Thread by @Usherwood

Let's talk briefly about what this might mean for the UK's approach to the Future Partnership talks

Tl;dr 😬
1/

theguardian.com/world/2020/mar…

For those that don't know, @EASA run the processes relating to aviation safety and certification for over 30 European states (EU27 plus EFTA, basically)

You can read them at: easa.europa.eu or this summary from your favourite wiki

2/

Basic point is that this is a classic example of a technocratic body, doing technical things for many that used to have to be done by each. The vast majority of its work has no implication beyond the sector

3/

By withdrawing, the UK will have to repatriate all that activity to the local bodies, which will have to rectify with counterparts elsewhere (including EASA) that they are going any acceptable job, largely by doing the same work to the same standards

4/

(This is why the EU has lots of these bodies: it seems much more efficient to share the load with others, plus you get to carry more weight in international discussions on such things)

4.5/

So why withdraw?

It's a load more work being out, being in would very bounded and you could make the argument that critical safety systems should handled differently

But that doesn't seem to be the point

5/

Instead, the approach appears to be that the UK should absolutely not be part of anything 'European' unless there's an absolutely compelling reason to be

I can think of reasons why you'd take this line

6/

Firstly, there's the 'wedge' argument: join in this and others might press you to join other seemingly innocuous bodies and before you know it...

7/

Secondly, there's a presentational argument: anything that looks extraneous in the final deal might make backbenchers unhappy, or supporters in the public unhappy

"Are you saying us Brits can't be trusted to keep planes safe?", etc, etc

8/

Thirdly, there's a UK powerhouse argument: bringing expertise back (and there are a lot of Brits in EASA) will play groundwork for a big tech-based economic advance

9/

Make of those what you will, but it's clear that all of them place economic rationality behind political principle/expediency

This is just a small example, but might be setting the tone for the next months

10/

For me, all this tells me that we need to be cautious about how much weight to place on UK politicians approaching these talks with a subtext of minimising disruption (which has hitherto been a major element)

Chocks away!

/end