johnwvincent

Is this a new form of politics?

First: Identify an underlying hate or prejudice of a section of the population. Second: say something that will anger and enflame a significant majority of people. Get the mass News coverage. Thirdly: wait and then say “sorry” and get away with it without sanction. Meantime garnish the support of all those who share strong views but are normally unheard.

If reports are to be believed, it seems to work best when focusing on the extremes, either of the conventional left or right in politics. Our rapid news cycles are always looking for their next fix. There’s nothing like a rocking and rolling bandwagon to sell newspapers or increase viewers.

It’s a crude mechanism that polarises public opinion. Chalk or Cheese. Marmite – love it or hate it.

This is a real dilemma for the traditional centrist politicians. It becomes difficult to use words like: compromise, consensus and cooperation. In our heart of hearts, we all know that things get done when people pull together around a common goal. We all pine for better performing public services and greater customer care from private companies but we are not helping? I think not.

The political blame game polarises public opinion. Easy enough to do when faced with zero accountability and gaping great failures – the railways have been doing that in recent times.

However, if the blame game is the only game in town we’ve come to a real crossroads. It’s almost impossible to learn and put things right if there’s a constant risk of getting shot at. Who wants to take on difficult, almost intractable problems if just by doing so you become the target of hate and prejudice? The blame game just drives repeated failure.

There was a time when our British adversarial system challenged people to come up with better arguments or better solutions to problems. What we are seeing now is that maybe it had had its day. The adversarial system, in this social media age is like fuel to a fire. It’s just another way of burning down the house instead of putting out the fire.

Fine. Pointing out the issues creates lots of good talking points. Now, what is to be done?

For a start, centrist politicians must become less reactive and more radical. Tap into positive emotions. Bin technical words like compromise, consensus and cooperation. Talk about teamwork and us pulling together. Cite great achievements like the 2012 London Olympics.

Hope not fear. Bringing down walls not putting them up. Getting News coverage for fundamental changes. Looking to the future rather than always rehashing the past.

Brexit & Aviation 23

Hearing hard core Brexiters herald statements from IAG S.A.[1] about working though Brexit is strange to say the least. By the way, if you’ve never heard of them the International Airlines Group was created in 2011, is one of the world’s largest airline groups and includes British Airways. It’s a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London and Spanish Stock Exchanges. IAG operational headquarters is in London.

At the point of the 2016 UK referendum IAG shares took a hit. Ever since then there has been a consistent recovery in their position. Brexit, or no Brexit they are well placed on both sides of the fence. Today, their airlines have Air Operator Certificates (AOCs)[2] in the EU. After the end of March next year its likely those AOCs will remain unchanged. The basis for their UK operators validity will shift from European Regulation to National Legislation.

Despite the high level of integration of the European aviation market place there is no single European registry of aircraft. Each ICAO Contracting State has its own aircraft registry.

However, to fly into the EU all non-EU aeroplane operators must have a Third Country Operators (TCO) authorisation[3]. This is a way of ensuring that non-EU aeroplane operators are compliant with all applicable technical standards of the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.

In the EU the authorities undertake ramp inspections of aeroplanes in operation.

Naturally, after the end of March next year aeroplane operators who transition from being EU operators to non-EU aeroplane operators will need a TCO authorisation. In theory, this should be an administrative matter since the transitioning operators already meet the applicable standards.

The TCO authorisation process can require that an audit be performed at the operational premises of the aeroplane operator. This is one of the tasks undertaken by the European Agency EASA.

It’s worth noting that the TCO only considers the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment, whereas operating permits (commercial traffic rights) are issued by individual EU Member States. In many Brexit articles these often a confusion between safety related rules and commercial related rules. It’s generally the case that operating permits are not granted unless the TCO is in place first.

So, far from the Brexiters cries of: “take back control” the result of all this is that our interdependence across Europe changes but remains. And for very good reasons too.

[1] https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/ES0177542018GBGBXSET1.html

[2] https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Air_Operator_Certificate_(AOC)

[3] Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 (the ‘TCO Regulation’)

No Treaty means no Treaty

This week the Bank of England’s interest-rate increase has become another bump on the road to Brexit. BoE Governor Mark Carney commented that the risk of the UK dropping out of the EU with “no deal” was “uncomfortably high.” Ripples of vitriolic Brexit Tweets and alike popped up to denounce this as, so called Project Fear Mark 2.

The cautious and conservative, with a small “c”, Carney dared to give an expert assessment of the current situation based on his reasoning and experience. Such is the tribalism in British politics that anything that gives the merest impression that Brexit might not be wonderful immediately sparks fanatical cries. Rational thinking in this battleground gets two fingers in the air.

Reading, listening and watching discussions about a “no deal” outcome, I’m struck that so many people talk about it but often they mean something completely different.

Let’s be clear. The so called “no deal” is in Article 50 paragraph 3[1]. It is that the Treaties we are currently signed up to will cease to apply from one day to the next. Without a withdrawal agreement in place or an extension to the two-year period we enter the unknown.

Brexiters might be happy with this outcome but that’s a foolish position to take. Treaties, by their nature, have benefits and obligations for both parties involved. Take away those in one day and put nothing in their place is most likely to cause mayhem.

Contacts may become void. Certificates that are mutually recognised are no longer recognised. Qualifications are questioned. Massive numbers of technical and administrative processes become uncertain. Brits working in the EU are put in limbo, as are EU citizens working in the UK.

No Treaty means no Treaty.

Its like pulling up a drawbridge or pulling down the shutters and saying the shop is closed to the 27 Member States of the EU while we refurbish the premises. Now, I agree such a situation would not last forever as people of goodwill will desperately struggled to find workarounds. People who don’t have goodwill will try to take advantage of the uncertainty. It’s likely that the larger organisations will have protective contingency measures in place. However, SMEs and individuals will be vulnerable and subject to unpredictable costs.

There needs to be a withdrawal agreement in place even if it’s just one page saying; carry on.

[1] 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

A couple of hours in Redhill Town

A Saturday morning spent campaigning in Redhill is a real eye opener. A group of us set-up a street stall with free cakes, leaflets galore and a couple of European flags. We set-up outside the local shopping centre to be seen by as many people as possible. The heat of the week has gone. At one point, the wind almost took the whole stall away as the British weather has changed to become stormy.

We collected a lot of signatures for our #PeoplesVote petition. Whatever you do, please don’t get the wrong impression from what I write here. The morning was a campaigning success story as so many people came over to our stall. So, many great people to chat to about the positive things we can do to bring about change. That said, it’s the difficult conversations that are interesting. Here’s a few tales from the streets of Redhill.

An old Liberal friend who I hadn’t seen for many years, dead set against the European Union, was a joy to meet. Yes, we had our differences but there wasn’t that unpleasant animosity that springs forth so easily from some people who supported the Leave vote.

One Labour voter let me know that the EU was a big capitalist conspiracy. He was a retired railwayman. To him the EU was responsible for all the tiresome rules and regulations that the railways had to implement. It was as if taking the EU away would suddenly transform British railways. Yet, as we know most of the disastrous decisions made by the current Minister responsible for the railways are purely national mistakes.

A conversation with, I would guess an East Surrey UKIP member, was kept on an even keel by our mutual interest in aviation. He delighted in telling me stories that he though I was too young to know. I figured out he once worked in the defence industry. Possibly at Filton in Bristol. It’s amazing how the bitterness of a decision made in 1965 has lingered so long in the mind. The cancellation of the British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was part of his lament. It seemed crazy that this was part of his package of reasons for being anti-EU when that decision, and many similar ones, had nothing what so ever to do with Europe.

Three or four times the argument came at me, as if it was an unstoppable force, that: “we’ve had a vote”. That vote was enough, and we shouldn’t have any more. A couple of, mostly older men said: “what you are doing is undemocratic”. I felt myself getting agitated but kept my cool. I just wonder if the people who say such things have even the slightest idea how their democracy works. Not even one of them can claim to have stood for election in a real democratic process as many times as I have done. Yet, they will come at you aggressively with this simple line.

In fact, they get stranger. One guy used a football analogy that fell flat on its face. He said: if you played a football game and lost you would have to accept the result – wouldn’t you? To which I answered: “well, I’m just trying to win the next match as you would expect any good player to do”. As expected that made him even grumpier.

A middle-aged woman pronounced that the Country was full. She didn’t want to say what she meant outright but it was clear enough.

A couple of young lads passed me by. I said: “want one of my leaflets?” and the response was – no we’ve had enough of that – people keep changing their minds. That’s not encouraging. The idea that changing your mind is somehow too much to cope with is disconcerting.

One older man repeated the line that he didn’t want to be ruled by the Germans. I asked what he knew about how the EU worked and if he had been to Germany recently. I even admitted that I had lived there for 11 years. That was a bad move on my part. The immortal line got thrown back at me – if you like it so much why don’t you ******* off back there. To which the only answer is to smile and walk away.

Remarkably there were things that I found to agree upon with those in Redhill who didn’t share my enthusiasms for a #PeoplesVote.

One: Bring back Spitting Image. What they could do with today’s dull politicians and Royals.

Two: May’s Government is doing a terrible job – mass unhappiness – nobody gets what they want.

Three: Jeremy Corbyn is the worst official opposition leader in a generation or more.

There’s a generation, most of whom had a referendum vote in 1975, who have lumped all their troubles and fears into one big bag and called it “Europe”. Its clear, that’s not their real concern but that hardly matters. Europe has become a proxy for a bucket load of negative emotions and troublesome fears. Historians will not make sense of this in years to come as we can’t make sense of it now.

Calling for a referendum on the deal that the Government comes up with in the end, has its risks. Although the pendulum is swinging against the Leave vote, there is still a hard core of disgruntled people who will shoot their own foot rather than think again. Now, we are a terribly confused Nation. I’m convinced that after March next year none of the people’s real concerns will have been addressed. Stay tuned, this saga has a long way to run.

Brexit & Aviation 22

The politics of the day would seem to be “divide and rule”. Not an entirely unknown approach and, when conducted in the open, can make you look silly if it doesn’t work.

There are three parts to the European Union that need to be convinced that the Withdrawal Agreement they see on 18 October is one they wish to accept. The three are: the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The most powerful is clearly the Member States as they sit in the Council of the European Union[1]. This week the UK is attempting to influence the Council through influencing Member States that it thinks could be persuaded to be sympathetic to the UK Government’s White Paper proposals.

The presidency of the Council rotates among the EU Member States every 6 months. The Austrian presidency of the Council runs from 1 July to 31 December 2018[2]. That explains why Mrs May has been in Austria. Tonight’s news would suggest that trip isn’t going all that well. Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz has told Mrs May it’s “important to avoid a hard Brexit”.

Romania has the Council presidency from January to June next year. They are the ones who may have to wave the UK goodbye or not as the case maybe.

If there is “no deal” between the EU and the UK there is no automatic fall-back position for the aviation sector. It will be a unique situation where the EU Member States continue to apply all the existing rules and regulations and a “new” neighbouring State becomes unpredictable. The Brexiteer lobby entirely misleads the public when saying: “it will all be alright on the night.”

As the UK leaves the EU and becomes a “third country” it will cease to be part of the fully-liberalised EU aviation market. The UK can’t fall back on old bilateral agreements it had with the US and other EU countries since these were superseded and are obsolete. Their restoration is extremely unlikely.

As a contingency, a number UK operators and businesses are expanding or setting-up new bases within the EU. This could work for them, but they’ll have to show that a majority of the ownership of their shares is in the EU.

Naturally, simple goodwill could sort much of this out at the last minute. However, goodwill will be in short supply if there is no successful conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement. Even with this essential transition agreement the outcome is a standstill until the end of 2020.

The story the Brexiteers are telling in public is crazy. They say: If there is “no deal”, there will be no catastrophe. It’s all this so called: “project fear”. But if there is a catastrophe it’s not our fault, it’s everyone else’s fault. They are already allocating blame for an event that is avoidable.

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en

[2] https://www.eu2018.at/

Brexit & Aviation 21

Maybe the next one of these articles I write should be split into two parts; one for the political and one for the technical. There does seem to be continuing divergence between the two. The political environment is as volatile as ever with growing uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a “no deal” situation. Stories of contingency planning have delighted the media as we are told food and pharmaceuticals are being stockpiled. At the same time the Government assures us that we are making good progress in the UK-EU negotiation. Parliament returns on Tuesday, 4 September, so I guess the next month may be quieter. Perhaps the sharks off the Cornish coast will get all the headlines during the summer.

Technical developments are following that well-loved tee shirt slogan: “keep clam and carry on”. This week another key document has been published, namely: Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union[1].

We are told that the UK and the EU have agreed that the UK’s exit will be followed by a time-limited implementation period that will last from the moment of exit until 31 December 2020.

It’s good to see in the document mentioned above there is a section on participation in EU institutions, agencies and bodies. It says that; guidance is being worked up on the consistent interpretation and application of the criteria for UK participation in EU bodies during the implementation period. So, basically there may be some stability until 31 December 2020 but after that no one knows.

I’m taking it as read that this includes the UK membership of EASA. The paper goes on to say that these arrangements are unlikely to require any provision in the Bill. That is the UK Bill introducing the legislation for the final Withdrawal Agreement. That does strike me as strange given that the UK will go from being a Member State to a “third country” in respect of EU legislation.

The paper recognises that the UK participates in several international agreements because of being a Member State. That includes the aviation bilateral agreements. At the European Council meeting in March, there was agreement that the UK is to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of international agreements during the implementation period. Parties to the aviation agreements will be notified of this approach by the EU. This is important. Let’s hope the parties concerned agree too.

The last line of the 38-page document says that once the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified by the UK and concluded by the EU it will enter into force at 11pm on 29 March 2019. The clock is ticking, as they say.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728757/6.4737_Cm9674_Legislating_for_the_withdrawl_agreement_FINAL_230718_v3a_WEB_PM.pdf

Aviation & Brexit 20

The week that has passed has given reasons for optimism and pessimism. A lot depends on where you care to look.

Parliament is chaos. Antagonistic, divided and flip-flopping. White papers and white lies coexist. Honourable ladies and gentlemen many of them are not. The Government’s answer was, let’s go on holiday[1]. As if delaying debate until September will help them over the trouble and torment. No these will just get deeper as the political conference season gives platforms to every extreme.

Sensing that the unthinkable has become thinkable, preparations[2] are being made for there to be “no deal” between the UK and EU the before 31^st March next year. Judicious it maybe to be prepared but the signals given are all negative. This week the pound has declined in value again.

How horrendous it would be, to have to admit that after 40 years of successful partnership, the UK and EU could not write down and agree the bare bones of a settlement. Other potential partners around the globe would look on with shock and dismay. The vultures are circling.

Some argue for a delay in the Article 50 deadline next year or even a suspension of the process. There’s some merit in these proposals given that a two-year window for negotiations was a highly ambitious target in the first place. It was written into European law with no experiences of its true meaning and, I assume, with the assumption it would never be used.

On a more positive note, I have been to the Farnborough Air Show this week. It was almost taboo to avoid conversations about Brexit although there were plenty. It was a trade day on Friday and set over to young people and developing the future. The stands were buzzing with school children, air cadets and students. I’m confident that these are the next generation of pilots and engineers who will drive aviation forward.

Looking around, I thought of the dry and hot summer of 1976. That was my 16^th year. The summer I recall was wonderful. That September, with wide eyed ambition, I started an engineering apprenticeship. Being full of energy, enthusiasm and wonder the first tentative steps of my career were taken.

The mid-70s was a world of incredible possibilities at the beginning of the digital era. Predictions of a new leisured age, where computers would do all our work filled the colour supplements. Strange how life repeats.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/brexit/brexit-preparedness/preparedness-notices_en#move

Rules, Rules, Rules

Let’s unbox this rule-taker verses rule-maker dichotomy. For one it’s NOT a binary choice. In so far as international aviation safety rule making is concerned I have seen small, well informed organisations have a major impact of new rules and large powerful Countries asleep at the wheel.

It’s an illusion to assume that rulemaking process and procedures are static. However, this is where political machinations have a significant impact. It may or may not be the case that the parties to rulemaking fully understand the technical issues under consideration, but it’s nearly always the case that everyone has a view on the process and procedures.

I’ve sat in high-level meetings and listened to most ridiculous things being said about important technical issues and realised the room is divided between those who knew what’s going on and those who didn’t have a clue. So, its not surprising that the default is that people often focus on process and procedures rather than issues. Perhaps that’s where Brexit has gone off the rails.

Consensus based rulemaking moves slowly often to the frustration of all involved. I could say; if you are going to make a thick glue, that binds, it takes a lot of mixing. Outcomes generally succeed or fail not only subject to the good-will of the participants but based on the hard work and quality of both leadership and secretariat. Perhaps that’s where Brexit has gone off the rails.

In fact, a secretariat can have the greatest soft power regardless of the disposition of votes amongst the membership of a group. The great art and skill of finding a set of words that captures the essence of a proposal, standard or report is much underestimated.

Despite having written what I have above, it remains better to have a vote than not to have a vote. Even if the UK continues to be able in its exercise of soft power its difficult to be convinced that long-term best interests are served by becoming a rule-taker. International rules are made by Countries working together. The bigger the coalition you have on your side the better. Europe working together has much more weight than a fragmented approach from individual Countries. Considering Mr Trump’s “divide et impera[1]” world view it would be wise to have close working partners.

Today, Britain has set a course for a soft Brexit. In the short-term that can work. Over the horizon, its large regional trading blocks that will dominate. Please EU Member States, throw the UK Government a life-line. If instability continues, a real chance of another General Election or even a referendum on the deal exists. That may be needed but its sure going to be a rocky ride.

[1] Divide and rule (or divide and conquer)

Brexit & Aviation 19

It’s that week. Every two-years the world of aviation flocks to a small-town West of London. Matched only by Dubai and Paris is an air show where visitors from all over the world congregate to talk about every aspect of civil and military flying. Visions of the future and the latest products from the major manufacturers all fight for the attention at Farnborough.

This year is different. In 2020, the Farnborough Air Show maybe taking place in a non-EU State. The last time that happened was in Farnborough in September 1972 [1]. Then, knowing the UK was going to enter the EEC the show was opened to European companies.

I was 12-years old at the time. It’s fascinating to see the Rolls-Royce powered Lockheed Tri-Star as a “new” aircraft. My introduction to aviation took place further West. I distinctly remember being taken to the annual Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton Air Day around that age.

So, what of aerospace in a post-Brexit Britain? One thing is for certain; the Air Show organisers will not be closing the show to foreign aircraft or only others who use British parts. Very few other things are certain.

At the same time, as the Air Show next week the negotiations between the UK and EU will resume in Brussels. This time with a new British Brexit Minister and with a live UK White Paper on the table. This is positive news. However, to make the progress that the travelling public and aviation industry need the negotiators are going to have to move at supersonic speed.

It’s notable from the newsreel video of 1972 the high level of aircraft noise and emissions. That’s an issue that has changed considerably over more than 40 years. What was then the; “white heat of technology[2]” is, now totally unacceptable to the public.

That subject should be an area of focus for the negotiators. The European environment is a common area of interest. In civil aviation, for example, there’s no point in the UK and EU having different rules and regulations for aircraft noise and emissions. Agreement on this subject should be sewn-up quickly and simply.

Addressing the global environment will be more than a few exhibits at the Farnborough Air Show. The “electrification” of aviation is moving at great pace and represents a future market-place worth billion. To get from A to B, well-funded research projects and flying prototypes are going to be essential. This is another area of focus for the negotiators. Continued European cooperation on civil aviation research funding will be the way to guarantee a place in the future.

[1] http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/bed15cead7354e0097b5001925cc0d65

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/sep/19/harold-wilson-white-heat-technology-speech

Brexit & Aviation 18

More than 2-years on the clock but here it is in print. The long-awaited UK Government White Paper[1] has been released. The UK Government’s regulatory vision includes: “participation by the UK in those EU agencies that provide authorisations for goods in highly regulated sectors – namely the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, and the European Medicines Agency – accepting the rules of these agencies and contributing to their costs, under new arrangements that recognise the UK will not be a Member State”.

Later, there’s more detail where the document says; The UK would seek: “a. for EASA, becoming a third country member via the established route under Article 66 of the EASA basic regulation, as Switzerland has.”

Under the exiting Article 66, EASA is open to the participation of European third countries. This provision becomes Article 129 in the new Basic Regulation[2]. Therefore, EASA can establish working arrangements with the competent authority (UK CAA) of a European third country (UK).

In addition, the new Article 129 refers to the new Article 90 paragraph 2 which says: Those working arrangements shall not create legal obligations incumbent on the Union and its Member States. That might be problematic considering the proposed mechanisms for resolving disputes further on in the White Paper.

The wish to be a part of EASA is repeated further on, as “the UK will seek participation in EASA. In addition to ensuring that manufacturers should only need to undergo one series of tests in either market, this would also support collective work on aviation safety, reducing regulatory barriers for businesses and ensuring continued high standards for safety across Europe.”

Then there’s a part about the ways and means: “through a Governing Body at leader and ministerial level; through a Joint Committee, including sub-committees where relevant, at a technical level; through formal consultation between experts on regulatory issues and legislative changes; and through exchanges between the UK Parliament and the European Parliament.”

Finally: “The nature and structure of the UK’s participation will vary depending on the EU body or agency in question. In some cases, there may be an appropriate precedent for third country involvement, as in the case of Switzerland’s participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)”.

Twice the relationship Switzerland has with the EU is referred to as a preferred model. This does have a logic to it given that both Switzerland and UK have aeronautical manufacturing industry. It is my understanding that the Swiss have more than a simple working arrangement.

A new “Joint Committee” is the proposed mechanisms for resolving disputes. Again, it has a logic to it in that there will need to be an EU-UK forum for discussions that do not concern other Member States. That said, it would seem to be a means to avoid the direct applicability of any ECJ rulings.

That might be problematic considering the binding nature they would have on one side of the table but not on the other. There’s a challenge for enforcement where the two sides disagree.

The UK Government White Paper does not propose a system of mutual recognition for aviation safety regulation. It continues with common European rules in the field of civil aviation. This capitalises on the significant investment the UK made in helping to build the European system, but it does come with issues yet to be addressed.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/724982/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union_WEB_VERSION.pdf

[2] http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2018-INIT/en/pdf