johnwvincent

Bad Petition

It seems the ardent Brexit promoters now want to abolish the House of Lords[1]. I guess this is not an unexpected reaction to their vote in favour of remaining in the Customs Union[2]. Foolishness is rife within a vigorous but small section of the population. We need to remember that it wasn’t that long ago that these people wanted to get rid of High Court judges and called them the “enemies of the people”. Some are actively calling for a dictatorship to take over by exclaiming: politicians cannot be relied upon to implement the people’s will.

I have some sympathy with the call to: “Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords” but only if there was an immediate democratic replacement. Personally, I think the idea of an elected Senate where senators represent the regions of the Country, is a good idea. That would be progressive. What I fear with the latest call form the Brexit fanatics is an abolition of the House of Lords with no replacement and thus an elimination of the balance of powers that is essential to a modern democracy. Dismantling our British institutions at the same time as pandering to xenophobia is a dreadful mistake. History tells us that moving in such a direction can have catastrophic outcomes.

If we add up what Brexit promoters have achieved since the 2016 referendum one word comes to mind: shambles. Fiasco, mess, muddle and disaster are words that could do the job too.

In normal times, the loud shouts and cries from the fringes of politics would command only a passing glimpse. Something has changed with the national media. Banner headline are composed more to shock and entertain than to inform. And they all jump on the same bandwagon with just a few variations of coverage.

When a noisy few run around insulting everyone who disagrees with them, the problem is self-evident. The House of Lords does need reform but where were the Brexit advocates when this was last seriously debated. In fact, many of them where on the side of defending privilege, traditions and ancient institutions.

The House of Lords should not be punished for applying common sense. I only hope the House of Commons will apply similar common sense.

[1] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43812360

Sunny Saturday Morning

It’s one thing to discuss the technicalities of Brexit but there’s nothing like standing in a High Street and talking to people. Before the day slips from my mind I thought I’d write a few short reflections.

Our weather hasn’t shown much sign of Spring but on Saturday it was almost as if the heavens were smiling on us. Sunshine brought lots of people out for a stroll, shopping and much else. It’s so rewarding working with a likeminded team. A cross-Party group of us met-up in the centre of the Surrey town of Dorking. Determined to show that there’s a movement for change.

I approach leafleting with a smile and a greeting – would you like a leaflet? It works. Yes, one or two people don’t want to be bothered or smile back but that’s normal. Who knows what’s going on in the lives of those you meet by chance on a Saturday morning. Being respectful is essential. First impressions matter so much. With a badge, some stickers and colleagues around we made it clear that we were campaigning on Europe. What we find is that the politeness and civility of most people reminds me that there’s a lot worth fighting for in Britain.

On Saturday, I’d guess no more than 1 in 20 of those I leafleted presented a negative view of what we were doing. From them, not one original new saying came up. Responses were mostly stock phrases, like: “We’ve voted once” or “I want out” or “the sooner we get out the better”. Not the basis for conversation. Generally street campaigning isn’t about arguing with people. At its best, its more about connecting with supporters and offering information to those with an open mind.

I did engage with one guy who thought one vote was enough. My counter argument was the fact that we vote every year in local elections and democracy is open to people changing their minds. Much as I expected, he wasn’t moved by this way of thinking. With a small minority there’s a kind of belligerence. Its true of other life situations too. Pride or stubbornness or absolute blind conviction means that little real discussion is possible. The strange thing is often we spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about people who behave this way.

Without a shadow of doubt there’s a strong demand for a vote of the deal. A clear majority of people we meet in Dorking want to have a choice over the Brexit deal.

The call for a #PeoplesVote is gaining momentum. Lots support the @peoplesvote_uk campaign for the people to have the final say over the #Brexit deal, not politicians.

Wake up the sentinels

When I half remember good advice, it drives me to do a bit of research. This week, watching all the questions being asked of Facebook, I couldn’t help but recall something I’d read more than 30 years ago. Yes, going back that far does have relevance because fundamental questions are exactly that; fundamental.

It seems every time technology advances the law follows but several steps behind. That’s law makers and those who sit in judgement trying to interpret tomes of law need to speed up. It was starkly apparent to me that Facebook was getting an easy ride, as questioning politicians struggled to keep up. Few question hit the mark or even attempted to look ahead.

For me, as for many, even research can’t be conducted without a heavy reliance on technology. So, I searched with the fragments of what I’d remembered. Typing into Google’s almighty search engine the two words “sleeping sentinels” because that’s what I thought was the name of a book.

Initially, I didn’t find what I wanted but what I did find was intriguing. I wasn’t previously aware of the story of the “sleeping sentinel”. A Union Army soldier during the American Civil War. He fell asleep whilst on duty, was court-martialled and sentenced to be executed. Harsh treatment indeed. But after his death sentence was read, a pardon was read thus saving his life. Lincoln had interceded on Scott’s behalf.

In this tale there’s an indication of the awakening of the idea of a “just culture”. Today, people with safety related work are expected to report such a case as; falling asleep on the job due to fatigue. In a “just culture” they should not be punished if others can learn from their experience.

I digress, since my aim was to rediscover an almost forgotten book on law. Eventually, I came to a reference to a book called: “The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology”[1]. This was the paperback I remembered.

One of the tenants of the book is that the law is sleeping while technology is racing ahead. Clear insight from the 1970s and 80s trying to consider the implications of personal commuters and alike.

Equally important to the case of understanding Social Media is the changing landscape of political campaigning. Its only now that everyone is discovering the details of what happened in June 2016 in the UK.

Its Friday 13^th and the news media is full of conflict and tension, but I hope this material gets well discussed. It does amount to finding out, after the event, hugely significant facts about the referendum of 2016.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-matrix-evidence-17-19/

To quote: “192. If the Commission indeed refrains from even exercising a discretion as to whether to refer a matter to the police or prosecuting authorities until it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed, this in our view would constitute an unlawful fetter on its regulatory discretion.”

What a dilemma. If the Electoral Commission, police or prosecuting authorities do not respond then they are indeed Slumbering Sentinels.

If they do respond, the case could be made for invalidating the 2016 referendum. To reassure them, as I have been saying in this article, they will not be the first to wake-up while technology is racing ahead. It’s difficult to foresee how technology will be misused in the future especially when money is no object. That said, we can’t ignore the facts.

[1] The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology (Pelican) Paperback – November 24, 1983 by C. G. Weeramantry

Representative Democracy

It remains remarkable to me that the Government’s stated position on Brexit is: “The British people voted to leave, and the Government will implement their decision. The vote on the final deal will give Parliament the choice to accept the agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.”

A debate will take place in Parliament on Monday, 30 April 2018[1]. This is the result of a petition with over 100,000 votes, that reads: “Parliament’s vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the EU.”

I wonder how long this Conservative luddite[2] approach to political decision-making will continue. It’s almost without parallel that a weak British executive such seek to bully a sovereign Parliament into a cul-de-sac. So, utterly desperate are the current Conservative Party to save the Conservative Party that they resort to attempting to ride rough shod over the British constitution.

Edmund Burke would be turning in his grave. He’s often considered as an authoritative source for modern Conservative views. I’ll quote him from a speech to the electors of the City of Bristol on 3 November 1774[3].

“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.”

It’s clear that, given evidence that Brexit is not in the general good it should be rejected. I believe, a general reasoned free debate in Parliament will surely show that Brexit, deal or no-deal, is not for the general good of the nation. Thus, MPs must have the opportunity to vote for an option to remain in the EU. This is not a time to smash up our representative Parliamentary democracy. It’s a time to reinforce it.

[1] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/205169

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17770171

[3] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

Our right to a referendum

I have just read “Why a second Brexit referendum is required by law” and find the arguments made in this article compelling[1].

It’s basically saying, any proposed future EU treaty that transfers areas of power, or competences, should be subject to a referendum on that treaty. The ‘referendum locks’ introduced in sections 2, 3 and 6 of The European Union Act 2011 (EUA) form part of a broader system of control over the making of various decisions related to the EU[2].

The exit agreement that’s being negotiated by Government Ministers will, if successful result in a future UK-EU treaty. Thus, it follows that that treaty should be subject to a referendum. That’s not a referendum about staying in the EU or leaving it, but a referendum on the final treaty that deals with the powers and competences of the EU in relation to the UK post the leaving date. Since there will be a transition period we know that there will be legal obligations to be met by both UK and EU.

I hope, I have understood this situation correctly as it seems eminently logical. The EUA remains in place to date. The reasons for the EUA being made law in the first place remain valid. As this is the case a referendum on the “deal” is thus required by UK law. To change this the Government of the day would have to repeal this EUA and as a result take away any direct say the British people may have over a final deal and transition period.

It’s not a simple passive matter of something lapsing. Being of 2011, it’s not an out-of-date law. A repeal of the EUA would be an active and wilful disenfranchisement of the British people. Quite the extreme opposite of “take back control”. More a question of we (Conservative Government) have control and there’s no way we will let the people have a say. Even to the extent of changing the law to stop a referendum taking place.

[1] https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/why-a-second-brexit-referendum-is-required-by-law

[2] https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/12/mike-gordon-the-european-union-act-2011/

Aviation & Brexit 5

You might ask what’s a “Statutory Instrument”? Well, in the United Kingdom they are a key form of delegated or secondary legislation. That’s distinct from Primary legislation, which in the case of civil aviation is the Civil Aviation Act 1982[1]. Part III of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 calls for an Air Navigation Order (ANO).

The latest UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016[2] is a Statutory Instrument. The UK ANO forms the legal basis for many areas of civil aviation that are regulated at a national level. In effect, it gives the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is powers and its responsibilities.

The UK ANO is amended from time to time to provide the links between European legislation and national legislation. This Statutory Instrument needs to reflect the general details of the civil aviation regulatory framework that’s expected to work.

It’s well worth remembering that, unlike the USA, the European civil aviation system is not a federal system. To work effectively, it needs the common European part and the national part to work together harmoniously. That has been achieved with remarkable results. It has been an achievement that has enabled great efficiency, a fertile environment for international commercial success and safety improvement.

Taking one example in the filed of aircraft airworthiness. Today, “certification” is defined as meaning: any form of recognition that a product, part or appliance, organisation or person complies with the applicable requirements including the provisions of this Order (ANO) or the Basic EASA Regulation and its implementing rules, as well as the issue of any certificate attesting to such compliance.

If Brexit happens many choices are open to the legislator. That’s the Government and Parliament in the UK. One would be to maintain links to the Basic EASA Regulation. Another would be to delete all references to the Basic EASA Regulation and reference an alternative new text. Naturally, there are numerous combinations and permutations that can be imagined. Whatever happens the resulting new Statutory Instrument(s) will need to comply with existing international obligation namely; the Chicago Convention.

Here I’ve described a great deal of detailed work and no doubt its sitting on someone’s desk. Above I referred to “certification” but that’s just one aspect of a much wider range of aviation activities. Clearly, its one where errors and omissions are likely to be costly to industry and ultimately the traveling public. Normally, consultation and deliberations on significant legislative changes take place over many years. Thus, it’s reasonable to be concerned about what might happen over the coming year. Simple this is not.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/contents

[2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made

Aviation & Brexit 4

I must say, I feel more positive about the prospects for the UK’s continuing participation in the workings of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Yes, we (UK) remain mired in uncertainty. Yes, it’s the non-transport politicians who are making the running and yes, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But at least a good deal of serious consideration is being given to possible scenarios for a post-Brexit world.

Top of everybody’s list in aviation is that the UK should continue its membership of EASA[1], at least for the much-discussed transition period or implemention period as it might better be called. Although this does mean losing voting rights and the opportunity for Directorships to be taken up by Brits, there’s enough advantages to keep the wings of aviation flying.

In the European aviation system, one of the key committees established by European law, often called the EASA “Basic Regulation” is the: EASA Committee. This is a high-level committee that handles: “common safety rules in the field of civil aviation”. Now, the Agency’s rulemaking procedure is such that it submits its formal technical opinions to the decision-making process of the European Commission, which is, in effect, the EASA Committee. So, to influence future European aviation rules it’s important to be present and able to speak at the meetings of this key committee.

The examples of Norway and Switzerland show that non-EU Countries can exercise a degree of technical influence at this level. In fact, this is not surprising since much of that which is taken forward requires a high degree of consensus to work in an integrated system. Also, both Norway and Switzerland are represented on the EASA Management Board[2]. Which is reasonable because they both make financial and staffing contributions to the Agency.

I think, Switzerland shows a way forward. Not for reasons that the Country is like the UK. After all, it’s smaller, it’s federal, speaks many languages and we don’t have the Alps. On the other hand, Switzerland, like the UK has a manufacture that depends on access to a global marketplace and is well connected to around the world. Also, in recent times, their federal aviation authority has been progressive in the field of aviation safety management.

There’s a chance of reaching Brexit day with no clear vision of the future but having a basic contingency is better than nothing. Naturally, I would rather see the UK play a full part in European aviation as it has with great success in past decades. Sitting in the second row at the table isn’t the best place for a Country with our incredible heritage. There’s no barrier to being European and being Global even if there’s a block in the minds of some Westminster politicians. As the joke about being lost and asking directions goes: “I wouldn’t start from here, Sir”.

[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-xiv/30117.htm

[2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/management-board/members

Aviation & Brexit 3

The European Union has civil aviation agreements with many Countries. In their current form, those international agreements will not apply to the UK when it leaves the EU in a year’s time. Unless otherwise specified, the EU will see the UK as a Third Country after the leaving date. Transition arrangements may happen to maintain a degree of stability. However, post Brexit, the EU cannot bind other Third Countries to respect an agreement it has with one Third Country. Each is a sovereign State with aviation interests of its own.

As an outcome, the legalities and the political reality may not be the same in 2019 but change will take place in the negotiating strength of the EU, UK and other Countries. In other words, pre-Brexit agreements bind parties but post-Brexit there’s much more of a “free for all”. Touting a slogan like: Global Britain, is fine for a domestic audience but cuts little weight in hardnosed negotiations where one party is vulnerable due to its need for continuity.

The implications of Third Country status are already being played out as the News items on the Galileo satellite system are showing. Naturally, EU Member States have privileges with respect to EU funded projects. It’s not surprising that the benefits of membership do not automatically extend to non-members or former members.

As an illustration let’s take one small technical example. For good or ill, there’s a high expectation that our skies are going to see Drones flying around everywhere and anywhere. Well, not exactly since there’s need for a tight regulatory framework and enabling technology to be put in place to ensue that Drones can be exploited safely. This effort must be done so that the results will work throughout the whole of Europe and wider if possible.

Amongst the standards for Drones there’s discussion about E-Identification and Geo-Fencing. Two technical features that could be mandated to ensure that every Drone can be identified, and every Drone can be restricted from going to prohibited places. Those developments are expected to have a significant role for the Galileo satellite system.

The UK being outside of the mainstream, isn’t going to mean exclusion from all the technical discussions but when it comes to hard and fast decisions then that’s a different matter. There will be standards and there will be legislation to make the market work. In cases like this one, rather than taking back control the path the UK is taking is giving up control.

Aviation & Brexit 2

On the road to the Brexit many questions remain unanswered. I’m writing this article responding to several assertions that I’ve seen made in the social media world. On aviation, here I’d like to add my perspective given that the subject is not straightforward or simple.

The European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA has a membership that extends beyond the EU Member States. International cooperation has been a key activity of the European Commission and EASA since its establishment. This is quite rational and reasonable given that civil aviation is one of the most international businesses in the world. One role EASA has is to promote European and worldwide standards. Its long been recognised that regulatory fragmentation has a detrimental impact on all aspect of civil aviation, including safety.

The EU has written agreements with many Countries[1]. There are working arrangement, bilateral agreements, memorandums of understanding and examples of technical cooperation. Four non-EU European States are EASA Member States. If a Country is not an EASA Member States it is called a “Third Country”. This term is significant because it’s used extensively in existing European aviation legislation.

In 2006, Switzerland become a member of the EASA. It was the fourth non-EU country to adopt EU aviation safety legislation after Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. These four non-EU countries are represented in the Agency’s Management Board and their nationals are eligible to work for the Agency in Cologne.

Reports suggest that the door to EASA membership is open to the UK. This proposal of Agency membership is greatly favoured by industry bodies and many of the UK’s international partners. The benefits are notable, and it does provide for a degree of continuity for an industry where long-term planning is essential. The traveling public would benefit from that continuity too.

An integrated aviation safety system in Europe isn’t just an abstract concept, it’s a reality. We learn from each other’s experiences and that learning is fed directly into day-to-day aircraft operations. Its not hyperbole to say that Europe is the most advanced aviation region in the world.

The UK’s history is one where we have made immensely significant contributions to the development of aviation safety regulation in Europe. In my view the benefits of continuing along this road outweigh, by a huge margin any speculative benefits of regulatory divergence.

Over the next year, negotiations will address the detailed agreement to describe the way forward for UK-EU civil aviation. Building on our positive achievements would seem to be the wisest and safest course of action.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map

Aviation & Brexit

There’s several recent articles written about Aviation and Brexit. Some are better than others. All raise vital points for discussion. Here, I thought I’d write this page to deal with one or two anomalies that often crop up.

Brexit is going to complicate aviation in Europe. Absolutely no doubt about that fact. However, the earth will not stop rotating and all planes will not stop flying on one day.

In aviation there are international bodies, intergovernmental bodies and the European Union. With full agreement by the Member States, from its origins in the Treaty of Rome through all the Treaties, the EU has expanded its range of activities. Now, before any further discussion it’s useful to look at the division of competences within the EU. Transport is a shared competence between the EU and EU countries. That means the EU countries exercise their own competence where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise, its competence.

Thus, changes in European aviation didn’t happen in one massive swoop, they are on-going and will be on-going for a long time into the future. In all aspects of aviation, the EU and EU countries can legislate and adopt legally binding acts, but they don’t have to unless there’s a need.

By 1992, the foundations of a common transport policy had been laid[1]. The notion of a shared competence continues to be important throughout subsequent developments.

Another key point is to remark is that transport should not been seen in isolation. As European policy developed so the environment became more prominent. Aviation and policy related to research and innovation should not be separated. Also, consumer rights is a key component. This meant that not only did the Member States and European Commission need to work closely together but the different directorates of the Commission had to coordinate too.

Now back to international bodies, intergovernmental bodies and the European Union. Grandmother of them all is ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. It’s sometimes referred to as the House of the States. 192 of them to be precise. ICAO has a regional structure. Its European office is in Paris. To complicate even more, the Paris office is shared with, the European Civil Aviation Conference[2]. ECAC is an intergovernmental organisation that was established by the ICAO and the Council of Europe. So, even if no EU aviation interest existed there is a set of institutions addressing European aviation. And I haven’t even mentioned EUROCONTROL.

Much of what has been written recently refers to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This EU body came into operation in September 2003. It had been discussed, debated and theorised over a decade or more. Built on the foundation of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), initially EASA took over the task of aircraft certification. Gradually, the remit of EASA was expanded.

This happened in a way that was fully aligned with the notion of shared competence. The European aviation system is not a federal system as it is in the US. EASA and the National Aviation Authorities work together. One maybe tasked to write new rules and the other would be tasked to implement those rules.

If we take the subject of licencing as one example of the work of EASA and the NAAs. In civil aviation, pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers need licences to work.

I’ve seen it written that post-Brexit, licences issued by UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will no longer be valid for operating in the EU when the UK ceases to be an EU member state. However, in an international context it’s not that simple. Today, EASA licences are issues by the NAAs, including the UK CAA. These licences are fully compliant with ICAO Standards and Recommended practices. As such it would be difficult for a European State, as an ICAO Member State to not recognise UK issued licences without some good technical reasons.

Where the UK may need to re-establish its competence, if it did drop out of the EU system would be in the field of aviation rulemaking. Even then it could just copy the output coming from the EU and EASA in Cologne and put a UK label on it.

The situation could get exceedingly messy. In this next year, methodical, patient and smart civil servants in both Brussels and London need to put down on paper exactly how the new arrangement will work. That can’t wait too long because eventually the auditor will come knocking on the door and ask all sorts of difficult questions.

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/transport_en

[2] https://www.ecac-ceac.org/