UK – Page 41 – John Vincent

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.

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)

Aviation & Brexit 10

I’ve heard some discussion about resurrecting British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCARs). Somewhere in a box, I still have my blue covered copy of Section A. Back in the early 1990s, this was the airworthiness requirement that we applied to all aircraft for which the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had primary responsibility. The document was first published back in July 1989 and has been updated many times. Embodied in its text are words that once empowered UK airworthiness surveyors of which I was one. Yes, given the judgements expected of technical staff we were called “surveyors” rather than inspectors or administrators.

Now, BCAR Section A[1] is still applied but only to aircraft that are not part of the European system. Generally, these are the so called “Annex II” aircraft. BCAR Section A does not apply to those aircraft that have been the responsibility of the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) since 28 September 2003. Although for a long-time prior to EASA’s formation procedures developed for widespread European cooperation. It’s worth noting that the structure and form of these national airworthiness procedures is quite different from the current European regulations. They have a uniquely British heritage as they expanded on the Air Navigation Order (ANO) and its regulations.

So, with Brexit, if the Withdrawal Agreement that is on the table, is accepted, a transitional period will run to the end of 2020. During this period, it’s assumed that the present rules and procedures will continue to apply as now. Although there remains the risk that the UK could “fall off the cliff edge,” it isn’t likely that BCARs will be called back into use as they were in the 1990s.

There would be some major difficulties applying the historic procedures to the latest generation of aircraft and keeping agreements with other Counties going at the same time. That said, it’s possible BCARs could be resurrected but in a new way. One approach to providing national airworthiness procedures in 2021, would be to cut-and-paste the EASA Implementing Rule Part 21.

There isn’t much to be gained by reproducing all the requirement texts because it would be just as easy to have a one-line legislative statement to adopt the output of the European system. If new BCARs are created they must be maintained and that task is always bigger than anyone estimates.

Unfortunately, the pervasive impact of popular politicisation may take a hand. That could result in a complex hybrid of procedures developing where some parts are common and other parts diverge. If it happens, our post-Brexit era could create the need for a great deal of airworthiness administrative management which naturally has to be paid for by someone. However, this happens the UK must have a sound, stable and reliable system to deal with the responsibility for Type Approval of aircraft and all that implies.

[1] https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=220

Wake up the sentinels

When I half remember good advice, it drives me to do a bit of research. This week, watching all the questions being asked of Facebook, I couldn’t help but recall something I’d read more than 30 years ago. Yes, going back that far does have relevance because fundamental questions are exactly that; fundamental.

It seems every time technology advances the law follows but several steps behind. That’s law makers and those who sit in judgement trying to interpret tomes of law need to speed up. It was starkly apparent to me that Facebook was getting an easy ride, as questioning politicians struggled to keep up. Few question hit the mark or even attempted to look ahead.

For me, as for many, even research can’t be conducted without a heavy reliance on technology. So, I searched with the fragments of what I’d remembered. Typing into Google’s almighty search engine the two words “sleeping sentinels” because that’s what I thought was the name of a book.

Initially, I didn’t find what I wanted but what I did find was intriguing. I wasn’t previously aware of the story of the “sleeping sentinel”. A Union Army soldier during the American Civil War. He fell asleep whilst on duty, was court-martialled and sentenced to be executed. Harsh treatment indeed. But after his death sentence was read, a pardon was read thus saving his life. Lincoln had interceded on Scott’s behalf.

In this tale there’s an indication of the awakening of the idea of a “just culture”. Today, people with safety related work are expected to report such a case as; falling asleep on the job due to fatigue. In a “just culture” they should not be punished if others can learn from their experience.

I digress, since my aim was to rediscover an almost forgotten book on law. Eventually, I came to a reference to a book called: “The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology”[1]. This was the paperback I remembered.

One of the tenants of the book is that the law is sleeping while technology is racing ahead. Clear insight from the 1970s and 80s trying to consider the implications of personal commuters and alike.

Equally important to the case of understanding Social Media is the changing landscape of political campaigning. Its only now that everyone is discovering the details of what happened in June 2016 in the UK.

Its Friday 13^th and the news media is full of conflict and tension, but I hope this material gets well discussed. It does amount to finding out, after the event, hugely significant facts about the referendum of 2016.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-matrix-evidence-17-19/

To quote: “192. If the Commission indeed refrains from even exercising a discretion as to whether to refer a matter to the police or prosecuting authorities until it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed, this in our view would constitute an unlawful fetter on its regulatory discretion.”

What a dilemma. If the Electoral Commission, police or prosecuting authorities do not respond then they are indeed Slumbering Sentinels.

If they do respond, the case could be made for invalidating the 2016 referendum. To reassure them, as I have been saying in this article, they will not be the first to wake-up while technology is racing ahead. It’s difficult to foresee how technology will be misused in the future especially when money is no object. That said, we can’t ignore the facts.

[1] The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology (Pelican) Paperback – November 24, 1983 by C. G. Weeramantry

Words Matter

There have been so many words uttered during this EU referendum campaign in the UK you would think that anything goes and it hardly matters as the background noise has been so loud. Can the millions of pages of words that have been written or the billions of words spoken change the outcome? It’s hard to say “yes” or “no” to that simple question.

However, I believe it’s wrong to say that the public debate hasn’t changed much. For one, the debate has become a struggle to capture public attention and that’s produced some ghastly rhetoric. I guess, that crude language of expression is a sign of our times. Not only that but the style of presentation often trumps the substance. Pomposity and bombast put me off but some people love it. Overall, sadly there has been little truly memorable oratory.

Anyway, I was taught that when you have a complex problem to solve then start by going back to first principles. So, here we go. The core propositions of both IN and OUT campaigns are predictions. Predictions that one way means you’ll be better off and the other way means you’ll be worse off. In my mind, and I’m a rational person, the more trustworthy information you have to support your case the better. Failing that, I look at the person or group making the prediction and ask myself – do they know the subject?

Having read and listened to a lot in the last 100 days, I can say that; without any shadow of a doubt that the REMAIN campaign has provided the most reliable information. Also, they have the most credible supporters and speakers not just in the UK but worldwide.

I think, it would be extremely foolish to ignore the declaration of the G7 leaders made in Japan in May this year. “A UK exit from the EU would reverse the trend towards greater global trade and investment, and the jobs they create, and is a further serious risk to growth.”

We will all be better off by voting to REMAIN in the EU.