Category: Uncategorized

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.

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/

 

There are those totemic Brexit issues that keep surfacing.  Maybe they are not the ones that are top of the list on your way to work or the supermarket, but the media are fixated by topics like the British Passport.

So, let’s talk about passports.  Listening to a Government Minister on the radio this morning its like they had no choice but to award a major contract to a foreign company.  Well, that’s the first misguiding steer of the day.  Other European countries make this a matter of security and thus set aside from the single market procurement rules.  It’s just another example of Brexiters giving a false steer to get themselves off a hook.

The move to buy future British passports from a European company may be perfectly justified based on quality and value for money.  Those who carp about an affront to nationalism need to think carefully about what they are suggesting.  Even if Brexit happens, in a post-Brexit world Government procurement will still need to be fair, open and consider the need for a “level playing field” for contractors and suppliers.

One of the most basic tenants of trade is the notion of reciprocation.  In other words, I’ll buy your goods and services if you buy my goods and services.  The assumption being that we all want the best goods and services supplied at the best price.

True that a large section of Brexiters are out and out nationalists.  As such they don’t care much about getting the best possible deal if its restricted to the Country’s borders.  Having a stamp on it to say that its 100% British is the only consideration even to the extent of damaging our export markets.

European procurement rules give us access to a market place worth 100s of billions.  It would be an almighty foot shooting exercise to cut ourselves off from that market.

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

 

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.

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.

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.