johnwvincent

Fishy parrot

Without a doubt the Brexiteers have betrayed British fishing. On the table is a proposal for Britain to effectively remain in the EU Common Fisheries Policy for almost two years after March 2019. Yes, this is a practical and pragmatic measure in a long and detailed negotiation but its runs in the opposite direction to the one pushed for by the likes of backbench MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Ministers have defended their position by asking the hard core Brexiters, who like to think they run Britain, to hold fire and play a long game. This is much like asking your favourite football team to carry on loosing because one day over the horizon they might just win.

All this political theatre continues apace even when there’s no clear Fisheries Policy to replace the one we have now.

It’s bazaar to see angry fishing protesters throw dead fish into the Thames river outside The Houses of Parliament in London. Perhaps a nice meal for a passing gull or Conger Eel. Today, indeed there are such fierce fish in the river Thames[1]. It’s a good sign of how much this major tidal river has been cleaned up over numerous decades.

I don’t need to say that; British rivers were in an alarming state before Britain joined the EU. Concerted environmental action[2] across Europe has improved the situation markedly even though problems remain. The Thames clean-up campaign has been an internationally success. This most British of estuaries supports over 120 species of fish, is a key nursery ground and plays a big part in supporting North Sea fish stocks. I don’t know what the protesters think is going to happen if Britain leaves the EU. The management of fish stocks will continue to be a complex issue that no one Country can monopolise.

Brexiteers will betray the fishing industry. Brexiteers will betray the framers. Brexiteers will betray every single British subject (or citizen). Its just a matter of time. Doesn’t matter if its March 2019 or 21 months later the betrayal is inevitable.

It isn’t dead fish we should be picturing but the dead parrot[3] of Brexit.

[1] http://thames-explorer.org.uk/knowledge-base/wildlife/forna/fish/

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/basics/health-wellbeing/clean-water/index_en.htm

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot_sketch

Wrong turn

Let’s be clear. Brexit is built on a fantasy. It’s a massive disruption aimed at the wrong target.

Yes, we know the world has changed since the formation of the European community. Yes, we know China and India are growing more rapidly than Europe. Yes, we know no one likes the language of rules and regulations. But to use these three as reasons for unilateral separation from our nearest neighbours is as likely to succeed as a five-year-old is to master quantum physics.

Global connectivity, interaction and interdependence are growing. Like it or not, no one Country is going to be able to halt social and technical “progress” unless its willing to make its people poorer. There’s always the dark ages option.

Sure, this makes people like me, over 50, uncomfortable and romantically starry eyed about so called simpler times. My career started in the pre-digital world where computers were filing cabinet sized number crunchers only States and big companies could afford. Today, with talk of Artificial Intelligence not as science fiction but as science fact, its hard to know what will happen next.

For these reasons, and more major institutions need a radical shift in gear. It doesn’t matter if they are international, regional, national, city, town or village we need to do business differently.

So, where Brexit pits one against another it’s a hundred percent wrong.

In the background

Here, I thought I would write a few observations having recently talked to several people who supported Brexit. Conversations that were as civil as if they had happened in a church vestry.

Although the language used in published Brexit document, either from Whitehall or the European institutions is dull, measured and technical it’s soon turned into emotive hyperbole by the media. The mundane horse-trading that is part of normal negotiations is hijacked by brain numbing capital headlines. Sterile legalistic words suddenly become personal attacks and vengeful actions.

Its like there’s an insatiable need to turn administration into high drama. None of this media magnification and political hype helps the process one little bit. Its happening and all parties are doing it, but the aggression and sharpness is greater on the pro-Brexit side.

What I find astonishing is the emphatic and dogmatic way in which some of those who voted to Leave the EU speak and write. Language is coloured by absolutes. There’s little attempt to understand that a considerable number of people disagree with leaving the EU.

Gross stereotyping is happening on both side of the argument. If anything, this just has the impact of hardening the attitudes of those committed to each camp. Leavers are accused of being xenophobes. Remainers are accused of being disrespectful.

Finding words to characterise the situation, what comes to mind is that it’s like a mock civil war being fought in thick mud. Life changing and messy but recoverable if some good will can be found.

It seems both camps agree we have an incompetent Government implementing the process. Upheavel without benifit is a costly way to roll the clock back.

As huge generalities, a couple of points are clear to me. These get more acute the older people get. One: the British people never like being told what to do especially when its written down. Order is preferred over chaos but don’t make too many rules. Two: complaining is not the natural British way. Bottling up unhappiness’s until they explode is far more the British way.

Brexit will fail because its twisting and turning and tying itself up. Most fundamentally it’s not dealing with the real reasons for people’s unhappiness. The public will give their vedict in the end. In fact, they may do that sooner than the pudits think.

These notes may be extremely useful if there is a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Uncertain rules

Simon Whalley’s[1] analysis shows that there’s a lot that remains uncertain. Even with the UK exploring the terms on which the UK could remain part of the European Aviation Safety Agency [EASA] there is no assurance of success. If an accommodation is achieved there’s still the thorny problem of being subject to rules that will be put in place without a UK vote for or against.

It might be that the undeclared strategic aim of the UK Government is to diverge from the European framework of rules. That would make EASA membership a transitional arrangement.

Given my experience, I’m forced to look at the evolving situation as the past gone into reverse. In the 1990s we were slowly but surely moving away from British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCARs) towards European ones as being organised by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This progressive movement, of over more than a decade, created the stepping stones that made EASA possible. If we put all that into administrative reverse it will take a couple of decades to get to a situation of greater autonomy. Even that will not mean absolute control given the UK’s obligations within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the large number of bilateral agreement that will need to be put in place to replace the European ones.

I don’t deny that divergence may have one or two benefits. However, I will agree that the costs of divergence far exceed any of the potential benefits or, at least, that is the experience of the past.

Take the case where there is a major fatal accident of a civil aircraft on British soil. Post-accident, there is the potential to change aviation rules faster if the only consideration is a domestic outcome. Divergence will then certainly then arise quite rapidly. What can be bad about that? Well, there are a couple of issues. Rapid rule changes can be highly politically driven running the risk that the true nature of a technical problem is not addressed. Also, given the extremely rare occurrence of fatal accidents there’s a lot to be gained from aggregating information. If all energy and effort is focused on national problems much can be missed. In other words, the accident that others have maybe the accident you have tomorrow, if you don’t pay attention.

Pro-Brexit reporters have commented; if Australia and New Zealand can do it why can’t we? That is; to not have an empowered regional organisation addressing aviation. Also, such remarks have been addressed about the Gulf States. Look at these large aircraft operators and they don’t have an EASA, do they?

The truth is complex. A lot of these simple analogies don’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact, at international level more and more regional groupings are being established and recognised by ICAO. Also, the highly integrated and interconnected nature of design, production, maintenance and operations in Europe does mean we are not like any other global region.

Although we (UK) are in reverse gear let’s hope that a handbrake turn takes place before we hit the barrier.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/news/brexit-and-easa-a-way-forward/

Anti-Social Media

Transformations often occur without any grand plan. Worlds change, events come and go, and chance plays its hand. Leaps forward in technology have give us a level of interconnection that few imagined only a decade or so ago. But there it is, social media is a part of our landscape like it or not. And its not going away.

Having participated in the debate about Brexit for the last couple of years certain thing become evident. There not all negative but the trend is a dangerous one.

The “liberal” hope for technologies like the INTERNET has always been that communication would give us a greater understanding of each other. The benefits for education are huge. From that a well of good would bring people together rather than push them apart. Like the benefits of travel. The more we know about our neighbours the more we would find common cause. This is true but there’s a flip side too.

Whereas face-to-face lots of social norms come into play, in the electronic cloud this is not so much so. Rudeness and vulgarity are still not acceptable in public. Stupidity is shunned when met in the flesh. Bigotry is questioned.

A side effect of all the technology we have accumulated is that it requires so little of us. Immediacy and proliferation means throw away comment and clicks of approval or disapproval costs nothing. In the worst cases people can hunker down in isolated corners and bombard the world with their prejudices and narrow-mindedness.

In politics, the fences surrounding camps are strengthened. Impenetrable walls are erected to preserve cherished beliefs. Although some of this is not new it does make it more difficult to cross boundaries and explore original ideas.

Ironic that these liberating technologies bring out the most illiberal instincts. To throw in a solution would be a step too far. The road of travel is a dangerous one but somehow, we must learn to behave differently. It’s a continuous learning.

In addition, having said that, policing plays its part. Means are needed to put a cost on bad behaviour. Persistent trolls and campaigns that dive to the depths of vulgarity should be under pressure. Free speech is not freedom to say anything.

PM at a lectern

The much-billed speech on Britain’s future relationship with the EU is out. Prime Minister, Theresa May stood at a lectern and read a winding text that dipped into the live subjects of the moment. Watching a recording of her big speech was like watching an Open University seminar. Last year, to appease her Party, Theresa May used the slogan: Brexit means Brexit. This has gone. Many of the costs of leaving the European Union were addressed. There was little, if anything about the benefits of leaving.

So, if Brexit happens here are a few of the troublesome problems seeking solutions.

There’s a positive recognition that a “level playing field” is essential for an EU-UK relationship to be sustainable. The devil is in the detail and on that front much remains to be discovered.

She continues to say that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is ruled out of deciding disputes between EU-UK. Its clear that the ECJ plays a part but what part is yet to be determined.

The Prime Minister stressed the importance of a good deal on the flow of “data” between EU and UK. This aspiration makes good sense if only a whole new way of working didn’t have to be set-up in one year.

She accepts that people will still want to work and study in EU countries. However, there’s no clarity on how such movement will be relatively easy.

Looking at ways the UK could remain part of some EU Agencies is to be welcomed. However, our membership will be inferior to the 27 EU Member States in the three mentioned: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Divergence from the EU on Agriculture seems inevitable. Its assumed that the maintenance of high standards continues to be the UK’s goal. An assumption like this could get traded away in the need for a future deal with Countries like the US.

The Prime Minister suggested that she wants to remain part of the science and innovation framework programmes. There will be a major cost to this objective.

Overall, I would quote Benjamin Franklin: “Necessity never made a good bargain.” The UK needs a good deal, but it will be inferior to membership of the EU. May’s speech is well crafted as political theatre. She has got people feeling good about accepting an inferior situation.

Smart move

Over the last couple of decades there’s been a freeing up of civil aviation in Europe. It’s the reason for that £40 return ticket to a sunny destination, weekend city breaks or an adventure. At the same time, bar a small number of tragic events, it got safer to fly. That’s a remarkable achievement. Each of us can get to more places more cheaply and more safely than ever before. As is human, its easy to take this all for granted as if it would have happened whatever we did. Now, that’s a big mistake. Behind the scenes, huge efforts were made to change aviation and its associated regulation.

Europe has been remarkable successful liberalising markets and getting competition to give the passenger what they need and want. For those of us who remember the mediocre service and high cost of flying with State airlines in the 1980s, the transformation is clear. For the millennial generation who take international traveling as a given its difficult to image a world any different.

So, what has been the key to this achievement? Yes, the entrepreneurial spirt of those who established the low-cost carriers played its part. However, their efforts needed a transformation of the environment in which the business of flying took place. This is where the European Union (EU) has been particularly smart.

The liberalisation of aviation markets as a matter of competition policy is one thing but it’s not enough on its own. Just liberalising markets can be a disaster. It can mean a race to the bottom of the barrel and commercial pressures that chip away at good industry practices.

That’s why regulation is not only beneficial but it’s essential. Now this article will not consider competition policy, but it will discuss aviation safety regulation. Because the civil aviation industry cannot thrive unless safety is a priority.

In Europe, discussions on the establishment of a European aviation safety body date back to as early as 1996, but it was only in 2002 that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was established. The Agency started life in an office in Brussels and then it moved to Cologne in Germany in 2004.

EASA did not come out of thin air. Previously, there was cooperation between the EU and the administrations of many European states within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Having realised much in the way of harmonising standards, JAA was a club like organisation and had reached its limits, particularly on the legislative front, for its lack of authority.

The EU’s competences in transport are set out in the EU treaties. These treaties provide the basis for actions the EU institutions can or cannot take. Transport is a ‘shared’ competency. What that means is that either the EU or the Member States may act, but the Member States may be not act once they have acted through the EU. On this front, EASA was established by the Regulation (EC) 1592/2002. It was designed and built on the experiences and cooperation of the former Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). It works with all the national authorities.

With these developments, there’s no doubt consumers have benefited from a wider range of choice, both in locations served and in quality and type of service. Most of all aviation safety is number one.

Continuing Airworthiness

Airworthiness can be considered as the sum of: initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness. Roughly speaking, the first is the work that goes on before an authority issues a Type Certificate for an aircraft and the second is what happens afterwards when it goes into service.

So, let’s assume we have an aircraft designed, manufactured and certificated in accordance with a set of requirements ready to enter service. It’s imperative that the aircraft is properly serviced and maintained, and problems are fixed as they are discovered.

To achieve this a continued airworthiness programme is needed to support an aircraft in service.

Included within this is the need for a maintenance programme. The reason for maintenance is to control the rate of deterioration of an aircraft. This is achieved by two types of maintenance. The first is preventive maintenance that relies on inspection and repeated activities to identify and fix problems. The second is remedial maintenance, which includes repairs, and fixing a problem after an abnormal event (heavy landing, bird or lightning strike etc.). All the above can be done for each aircraft as it is needed and set against an agreed schedule.

However, the story doesn’t end at that point. A continued airworthiness programme takes lessons learned from experience and applies them not just to one aircraft but to a whole fleet of the same design. It’s a philosophy that requires problems to be identified and reacted to with the aim of preventing their recurrence. That could be lessons learned from accidents, incidents, occurrences or analysis that wasn’t routine or planned.

Airworthiness is an integrated activity and so all the above impacts the approvals, processes and procedures that are applied. To undertake the work of continuing airworthiness there are approved organisations and licenced personnel to certify that work has been properly completed.

These are few words to describe an extensive system that works on a global scale. Airworthiness is a vital component of aviation that is ever vigilant so that we can fly safely.

Topsy-Turvy World

It’s strange the path Theresa May has taken. During the UK referendum, that took place more than 500 days ago, she argued for staying in the European Union by making Security one of the reasons for doing so. Now, as Prime Minister she has flipped and is unmoving in her pursuit of Brexit. But on the platform at a major Security conference in Germany #MSC2018, she chooses agreements that are persuasive against Brexit.

It truly is a topsy-turvy world. Whilst EU Member States move towards a permanent structured cooperation in #EUdefence, Theresa May opts to try to both Leave and Remain at the same time.

She keeps repeating arguments in favour of cherry picking that she must know go down like a lead balloon in Europe. If Brexit happens, the future UK-EU relationship will be one where the UK is deemed a “third country”. Now, it maybe that the EU will try to resolve security issues separately from Brexit. Nevertheless, there’s no better deal than the one the UK has inside the EU today.

If ideology is getting in the way, there’s no doubt that its on both sides of the UK-EU negotiations. Theresa May was not speaking to the raucous galleries of the House of Commons where there are too many zealots, here she was talking to Nation States. It’s no good accusing the EU of lack of will for pragmatic cooperation when the red lines have been tabled by the UK.

When talking about a new Treaty, she says: “It must be respectful of the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. So, for example, when participating in EU Agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice.” This does seem to throw aside one red line and is pragmatic and the most positive line in the whole speech.

It truly is a topsy-turvy world. One thing is clear, if Brexit happens, or not, a security partnership in Europe is not an option it’s an absolute necessity. Grandstanding at the Munich Security Conference doesn’t much help. Cooperation is essential to tackle such challenges as cyber-attacks.

I agree with Theresa May when she says: “Europe’s security is our security.” The UK’s foreign policy will be defined by the common interests it has with the EU. The best possible future would be one where the UK remains in the EU, working with our partners for the security of us all.

Johnson’s ramblings

Characteristically Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s speech starts off with a set of misrepresentations. Faking the appearance of reaching out to: “those who still have anxieties” seems empathetic and understanding. But, in my reading it’s just more show over substance. Before the referendum vote of 23 June 2016, I campaigned on the High Street of Uxbridge and meet his constituents. I can understand how many of them have become concerned about their MP’s hardened stance on Brexit. After all it is a U-Turn.

He talks about three “fears” in the set-up of his speech.

Strategic: The cartoon characterisation of Britain’s place in Europe as a flight from the world for the protection of the European Union is wholly wrong. The reality is that, along with France and Germany, we are a great leader within a union of common interests. To leave is to give-up the advantages we have in both Europe and the world.

Spiritual: The Brexit vote has given a huge boost to nationalism, small-mindedness and xenophobia. It doesn’t matter what the intention was in calling the vote the outcome is a ghastly polarisation that promotes the right-wing of politics as top dog. This outcome is as anti-liberal, uncivilised and not the pragmatism that the world cherishes as so British.

Economic: Objectivity is needed on this technical subject. All the trustworthy indicators from responsible organisations point one-way. This is not emotional “anxieties” or “fears” it’s just plain cold fact. If a smaller percentage of commentators criticise the single market or the customs union then that’s a normal part of normal debate.

At least I can agree with Boris Johnson where he says it’s the government’s duty to advocate and explain. However, the explanations in his speech offered nothing new and took for granted that the 16 million who voted to Remain would just be irritated further by his arguments. In fact, it took Johnson few words to get to emotive language about the so called: “pro-EU elite in this country” and “the Euro-elite”.

Moving on, he has, to some extent recognised that those who voted Remain have entirely noble sentiments, a real sense of solidarity with our European neighbours and a desire for the UK to succeed. To me that goes without saying. True, there may be a minority of both Leave and Remain voters who wished to recklessly damage the UK but most acted in good faith.

Johnson persisted with his table of three “fears” or “anxieties”. This pedestrian structure is laboured through most of the speech. Security, Spirituality and Economics are taken in turn.

On the first, everything he says could be achieved as a strong Britain IN a strong EU. His whole point is null and void because it makes no case for leaving the EU. As expected Johnson steers clear of any reference to the downside of leaving our established partnership in Europe.

Yes, the British are European and global, but we have all that inside the EU. Again, Johnson fails to highlight any advantages of Brexit. He’s rather more comfortable talking about “cheapo flights to stag parties” as a journalist might be in newsprint. But this is a Minister standing at a lectern.

One line concerns me greatly, namely: “If we get the right deal on aviation.” Yet again doubt is thrown into the mix as to what deal might result from UK-EU negotiations. “If” is a big word.

Myths continue to be perpetuated as he rambled on. Up rears the nonsense that somehow Brexit is a matter of regaining something we have lost. Then to compound the mythmaking Johnson ran down the rabbit hole of European integration. The more he continued the further he seemed to be stoking up fears and anxieties rather than allaying them for people. The more he continued the less sense his vague view of Britain’s future seemed to make. The more he continued the more he made the case to exist Brexit with haste.