no longer the preferred course for the present government.
At the moment, it is clear that these arguments, on behalf of a £36 billion industry with 110,000 skilled employees in the UK are not prevailing over the political imperative of “genuine economic and political independence”. It will be interesting to see whether similar arguments prevail in the area of chemicals and the EU REACH chemicals Regulation, which also closely affects the aerospace, automotive and chemicals industries. The EASA decision may be a sign that the UK government will opt to accept a similar distance with the European Chemicals Agency ‘ECHA’ and in favour of a ‘UK REACH’ applied by the Health and Safety Executive. Powers to allow the government to make amendments to the UK’s version of REACH are tucked away in a schedule to the Environment Bill presently before the UK Parliament.
For further information on our reading of this and other Brexit issues and environmental legislation, please contact William Wilson on +44(0)1225-730-407 or email <info@wyesideconsulting.com>