Tag: EU

Two Issues

It’s all to play for, as they say. The UK General Election starting pistol has been fired. Politicians are out of the gate. We are in for six weeks of intense competition for every place where the poll result isn’t a horribly foregone conclusion. Even in some of those places there’s a renewed sense that anything is possible. So, far gone is the public image of the Conservatives that Westminster constituencies, formerly thought to be a wilderness of opposition parties are now possibilities.

What are, yes, I know it’s not new to say so, the elephants in the room? The political parties seem set on what they want to talk about but it’s not a couple of remarkably big issues.

One is Brexit, and its overall impact and the other is Social Care. Two massive pressing issues that politicians are ducking and weaving to avoid. Discussions about the UK’s economy should not happen without discussing Brexit effects. On the other issue, the big truth is that the population of the UK is aging. Yet, we really don’t like talking about it.

One point of agreement is that we need the UK economy to do better. That’s a conditional on generating the funds needed to be able to repair the damage done over the last decade. The overall performance of the UK economy during the Conservative period in power has been undeniably poor. A big part of that poor performance comes from the disruption caused to the UK’s primary marketplace by Brexit. It has been a self-inflicted wound.

On Social Care the Conservatives made a succession of promises. If we look at their record on delivery, there’s nothing to show. Local government has been beaten up over the last decade. Report after report has shown ways forward for social care. Sadly, politicians in power have not been brave enough to push hard enough to implement recommendations that can ease the heavy burden placed on many families.

In my view, our best hope on these two issues is to back the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives have demonstrated their inability to address these issues. Labour has been timid on both. Fearful that the tabloid newspapers will attack them at a critical moment.

There’s an excellent case for rebuilding the UK’s relationship with the European Union. Single Market membership wouldn’t happen overnight but surely, it’s the direction to head in. The free flow of trade, in a marketplace that is so large, and on our country’s, doorstep would boost the UK’s economy overnight.

For the sake of a few billion of public spending. Set in the context that annual government spending of a thousand billion, then priority action could be taken on Social Care. The difference this would make in helping those in extreme difficulty would be enormous.

I dare say MP Micheal Gove, who is standing down at this election, is right. It’s time for a younger generation to take up leadership roles and to sort out the mistakes that have been made over the last decade. Our liberal democracy needs to get back on track.

Good News

It’s good to see. Sad, in terms of so many lost years. Now, the UK has rejoined the Horizon Europe and Copernicus programmes with a new agreement with the EU.

The evidence is clear. Most people in the UK have recognised the mistake of Brexit. What public polling there is shows a strong trend going one way and one way for sure. A post-TCA Brexit poll of polls shows a stable rejection of Brexit. The British public worried about the economy, inflation, and the NHS. Brexit is a minority interest[1].

Even those who voted for Brexit, including the current Prime Minister (PM) have come to recognise that the UK needs a new set of agreements with the European Union (EU).

Announced back in September[2], a new customised deal opens the world’s largest research programme to UK scientists, researchers, and businesses. It could be seen as baby steps, but the direction of travel is towards much more collaboration with our closest friends and neighbours across Europe is on the cards[3].

This week, the UK was welcomed back to the Horizon research family. Starting from 1 January 2024, UK citizens will be able to participate in the EU’s research and innovation programme. This is a tremendous victory for common sense and a win-win outcome for global scientific advancement. British researchers and scientists will now be able to apply for grants and projects with certainty.

The UK joins Canada and New Zealand with an association agreement[4]. Other non-EU countries are also negotiating for an association to Horizon Europe. The current version of Horizon Europe began in 2021 and runs until 2027.

I’d written before about how the UK had shot itself in the foot by being so dogmatic about Brexit that it had severed links that it had no need to sever. One day we will look back on the post 2016 madness and wonder what it was all about. Historians and social scientist will write voluminous tones on every aspect of the subject. Textbooks will fill libraries. They will do so to warn of the mistakes that can be made by headline chasing Conservative politicians.

The economy continues to be seen as a most important issue for the country. Reconstructing a productive relationship with our European partners is an absolute must.

Let’s hope this move will reestablish some of the wonderful industrious links between universities across Europe and with other global partners. In the past UK researchers led a high percentage of projects. Life will be different as a non-EU country. Nevertheless, participation in the programme is a great boost. It’s not free but it is worth every penny or cent.

[1] https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-issues-index-september-2023

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-joins-horizon-europe-under-a-new-bespoke-deal

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-moment-for-scientists-researchers-and-businesses-as-uk-association-to-80-billion-horizon-research-programme-officially-sealed

[4] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/uk-primed-rebuild-its-standing-eu-research-after-officially-joining-horizon

Get Back

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future.

Today, a National Rejoin March takes place in London. This march takes place when it’s all to evident that Brexit has been an abject failure. Having the bravery to admit that Brexit is a failure remains challenging. UK political leaders are shying away from admitting the reality of our common situation.

Thousands of those who support the UK being a European Union (EU) member are gathering in the capital. It’s time to ensure a message gets sent that re-joining the EU is a popular and gaining momentum. Members of Parliament (MPs) may not be in Parliament on the weekend, but the message sent by those on the city’s streets is strong and clear.

It’s true that this is a frustrating experience. I’ve been on many organised London marches. They are characterised by their camaraderie, positivity, and great spirit. Marching makes a difference to the people who march and it’s also makes a wider impact. Media coverage may be sparce. What they do see and hear is a sense of solidarity and unity.

Sadly, there are no apparent results flowing from this national campaign, so far. The UK’s out of touch political parties are trying to look the other way. Today, the fearful nature of the bland mixture of our political leaders is immensely disappointing. They scurry around like little brown rats. Looking busy but terrified of stepping outside their comfort zone.

Tinkering with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson will deliver only more disappointment. Papering over that public disappointment, we can rely on a part of the tabloid media spinning threatening stories. The artificial culture wars raging between the political right and left have little to do with reality. This noisy nonsense plunders the opportunity to make life better for the vast majority. It’s a side show.

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future. If it’s climate change, war, immigration, or economic troubles sustainable solutions cannot be found in isolation. Our region of the world is so interconnected and interdependent that events in one part of Europe inevitably affect others. Brexit does not work.

Future generations will look back on this era as being a regressive one. Opportunities lost and difficulties increased by a lack of political bravery. A lack of direction. A lack of leadership. This will be overcome in time, but that change will not come soon enough.

POST: Reporting on the event Pro-EU supporters march for Britain to rejoin the European Union (france24.com)

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

Horizon

There’s been a couple of false dawns. Now, the morning’s News is that the UK will rejoin the European Horizon programme. The EU’s Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) provides grant funding for research priority topics for the years 2021-2027.

The recognition that there’s a common interest in research across Europe is welcome. There are important areas of investigation that go well beyond the resources available to any one country. Benefiting from collaboration is a win-win.

Access to Horizon Europe will be a great opportunity for UK aerospace[1]. It has been in the past and surly will be in the future. Of the billions available there’s a good chunk for funding opportunities for aerospace research and technology. This funding is particularly focused on greening aviation.

Such subjects as the competitiveness and digital transformation in aviation are addressed too. Advancing the regions capabilities in a digital approach to aerospace design, development and manufacturing will be invaluable to UK industry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) used for Machine Learning (ML) and complex modelling are the tools that will be deployed throughout the global industrial environment.

Europe can pioneer the first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft. The major role the UK can play in advancing this aim is self-evident. Ambition, capabilities, and expertise reside here. The magnification of this to tackle what are enormous challenges can only be a good move.

Projects like ENABLEH2[2] provide a pathway to the introduction of liquid H2 for civil aviation. These projects are not easy, but they do provide a long-term environmental and sustainability advantages. Access to these projects can minimise duplication and the dangers of spending valuable resources on pursuing blind alleys.

Research is not just a matter of hard technology. Without the new skills that are required to meet the targets for a green transition it will fail. Investments in upskilling and reskilling opportunities are equally important to enabling change.

The principles of propulsion of hydrogen and electric systems need to be taught at every level. It’s not academics in lab coats that will keep civil aviation flying on a day-by-day basis. Training programmes for a new generation of manufacturing and maintenance engineers will need to be put in place. Research will underpin that work. 

[1] https://www.ati.org.uk/news/access-to-horizon-europe/

[2] https://www.enableh2.eu/

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

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/

Safety is poltical

It’s a surprisingly controversial statement. It’s particularly difficult for those working in traditionally technical specialisations to come to openly acknowledge “politics” in their work. By raising the subject, it’s almost as if one had stepped in something unpleasant.

I recall the period when a new aviation agency was being established. That’s in the dawn of this new century. EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency came into operation in 2003, but the debate about its shape and form occupied many of the preceding years. Politicians, administrators, technocrats, and industry were vocal about the direction to take.

The impact of liberalising European civil aviation, that stated in the 1970s, was primarily a political drive. It envisaged both a commercial and social benefits. Separating the operation of aviation from the vagaries of political personalities seemed to offer a future that would be led by the customers needs.  

The general acceptance that State control of businesses, like airlines and manufacturers, had a stifling effect, limiting innovation and opportunity was questioned but not so much by those with the power to make changes. Momentum pushing liberalisation was given a boost by the apparent successes of businesses, like Southwest airlines[1] in the US. Freddie Laker had a big influence in the UK[2].

In these decades of transformation aviation safety has always been heralded as a priority. Whoever is speaking, that’s the line that is taken. Safety is number one. What industry has experienced is a decades long transition from the ways and mean of trying to control safety to an approach more based on managing potential outcomes. This is characterised in a shift from mostly prescriptive rules and regulations to other more adaptive approaches.

Back to the proposition that safety is political. There are several ways to address this as an exercise of analysis. There’s a mammoth amount of historical evidence to draw upon. However, my thoughts are more to do with anecdote and lived experience.

Number one is that our institutions are shaped by political decision-making. This is to varying degrees, from year to year, but international bodies, national ministries, administration, authorities, agencies, committees, learned bodies, all depend upon political support. If they do not muster and sustain this support, they will wither and die.

Number two, change is a constant, failures happen but safety achievement depends on a consistency, dependability, and stability. Maintaining public confidence. There lies a dissonance that must be reconciled. Governments and politicians instinctively insulate themselves in such cases and so the notion of “independent” regulation is promoted.

Number three, arguments for liberalisation or intervention do not stop. The perpetual seesaw of cutting “red tape” and tightening rules and regulation may settle for a while even if these are always in movement. This can be driven by events. The proximity of fatal accidents is always a significant political driver. Domestic fatalities, where consequences are borne locally, will have much more impact than similar events 1000 miles away.

Does any of this matter? Afterall it’s a context that exists, de-facto. It’s no good saying: stop the world I want to get off.

Yes, it does matter. Accepting that safety is political helps dispel some of the myths that persist.

A prerequisite to safety success is provision of adequate resources. Constantly cutting a budget has consequences. A blind drive for efficiency that doesn’t effectively measure performance invites failure. Much as lack of planning invites failure. Reality bites.

It’s reasonable to question of investigatory or regulatory “independence” from time-to-time. The reasons for safety decision-making can be purely objective and technical. Questioning that “purity” need not be impugning politicians, administrators, or managers in their motivations. Shedding light on contextual factors can help learning and avoidance of future failures.

Accepting the perpetual political seesaw of debate can help a great deal in meeting safety goals. What this means is the importance of timing. Making a proposal to tighten a rule concerning a known deficiency can meet a stone wall. Making the same proposal after an accident, involving that deficiency, can go much better. Evidence that is compelling can change minds. This is reality.

[1] https://www.southwest.com/about-southwest/#aboutUs

[2] https://simpleflying.com/laker-airways-brief-history/

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 6th 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