Brexit – Page 4 – John Vincent

Get Back

It’s painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London. Yes, I did hide behind the sofa when the Cybermen[1] came on. But then again, I was only around 6 or 7-years old. They converted humans to their kind by removing emotions and personalities. Scary stuff. The sort of evil creatures that nightmares are made of. With bodies made of cybernetic parts they seemed undefeatable but like so many great science fiction stories they had weaknesses, and the Doctor knew them. My early Dr Who knew exactly what to do.

In this case it’s not fiction that I’m writing about. Just the same it was painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London and the whole country. We had years of this scary drama. In fact, its still going on around us now. Laura Kuenssberg’s State of Chaos[2] has been a true horror story. This week I caught the Part 2. I don’t think I can take another Part.

History is being penned quickly in our media age. Watching the story of how our political system was smashed-up by a bunch of marauding, well, I don’t know what to call them. Is there a collective term for careless, egotistic, idiotic, manic, obsessive, power-hungry politicians? A term one can use in polite company, that is.

Since 2016, and to a lesser degree just before, the march of Conservative politicians has been to the tune with a dangerous beat. Smash-up the norms, disregard sound advice and steam ahead with blind arrogance. Much of this is epitomised by the character of Boris Johnson, but there are so many other in the cast strange and obsessive people.

Kuenssberg must tread a fine line because getting caught up in the finger pointing polarisation of the politicians is perilous. In her time as BBC Political Editor, it must have been like walking across Niagara on a tightrope every day.

The State of Chaos is giving us a new perspective on the Conservative Party’s on-going civil war. It seems the situation was even worse than we had been led to believe. This documentary is a treasure-trove of extraordinary material that is only a sample of what happened.

I’d say we all agree. It doesn’t matter which side of the Brexit argument that you stand or stood. Utter chaos has transpired in the reign of the last 5 Conservative Prime Ministers. Interviewees can point fingers at each other, all the same the word chaos applies.

In the coming months the lessons from this fearful period need to be learned. A new normal need to be established. We need to get back[3] what we have lost. Get back a sense of responsibility. Get back a reputation for competence. Get back ambition for the future.

[1] Dr Who. The Cybermen first appear in the serial The Tenth Planet in 1966, set in 1986.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001qgww/laura-kuenssberg-state-of-chaos

[3] I must be channelling The Beatles.

Newspeak

Listening to the drivel coming from The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP[1] this morning on the radio reminds me that we have a long way to go. The road travelled is a long one.

The tendency to either speak like a badly typed up press release or repeatedly call apples – pears is astonishing. It must be that there’s a switch that has been thrown in the brains of Ministers that is hit to engage illogical nonsense. From that moment a droning sound emanates. Jumbled up words are contrived to say Brexit = good – not Brexit = bad. You would imagine that such Ministers think they are talking to naughty 5-year-olds. It doesn’t mater what the facts are this behaviour continues.

Even good news, like BMW’s continued investment in the UK, is flipped into an EU bashing session. The fact is that the UK had to demonstrate its willingness to support the car industry to retain that much needed investment.

Brexit has been, and is, a complete catastrophe, and everyone knows it. That is everyone who isn’t a Conservative Minister, or a Labour would be Minister. Badenoch plays childish games to paint a picture of great success when the reality is one of significant pressure.

The Foreign Direct Investment Statistics are not good[2]. To quote a recent report to Parliament: “Net investment from the EU was -£24.1 billion, compared to £28.0 billion in 2020, while net investment from Europe as a whole was -£27.6 billion “. Note the “-“, in other words negative.

To quote further:” The UK’s share of inward investment projects has stabilised after “falling sharply following the 2016 vote for Brexit”, with the 21% of projects attracted in 2015 “representing the high-water mark.” In other words, the UK was doing exceptionally well until Brexit came along.

And so much for so called – levelling up. London retained its status as the UK’s largest destination for inward investment projects. London continues to attract the world’s attention.

What’s further idiocy is the random pick and mix approach that this Conservative Government has adopted. There appears to be no strategy. No direction. Just an opportunism. Jump in a wholly reactive manner and then announce success, as if it was planned.

Looking at investment going the other way. The UK’s outward investment flows to the US reached their highest level since 2017. So, post-Brexit, British investors see opportunity in the US. Could it be because they are investing? The US Infrastructure Law targets a range of spending from repaving roads and water system upgrades.

With the News, such as it is, surely, we need a UK Infrastructure Law. Would British investors not want to support that idea?

POST 1: Badenoch would not face the reality. On Sky News she skirted around the subject but let slip that cars will be more expensive in the UK because of Brexit. Rules of origin impact the British car industry.

POST 2: For the sake of balance. At least Badenoch is taking a practical approach to China. The Conservative back benchers who push for a hard line are not thinking about the need for dialogue on climate change and trade. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament China (independent.gov.uk)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/kemi-badenoch

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8534/CBP-8534.pdf

Reform

The words: “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….” – who doesn’t know those words? They come to mind in my thoughts of the last few years.

I caught a “Have I Got a Bit More News for You” on TV[1] last night. I think it was only from May last year but the world it described was miles from the situation of today. By the way, I must be of a certain age given that I’m still watching TV. I put the iPhone and iPad down for ten minutes. The box in the living room still has a place even if the day they pension-off Ian Hislop and Paul Merton can’t be far off.

Fine, there was some enduring themes that just keep giving and giving. Personalities pop-up with new roles even if reputations were long since trashed. What’s moving on is that feeling of being in a post-COVID world and the good bits of the Elizabethan era. The signs saying keep a distance from the next person are fading. Discussion about QEII is now about memorials and statues.

In less than a decade, the global reputation of the UK has seen some remarkable turbulence. I’m not being romantic about some time when everything worked smoothly. It never did. Governance is a difficult business. Turbulence is a permanent feature even if it doesn’t always star in the everyday News.

What should be enduring is a frankness and ability to acknowledge when mistakes have been made. To reflect and learn from experience is a wonderful human ability. It likely that if this didn’t exist then neither would we. Every step forward that’s made is often on the backs of many failures.

The pre-2016 era, what we could call a time relative civility, fraternity, and sanity, was not immune from turbulence. What was better was the mechanisms available to address that turbulence. The space available for dialogue was much bigger.

Brexit, for our country has been the biggest blunder we have has made in a lifetime. As predicted, Brexit’s reality has made the UK a paradise for speculators, spivs, and smugglers. Brexit has imposed extra costs and border restrictions on goods. It’s wrecked freedom of movement. It’s encouraged petty finger pointing on every major difficult subject.

Brexit pledges are now broken with such regularity that it’s impossible to count them all. Whether it’s a downgrading of the environment or attacks on employment rules or fake political storms they are too numerous to mention.

This blog started in a long time ago in a country far, far away, or at least it feels that way. My view remains that we need to be at the heart of Europe to succeed in the future. To do that we need to make some big changes at home. I’m no great fan of Rory Stewart[2] but he’s right to engage with populism and take on the need for constitutional change.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b00877q4/have-i-got-a-bit-more-news-for-you

[2] https://www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2023/event/an-evening-with-rory-stewart

Over the Horizon

Reading Anne Corbett’s article on the Horizon Europe research programme[1], I’m struck by the one step forward and then one step backward walk that the UK is taking. The politics of the moment leaves a UK Prime Minister (PM) dancing on a knife edge. Afraid to fall to the right or to the left of his own party. Having been part of an extremely destructive period in British politics, Rishi Sunak is attempting to re-brand the Conservatives with a colour of nationalism that’s designed to be anything to everybody and as variable as the wind.

From the start of the year, Rishi Sunak has made five promises[2] on economy, health, and immigration. The one on the economy is steeped in blandness. This is presumably to claim success regardless of the situation in the run-up to the next UK General Election. If a PM, of any political party, didn’t want to grow the economy, create better paid jobs and opportunity across the country there would be something distinctly wrong. A wish is fine but what about actions?

I have to say that it’s good to see a UK PM that’s 20-years younger than I am. Particularly when the US is playing out a game of geriatric musical chairs. Russia being plagued with the politics of generations past. China’s building global influence. And to top it all the Earth feeling the impact of climate change like never before.

This why I have such difficulty in understanding Sunak’s attitude to working with our nearest neighbours and closest allies. We have more common interests now than we did in the 1970s when the UK first joined our local trading block. I’m sure the zealots can’t see this fact but undoing the last 40-years is not a good way to forge a future. We can do so much better.

Culham is known for its Centre for Fusion Energy[3]. Its work is collaborative. It needs to be, given the huge costs of working in the field of fusion energy. That’s the way the Sun generates its energy. Here’s an example of the UK being a focal point for European fusion research. Post Brexit, like the problems other research institutions have faced, some researchers returned to continental Europe.

The idiocy of de-Europeanisation serves no one. It’s a residual of discredited political thinking. A Government doesn’t need to advocate re-joining the European Union (EU) but they do need a whole new positive approach to working together with European countries and institutions. Research is at the core of our common interests.

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/07/28/will-the-uk-find-its-way-back-to-horizon/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64166469

[3] https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/

Three Decades

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

1993 started with Bill Clinton taking his place as the 42nd President of the United States. So, you might say change was in the wind in that year.

History doesn’t repeat but there are changes that give the impression of a pattern. In 30-years, our daily lives have transformed dramatically. Technology has accelerated to a point where there isn’t much that it doesn’t touch.

Subscribing to the notion that there are cycles that rise and fall over the decades there are similarities between now and then. There are plenty of opposites too.

Early in 1993, the Bank of England lowered interest rates to 6%. This was the lowest rate available since 1978. Now, we have bank interest rates heading in the other direction and heading for 6%. The biggest political issue in that year was unemployment. Today, the situation has flipped. There are recruiters who can’t find the people the British economy needs.

What’s analogous is that the Conservative Government of the day was in deep trouble. There seemed to be a future Labour Government in the waiting room. The Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time, John Major was unpopular, and the polls showed the public mood was gloomy.

Strangely, there was slight indications that the economic situation was gradually improving. The end of the 1990s recession was becoming real. The conservatives must have felt heartened by the US Presidential election campaign theme declaring it’s “The economy, stupid[1].”

On the ground the daggers were out for John Major. Parliamentary byelections in Newbury and Christchurch were resoundingly won by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative government did not benefit in popularity from the economy coming out of recession. Then inflation was coming down. It hit 1.3% in May 1993. Consider that with what is happening with the inflation rate that is hanging around now.

There are a couple of events that have reverberated over the last three decades.

One was the formation of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Support for leaving the European Union (EU) was taking a shape and form that would lead to political change. It didn’t seem like it at the time. There was an element of the movement that was purely protest coming from cantankerous and disgruntled Conservatives.

The other was John Major’s disastrous “Back to Basics” campaign. If ever a British political campaign was misjudged that, was it. The campaign exposed an unpopular and split political party to ridicule and gave cartoonists and satirists a huge boost.

The current Conservative PM, Rishi Sunak hasn’t quite made that error – yet. However, his simple shopping list approach is creating a hostage to fortune. The direction of travel has similarities to 1993. Will Rishi Sunak survive the coming General Election?

The jury is out on that one. I’d like to say – no. The economy may soon slide into recession but it maybe underlying unpopularity that is the greater deciding factor.

[1] A phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992.

Yawn

Even seasoned presenter Fiona Bruce looked as if she was embarrassed. She certainly struggled to hold together a programme that was as dull and predicable as it was lacking in either appeal or entertainment. I persisted in watching the evening’s debate on the small screen, in the hope that some light would be shed on where we are now, and how we got here. Seven long years on from the Brexit vote, the people who wanted it to happen were ask – how’s it going?

I wondered if it was a schedulers sense of humour that one media channel was showing the classic movie: The Magnificent Seven (1960).

Question Time[1] was once a flag ship political programme for the BBC. Last night, it got to a new low. The venue for the debate was in Clacton-on-Sea[2], a small English town on the east Essex coastline.

The Question Time audience was selected from people who voted to Leave in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) back in 2016. Making it usual, this parliamentary constituency voted nearly 70 per cent in favour of Brexit.

To sum up, it was the sort of conversation you might have with a disappointed grump on a scruffy park bench, on a rainy day: “The world’s going to hell in a handbasket. It’s those b***** politicians, you know.” That meaning an aggressive stance towards anyone who disagreed with their opinion.

One or two in the audience were brave enough to reflect and reconsider their past position. There’s a discomfort in publicly coming out as a doubter. Hats off to those brave few.

Amongst the panellists, one fitted the above description, one continued their religious devotion to Brexit, two sat on the fence and one attempted to look ahead at what may happen next to the UK. I can well imagine why no government spokesperson was willing to step-up and address this event.

It’s a peculiar situation for part of the country to be in. Those who desperately wanted a “Hard Brexit[3] got a Hard Brexit and are immensely dissatisfied with a Hard Brexit. They want an even harder Brexit. Chances are that would make everything worse. Chances are that they would then demand an even harder Brexit. Chances are that spiral of insanity would continue.

The stance of the Labour Party shadow cabinet minister on the panel was unfortunate. However, the tightrope they are walking, in the run-up to a General Election is a shaky one. I’ll bet that both Labour and Conservatives parties will be desperate not to talk about Brexit over the coming year.

The world of British politics and the media will likely skirt around the elephant in the room as much as they can. Nearly everyone knows Brexit has been a disaster but few wish to face it head-on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n3px

[2] https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/18207250.clacton-residents-mark-brexit-day-wild-celebrations/

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-hard-brexit/

Time for Change

….people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The past is another country. So, it’s said. We now hear those who claimed Boris Johnson was the only man who could unite the Conservative Party eating their words. Eating them with a shovel. It wasn’t as if their support for the former Prime Minister was measured and rational, earlier it reached blind obedience as the troubles of the last decade accumulated. Lies, monstrous errors and blatant foolishness were defended by many who claim to be – working for you.

I know loyalty is important. Any team, or institution needs a degree of unity to go forward with confidence that it can deliver. It’s the miss-appropriation of that loyalty and its twisting into unquestioning conformity that corrupts democratic processes. Politician minions will tramp along under any flag that will give them gongs.

It’s fascinating how flamboyant and raucous personalities can steamroller over convention and Pied Piper[1] like lead us into misfortunes. Hang about – we have a recuring problem here. This week, I was reminded of Itay’s challenges of a couple of decades ago. I remember Italian colleagues quietly apologising for Silvio Berlusconi[2].

A common feature of these personalities is an immense sense of self-importance. Whatever the story, it’s always about them. This is playing out with Boris Johnson’s departure from parliament. It’s playing out with Trump’s ambitions in the US. There are others but the mere act of using their names is distasteful.

Vulgar, scandal-ridden, and manipulative characters make good drama. On the pages of plays or the big or small screen we like to see rampage and for them get their just deserts. Classic stories of the rise and fall of demi-gods, showmen and tyrants are a literary staple. They are fictional warnings that can, and do, get copied into real life. We should, more often, heed those warnings.

There such a thing as a free lunch. Having your cake and eating it too, is a myth.

It’s coming up to Brexit’s 7^th birthday and the annual pagan midsummer celebrations at Stonehenge[3]. Of the two, one reminds us of how foolish we can be. The other, reminds us of the enduring nature of our beautiful landscape and heritage. It comforts me every time I go up and down the A303. The reason being that whatever folly we encounter in our era, people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The people of Stonehenge were not isolationists. Artifacts found show that they traded widely. They communicated over large distances as part of a widespread prehistoric society. Brexit will be consigned to the dustbin of history in coming years. What counts about this wonderful land will endure for generations.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200902-the-grim-truth-behind-the-pied-piper

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

[3] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/things-to-do/solstice/

Happy Birthday EASA

Happy Birthday EASA. 20 years is a good age

For me, it was a peculiar day in July. It was a baking hot Brussels. The sun beat down and the city’s trams were full of sweaty travellers. The interview room was a classic board room style. Modern office, heavy polished wooden table, and heavy black leather chairs. On a hot bright sunny summer day that was not a pleasing formula for a formal interview.

I was surprised at the result. I got the job. A moment in July 2004 became a pivotal moment in my aviation career. Not quite 20-years ago. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)[1] was already up and running in a shared office in a Brussels suburb. It was the bare bones of an organisation in the process of a rapid build-up. Discussion about the locations of the Agency’s eventual headquarters were concluding.

That kicked-off my 11-years in Cologne. I arrived in the city when the tower building was being constructed and as the staff had just moved from Brussels to take up the new headquarters. It was December 2004. Offices, on the 6^th floor of the main building were buzzing. The Agency was small in numbers and running fast to fulfil its new responsibilities.

European aviation safety regulation was going through a major change. Up until September 2003, Europe’s National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) acted as a partnership within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)[2]. A body of rules and regulations and ways of working had been harmonised. However, because of the “club” like nature of the JAA there remained unresolved disagreements, incontinences, and a confusing representation at international level.

The legislation that called for the formation of EASA was set to unify aircraft certification and rulemaking activities and drive a consistency in the application of standards across Europe. It was the start of a long road to build world-class civil aviation safety regulator. It worked.

I experienced the first decade in Cologne. The storming and norming. The extensions of remit and turbulent days when we were finding our way. Several tragic fatal accidents and a least one Europe wide crisis. Now, the Agency is about to start its third decade.

EASA is undisputed as the European organisation that talks to the international aviation community. It works in lockstep with the European Commission. It is an achievement to be celebrated.

Yes, I find it sad that the UK is no longer a member of the Agency. But that doesn’t stop National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) working together in a constructive and positive manner[3]. There’s much to be gained from avoiding the fragmentation and conflicts of the past.

Happy Birthday EASA. 20 years is a good age.

[1] What’s #EASA’s story? See what we have achieved in 20 years https://www.easa.europa.eu/…/looking-back-move-forward…

[2] https://jaato.com/start/

[3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/international-cooperation/easa-by-country

Turbulence

Brexit “outrage” as The Express newspaper put it. Headlines like this are signs of shear desperation. It seems every time something goes wrong, which it regularly does, the call comes out from Brexit supporters – it must be Remainers or the House of Commons or Lords or civil servants or large corporations or lefty liberals thwarting the great Brexit plan. Noting, of course, that there never was a plan in the first place.

“Take Back Control” has become the hollowest political slogan in British history. Rather than dimming the light of fervent Brexit advocates these repeated setbacks just pump them up. This kind of thinking is both sad and dangerous. It has a deep flavour of paranoia.

This month, shocks from the Conservative Party’s council election meltdown are another trigger for the political right to agitate. Shouting: bring back Boris Johnson is unsurprising. The dreamy magical thinking is that because he delivered a big parliamentary majority in 2019, somehow, he, and he alone, can do the same in 2024. Other conservatives are positioning themselves for the next run at being Prime Minister.

I’m not one to totally dismiss the Johnson proposition. Naturally, it would be calamitous and beyond reason but that has not been an impenetrable barrier since 2016. Brexit, as a happening, delights in causing chaos. There’re political thinkers who invite chaos and disruption to free potentially creative energies. They’re not a bit concerned about the impact of that approach on the average person.

Brexit continues to hobble aviation in UK. A large percentage of the people who worked in UK aviation, before the COVID pandemic, were EU nationals. A lot have gone. Now, it’s often the case that when EU nationals apply for jobs in the UK, the aviation industry must turn them down[1].

The legislative proposal to remove retained EU laws has created yet more uncertainty for UK’s aviation sector. The threat remains regardless that it may be in the process of being watered down. Debates in the House of Lords focused on democratic scrutiny of the process where significant changes are planned[2]. Ministers continue to wish to use arbitrary powers to make changes. There’s ambition in the policies advanced while, at the same time, there’s a wish to look all ways at once.

For a lot of aviation topics, the UK has stated it will continue to use European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rules and guidance. Although, this is eminently sensible in an international setting it does suggest that Brexit benefits, if they exist at all, have been greatly overstated.

Given the tabloid media jitters seen in recent headlines, it’s perfectly clear that Brexit is a million miles from being “done”. A bad idea remains a bad idea, however it’s dressed up.

Expect turbulence right up to the next General Election. Change is not assured. People will have to campaign hard to make it happen. In comment on the change of the crown, “The country is in a waiting room” said historian Simon Schama.

[1] One major airline – We have had to turn down a huge number [8,000] of EU nationals because of Brexit. Another has blamed the British government’s post-Brexit immigration constraints on the labour market for fuelling staff shortages.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65605035

Deregulation

There’s nothing wrong with making an argument for deregulation. What’s absurd is to make that argument as an unchallengeable dogma. It’s the irrationality of saying that deregulation is good, and regulation is bad, de-facto. This kind of unintelligent nonsense does permeate a particular type of right-wing political thinking. It pops it’s head up in a lot of Brexiters utterances. For advocates of Brexit their great goal is to throw away rules and lower standards. Mostly, this is for financial gain.

Let’s take some simple examples. The reasons for rules and regulations can often be found in recent history. Hazards are recognised and action is taken.

There’s still lead paint to be found in many older houses. There was a time when such paint was used on children’s toys. Toy safety has been a confusing area of law, and there have been several sets of regulations since the 1960. From our current perspective this past laxness seems insane, but such lead paint mixtures were commonplace. In fact, all sorts of toxic chemicals have been used in widely used paints.

I remember working in one factory building where a survey was done of the surrounding grounds. Outside certain windows there were small fluorescent flags placed at in the grass verges. They marked places where minor amounts of radiation had been detected. This came from discarded paint brushes and tins that had accumulated in the war years. At that time radioactive luminescent paint was used to paint aircraft instrument dials.

Any arguments for the deregulation of toxic chemicals in commonly used paints should be one that is quashed instantly. However, some deregulation fanatics are only to happy to endorse a loosening of the rules that protect the public from toxic chemicals.

One result of the loosening of public protection is often to put greater profits in the hands of unscrupulous industrialist. Across the globe there are numerous cases studies of this sad folly. Newspapers and political parties that push the line that rules, regulations and regulators, by their very nature are crushing our freedoms are as bad as those unscrupulous industrialists.

Yes, there’s a case to be made for pushing back over-regulation. There’s risks we are prepared to take where the risks are low, and the benefits are large. This is a matter for intelligent debate and not throwing around mindless slogans. We should not be cowed by loud voices from small corners of society intent on tearing down decades of learning and sound practical laws. I could come up with an encyclopaedic list of examples. Opponents rarely, if ever want to address a particular case since it’s much easier for them to thunder off sweeping assertions. Beware these siren voices.

NOTE: The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 implemented the requirements of Directive 2009/48/EC, whose purpose is to ensure a high level of toy safety.