Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don, would you be willing to share those thoughts on EASA - from a "professional's" standpoint?

Suzy Wong posted:

Don, would you be willing to share those thoughts on EASA - from a "professional's" standpoint?

I am quite happy to post a summary of the views I send to Martin.

I was expecting others here to mention that they had also been approached through their professional bodies to provide views to inform the Government. I am also a member if the Institution of Civil Engineers and they are likewise canvasing views to inform the Government.

What really surprises me that there appears to be no "Exit Road Map" in existence, not even a "Draft", never mind one based on a proper consideration of risks v benefits. Did Johnson, Gove and Farage burn the original out of spite when they realised none of them were going to lead us out of Europe ?

The sector that I mainly work in is tightly regulated and  subject to pan european standards, rules and regulation. No opinions will be sought. The law will change and I will be required to comply. In terms of how my main client's day to day trading business will be affected it hinges on supply and exchange rates. And since I am paid a commission after cost deductions including cost of goods (no salary or day rate) I am already already "enjoying" the new climate in which I am required  to work 15-20% harder just to stand still.

I can make more sacrifices, work longer hours, cut my margins to remain competitive, or I can work my guts out same as ever and be 20% worse off. How fortunate for me that I have the choice - because choice is "freedom". As we lose synch with the EU my situation can only get worse or at least more complicated and expensive to administer, but at least by then I will have dual nationality, so that's something good to look forward to. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

Don, would you be willing to share those thoughts on EASA - from a "professional's" standpoint?

I am quite happy to post a summary of the views I send to Martin.

I was expecting others here to mention that they had also been approached through their professional bodies to provide views to inform the Government. I am also a member if the Institution of Civil Engineers and they are likewise canvasing views to inform the Government.

What really surprises me that there appears to be no "Exit Road Map" in existence, not even a "Draft", never mind one based on a proper consideration of risks v benefits. Did Johnson, Gove and Farage burn the original out of spite when they realised none of them were going to lead us out of Europe 

The Brexiteers' Exit Rad Map appears to have been based upon the Iraq Strategy. That is to say, "Jump in with both feet, royally buqqer things up, and then do a runner and leave others to sort out the mess".

After all, that worked well before, didn't it?

Suzy Wong posted:

Don, would you be willing to share those thoughts on EASA - from a "professional's" standpoint?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government’s proposal to Leave the EASA System. I hope my comments below are both relevant and helpful.

General Comments

1. Why do we only have 5 days in the middle of the holiday season to consider this important issue ? Please make it clear that our comments are preliminary and WILL be updated when people have

• had more time to consider and
• returned from holiday.

1. I appreciate we are planning to leave the EU but why are we planning to leave EASA? Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland not members of the EU but are all members of EASA. The government should therefore also be considering that situation, ie we leave the EU but remain part of EASA - which is a completely different issue. Please make that point very clear to the Government in our response.

1. My views below are confined to Flight Personnel, but many comments will also relate to the ownership and operation of aircraft.

Risks & Impacts of Leaving EASA

1. We need to (re-) create a new Act of Parliament.
2. We need to (re-) create a new Air Navigation Order and new Rules of the Air.
3. Changes 1 and 2 will take time to organise and implement. They will generate uncertainty – a bit like the last 10 years we have endured getting EASA to work.
4. The CAA does not have enough people of the right calibre to create and administer this change – they have struggled with the change from JAR to EASA.
5. The changes will involve significant costs to businesses and individuals.
6. The UK will be the only country in Europe that is not part of EASA (the Balkans are in the process of joining the EU and will inevitably join EASA).
7. If Scotland achieves independence and re-joins the EU, the situation will be even worse.
8. The UK will drift apart. Licensing and Rules of the Air etc will become confused.
9. UK will need a Bilateral Agreement with EASA (as per the USA, Canada etc)
10. (New) UK pilots will find it difficult to use European registered aircraft unless they obtain an EASA license  – they will be treated just like pilots of any other Third Party country.
11. UK pilots will find it difficult to work for European airlines unless they get (or retain) an EASA License.
12. We will loose the benefits of a LAPL and any other non-ICAO License privileges.
13. There will be reduced familiarity with EU Flight Crew Regulations and Airspace Regulations notwithstanding declared UK Derogations from EASA.
14. UK pilots and European pilots under training will not be able to (easily) transfer between training establishments.
15. If we decide to “Adopt” EASA Rules despite leaving the EU, we would loose any influence we currently have in formulating or re-formulating and revising the Rules. We would simply be bound by the (possibly draconian) rules drafted by others.

Opportunities arising from leaving EASA

1. We could revert to LASORS rather that CAP 804 or simply re-write “The Rules” from scratch and get them clear and simple for once.
2. Create bilateral agreements with the EU as per USA, Canada NZ etc (somehow to our advantage ?) and also our own, advantageous bilateral agreements with the USA, Canada, NZ etc.
3. Set up licensing rules that make it impossible for any European, Non-UK Licensed pilot getting a job with a UK airline.
4. This would increase the training demand within the UK for new UK licenses.
5. Changes, (as and when required) could be implemented quickly, rather than the 5 years it takes EASA to add a full stop or remove a comma.
6. The UK IR(R) Rating would be secure.
7. Ban the use of the dangerous European En-Route IR within UK airspace.
8. No need to implement (or retain) SERA and its restrictive practices.
9. Revise the VFR at Night Rules. Eg eliminate the requirement for a flight plan.
10. Eliminate the need for an Aerobatic Rating or a Mountain Rating. EU must simply accept ICAO licensing.
11. Get the ATPL/CPL/PPL question banks up to date and eliminate the questions that were badly written by EASA or are pointless.
12. Eliminate the EASA v non-EASA aircraft classification debacle.

We leave the EU but remain part of EASA - which is a completely different issue.

1. EASA provides expert guidance to the EU Commission regarding aviation.
2. The UK CAA has taken the lead in providing this expert guidance.
3. The EU Commission drafts Regulations and/or directives for the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers to accept.
4. The Commission then publishes the Regulations/Directives which in effect become the law. Directives require National Implementation
5. EASA drafts Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance to accompany the Regulations/Directives.
6. The UK CAA has taken the lead in drafting these AMC and Guidance.
7. As a result, despite years of bloody-mindedness by the first Executive Director of EASA and some of the early staff, we have eventually got a system that almost works and is almost understandable.
8. Providing we remain a part of EASA, I believe that the UK can continue to positively influence EASA’s guidance to the EU Commission and in turn benefit from a sensible, workable set of Aviation Rules for the good of the EASA community and the EU as a whole.
9. Clearly the UK would have no direct say in whether the EU Parliament or Council of Ministers accepted or rejected any future aviation Regulation proposed by the EU Commission.

If anybody has any suggested amendments or additions to my submission above, please post them below.

Despite the deadline for comment having passed, I intend to update my comments as and when necessary.

No comments ?

I wonder if the Gov has plans in any other sectors for going much, much further than simply leaving the EU ?

Surely there are other sectors of life where the EU + 4 operate in unity. Is the Gov planning to pull out of these area as well as in Aviation ? 

Don Atkinson posted:

What really surprises me that there appears to be no "Exit Road Map" in existence, not even a "Draft", never mind one based on a proper consideration of risks v benefits. Did Johnson, Gove and Farage burn the original out of spite when they realised none of them were going to lead us out of Europe ?

The reason why there is no Brexit road map, Don, is that everybody (including many Leavers) assumed that the UK would vote - no matter how narrowly - to stay. There never was a road map for Brexit, so there was nothing for BoJo et al to burn.

It is well-known around Whitehall that the Civil Service were instructed not to waste time and resources prepaering for a Brexit because it wasn't considered likely.  Cameron, Gidiot and co. did not consider Brexit a possibility, so were not pepared for it. That tells you everything about our political class thaf you need to know.

Only one body modelled, and was prepared for, for Brexit, and that was the Bank of England.

Kevin-W posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

What really surprises me that there appears to be no "Exit Road Map" in existence, not even a "Draft", never mind one based on a proper consideration of risks v benefits. Did Johnson, Gove and Farage burn the original out of spite when they realised none of them were going to lead us out of Europe ?

The reason why there is no Brexit road map, Don, is that everybody (including many Leavers) assumed that the UK would vote - no matter how narrowly - to stay. There never was a road map for Brexit, so there was nothing for BoJo et al to burn.

It is well-known around Whitehall that the Civil Service were instructed not to waste time and resources prepaering for a Brexit because it wasn't considered likely.  Cameron, Gidiot and co. did not consider Brexit a possibility, so were not pepared for it. That tells you everything about our political class thaf you need to know.

Only one body modelled, and was prepared for, for Brexit, and that was the Bank of England.

Thanks Kevin,

I know you are correct. I was being somewhat sarcastic when I wrote that post. The level of debate and information during the run up to the referendum was diabolic. And the situation now is no better. That was the conclusion I came to when invited to respond to the Government's call for the risks and opportunities for the aviation industry of leaving EASA. Why the hell we are even thinking of leaving EASA beats me. I think it shows just how dire our politicians really are.

Cheers

Don

Indeed Don. Even thinking about leaving EASA seems very odd. I know it is an EU agency but as far as I know it has a number of non-EU members, and surely in aviation, safety should take precedent over economic and political considerations.

EASA is an EU Agency but it includes Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland as well as the 28 EU countries.

We've had 10 years of EASA and before that about 10 years of JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities)

The UK's CAA has been at the forefront of sensible input to both these organisations and as a result we have to a large extent successfully overcome the narrow-minded, bloody-minded excesses of a few but notable Commission despots.

On balance, EASA is now a well respected body, at least the equal of the American FAA. Why we are considering leaving it beats me, especially since we didn't have a referendum about it !!!

Not related to the EASA, but yesterday's cabinet meeting offers a dim view.

Reducing immigration is the mantra coming out of it.  And that will mean stopping free movement of EU citizens, and therefore closing access to the common market.

But somehow there will restriction on immigration, yet still keep fully open border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland.  Can someone tell me (David Davis would be a good person to ask) how thats going to work?

Eloise,

I think you are falling into the same trap that many of us "Remainers" have frequently fallen into. That is to assume that ANY (never mind ALL) politicians are able or willing to think clearly about what is best for the UK as a whole and to act accordingly.

I agree with you. It is a dismal situation !

Cheer up Don. The pound strengthened today on news that manufacturing output jumped significantly in August. Fingers crossed that you keep moving in that direction. 

Clay Bingham posted:

Cheer up Don. The pound strengthened today on news that manufacturing output jumped significantly in August. Fingers crossed that you keep moving in that direction. 

Funny that !

I'm sat here in Canada, wondering whether to release some equity and convert it into ££££ at the phenomenally good rates that have emerged since Brexit began, but realising also that with the slump in oil prices and the recent fires at Ft McMurray the situation here isn't too bright either (although property prices in Vancouver are going through the roof so to speak). Then the headline news that the pound has jumped, leaps out of the front pages, so I decide to hold for a while...........only to find its 1% and only in terms of US $$ (and euros).

I think its a bit more complicated than today's headline news, but i'm not convinced that our politicians either know that or are willing to reveal that sort of knowledge.

That's what  I find so depressing at the moment. Financially, I'm all right and I am pretty sure my kids are too. But that's not the whole point. Or is it ?

Don, it's funny you should say that.. I have much of my private pension savings in overseas investments, and it all lurched significantly up in value after the  Brexit sterling devaluation.. but now looking to see if it goes back to more where it was the pound starts to normalise ... I think the stat to watch is the UK Service industry figures.. which is 70% of the U.K. GDP so I gather. If that shows also big export growth, expect the pound to jump again which of course will dampen  manufacturing exporting growth....  Also I read inflation pressures are the highest currently for severeal years, so I suspect within a year BoE interest rates will be on the rise, further raising the pound valuation... hopefully the UK offsets by buying foreign currency/gold/bonds etc. A high pound is no ones interest... apart from possibly you 

Simon, I have about as much accessible equity here as I have in the UK, so it doesn't make a lot of difference which way the pound moves.....in overall terms

When I first bought here, I got $CA2.5 for a £. Now I get about $1.8 for a £. Conversely If I were to release some of that equity, or indeed the income that it also derives, I would be much better off than when I started. So, no, to me a weak £ means I get a lot more of them. But of course, what I can then get with those weak pounds in the UK depends on whether I am buying imported goods (TVs cameras, german cars etc) or UK manufactured items that don't depend on imported raw materials too much.........but this applies to lots of peoples, not just me. I'm not at all convinced that a weak pound is in everyones interest, as you appear to imply.

Hi Don - yes i agree about a very weak pound not being overly good - neither a very strong a one - we need that 'Goldilocks' level 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi Don - yes i agree about a very weak pound not being overly good - neither a very strong a one - we need that 'Goldilocks' level 

"Goldilocks" ..........that would be Boris, then ?????????????

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi Don - yes i agree about a very weak pound not being overly good - neither a very strong a one - we need that 'Goldilocks' level 

It's brilliant for me

And the latest departure from the Brexiteers' manifesto? The much fabled adoption of the points-system to 'control' (read reduce) immigration is dropped.  

MDS posted:

And the latest departure from the Brexiteers' manifesto? The much fabled adoption of the points-system to 'control' (read reduce) immigration is dropped.  

I think this Gov is determined to alienate 80% of the electorate.

First off, the 50% that voted to Remain, then about 75% of those who voted to leave, mainly on immigration and spending £350m per week on the health service.

Just as well the opposition has old Corbyn in "charge" and another three years or so in unopposed government.

What a bloody mess.

MDS posted:

And the latest departure from the Brexiteers' manifesto? The much fabled adoption of the points-system to 'control' (read reduce) immigration is dropped.  

my view - if its not workable then find a method that is. I thought the 'manifesto' was to bring back control of the national borders and control immigration - not the method. All I remember was Nigel Farage citing an Australian points based system as an example of an immigration control system that could possibly be used in the UK  ... but I am sure HMG has now been asking  the civil servants to assess and review methods for the UK now the mandate has been given by the electorate.  I think most want a workable system rather than a botched system. The current EU system is not workable - the last thing we want to do is put in place another un workable system once outside the EU. I think May is refreshingly strong, shrewd and  cautious rather than playing pop idol politics - I can only assume she has been digesting some of this initial internal analysis and using her political instincts. I also suspect she has instructed her cabinet to put a lid on it until the new potential processes and analysis is more progressed. Absolutely the right thing to do - and certainly what we do in the private sector....

S

I would agree with you, Simon. My comment wasn't to express my disappointment that the idea of a points-based immigration system is to be dropped. Rather, to draw attention to another "policy" sold to the public by the Brexit politicians that has evaporated as misleading and/or unworkable. All the evidence as to why a points-based system  is unsuitable and undesirable for the UK would have been available during the time of the referendum campaign. But it was seemingly ignored by those politicians who nonetheless argued it to the electorate as a 'answer' to those who were concerned that the UK has too much immigration. Indeed, as Home Secretary, Ms May would have been very much aware of the pros and cons of a points-based system.  She was also in the 'remain' camp (though some say she was a reluctant member), yet did she speak up during the campaign when the Brexit camp was spouting this stuff about a points-based system and say it was unworkable? Err.....no.

The banks have been rightly pilloried for mis-selling to ordinary people but it seems that the politicians who lead the campaign for Brexit can seemingly get away with selling the electorate a pile of phoney policies and assertions.

And we wonder why the younger generation in this country is seemingly disillusioned with the political classes.

Mike

i agree with you apart from the last - many of the younger generation seem to have been galvanised by establishment politics as the referendum appeared relevant to them - and that was with both sides of the argument (I know some of the establishment politicians liked  to portray the youth as a homogenous group all voting one way) - the young in my part of the world seemed quite split on the matter. I think the Clinton / Trump debates is engaging some as well - perhaps from a curiosity point of view - but that is a start.

However there is no such thing as a political class in my book - its called engagement - you either engage with society or not. There are many avenues of political engagement other than your MP. I think many young people engage with society. Now whether one is against the establishment or not is another matter - and of course that is completely relative - the young have been traditionally - and indeed I was (and perhaps still am in part) - against the establishment and want change - which is why I voted the way i did in the referendum. But of course as you get older you still stick to some of your anti establishment ideals - but accommodate others through pragmatism.

S