{"id":1079,"date":"2020-12-13T23:40:34","date_gmt":"2020-12-13T21:40:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=1079"},"modified":"2020-12-13T23:40:34","modified_gmt":"2020-12-13T21:40:34","slug":"that-was-the-week-that-was-07-11-december","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=1079","title":{"rendered":"That Was The Week That Was 07-11 December"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Words matter: Single Skies Meets Wimbledon Round 1.\u00a0 Oh, and Brexit is all about sovereignty right?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I write the negotiations continue between the Brexiting UK and the European Union.  Each side is trying hard to make it clear that the other side is at fault.  At the risk of cutting it too simply, the debate is about sovereignty \u2013 the UK seems to think that the sovereign act of signing a trade deal is a breach of its sovereignty, or something.  Oh how superior the European side feels, looking at tin-pot Britain clinging to a state of being that was never there, apart from in Eton\u2019s text books.  So it was ironic indeed that the Transport Council met on Tuesday<\/strong> to discuss the new Commission Proposal for SES Mark 2++. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This text was made public some weeks ago and it has been the subject of ferocious lobbying ever since.  And the basis of that lobbying has been Brexit By Another Name.  Or, sovereignty, to be honest about it.  Except just as that was the problem with Brexit \u2013 no one was honest enough to say that there would be a price to Brexit \u2013 no one is being honest about the price of the Single Sky, and that is a change to the status quo.  Nor has the simple fact that efficiency will require a sharing of sovereignty been made clear.  So we are all the UK now, when it comes to the Single European Sky.  We want it, but not at the cost of giving up anything.  Incumbents also hate it the proposal, because, well, it is a change.  Nonetheless, the proposal was tabled and each member state was asked to express its view on the text, to give the Commission guidance on the way forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is when the Single Sky met the dilemma of journalists covering the first round of Wimbledon.  No hack worth his or her salt will use the same verb twice in the one article, but you try describing the 128 games of the first round and reporting the results whilst only using the verb \u2018beat\u2019 once.  Thesauruses take a pounding in round 1.  In the Transport Council, the challenge was along the same lines \u2013 how do you say no, politely? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As ever with such diplomatic meetings, the polite bit was easy.  Praise.  This is a marvellous proposal, but… there is always a but.  Plus, in our first round encounter, there is a further subtlety \u2013 going first is easier from a linguistic point of view, but what if you miss the mood of the meeting?  What if you support something that all of your colleagues hate?  How humiliating.  Much better to sit back and wait, to be sure that you are in the majority.  But, if you do that, your language choices are narrowed, because all the usual weasel words are rapidly being used.  You can see the dilemma.  And the irony.  Whilst everyone watches the UK squirm as it tries to square sovereignty with self-interest, no one seemed to be watching those same states do the same thing in the Transport Council.  So, walk this way and keep your eyes open, ladies and gentlemen, as we look at what happens when Wimbledon goes to the Transport Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Italy<\/strong> had first serve.  It recognised the commitment to a network approach, but it is risky to introduce new concepts.  Better to stick with what we know.  See what Italy did there?  A good first move.  Spain<\/strong> noted that the proposal was ambitious (a kiss of death in any language) but we can let the technology do the work.  This was a brilliant serve, with the technology kick making it almost unplayable. The ante was upping.  What would the plucky Belgians<\/strong> do?  They pulled another trick serve out of their bag of tricks.  They diverted the conversation, into the importance of diverting short-haul traffic to rail and addressing the climate issues.  Nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but hardly anybody noticed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up came Poland, <\/strong>on behalf of the Visigrad Group.<\/strong>  First the praise \u2013 this is an important file.  But, but, this proposal does not have a full impact assessment statement behind it.  Things are different to the situation when the last impact assessment was done, because, well, Covid… Really?  Covid was the best they could come up with?  That was a weak serve which was returned, but Poland (on behalf of the Visigrad Group) came up with a passing shot of immense spin.  The role of the member states has to be preserved, so that the member states have flexibility about the structures and competencies of their authorities.  Inspired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up to the service line came Latvia<\/strong>.  Efficiency was their prime goal, oh and emissions.  Efficiency and emissions where their two prime goals they noted, channelling their inner Monty Python.  So there must be less long routes (and no short-haul ones).  The real issue, Latvia noted, is that the member states are bound by the Chicago Convention.  Finally, the S word!  The closer they got to a Single European Sky, the less sovereignty member states had.  Indeed, and more efficiency but, hey ho…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right behind Latvia came their neighbours from Lithuania<\/strong>.  Discussions over the back fence must be interesting sometimes.  They were concerned about the impact of a central solution on military options.  For anyone else, that might be sovereignty in a different coat, but to be fair, they do live in a tricky neighbourhood.  Then it was Malta\u2019s <\/strong>turn to play.  Malta noted that this reform is central to any recovery.  Strong praise indeed.  But, there is the but again, time will be needed \u2013 the representative suggested 2024 \u2013 for the Commission to work out how not to infringe on the member states\u2019 sovereignty.  Ah…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finland<\/strong> which as president had launched this new attempt to forge change, liked the focus on customers. That was a serve from a new spot on the service line.  Customer focus?  Where did that come from?  Finland had no major issues…  oh oh, that can only mean trouble.  Here it comes \u2013 they just want the details clarified.  All of the texts and rules and supporting documents had to be written.  Oh, and sovereignty needed to be respected.  Next up was Luxembourg<\/strong> which was disappointed that there was not a full impact assessment, given Covid.  But privatisation would not solve all the issues \u2013 just look at the UK train system.  The UK, no longer in the room, can expect a bit more of this sort of treatment.  In short, Luxembourg was in support of the proposal, but disagreed with just about all of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up came Czechia,<\/strong> despite Poland arguing that was speaking for all of the Visigrad Group.  On-lookers were shocked: the Visgrad Group demanding another voice?  Never has that happened before.  Still, the argument was an intriguing variation.  Time is wasting with all this fine-tuning of an outdated Regulation.  If it ain\u2019t broke…  Czechia called for more cooperation between member states and air service providers!  The Commission must be face-palming themselves and setting up several internal investigations to discover why, oh why, why on earth they had not thought of that themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amongst the many things Sweden<\/strong> is famous for is IKEA furniture, which comes flat-packed and is easy to assemble.  It turns out you can disassemble it too.  Sweden supports the proposal and the liberalisation, but, but, changes have to be justified.  And, turning a bookshelf into an attractive sideboard, Sweden also noted that we must stop unfair competition.  That is like that additional screw in the bottom of the pack after the furniture is assembled.  Where did that come from?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While everyone was pondering where that screw might go, and if they have the right sized Allen key, Slovenia<\/strong> asked that common goals be found. Listen to the members and let them address their local issues, Slovenia implored.  A cunning move, making the rejection of the proposal the fault of the room, rather than it.  A lovely little drop shot…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was time for the first of the seeded players to enter the fray.  Up strode France.<\/strong>  This, France noted, was a technology and modernisation issue, not a political one, which is as neat a summary of the DSNA approach to reform as can be found.  Environment, green deal, emissions etc… oh, Military sovereignty… something something no fragmentation.  It takes another heavy hitter, Hungary<\/strong> \u2013 yes, part of the Visigrad Group \u2013 to follow that.  Hungary was concerned that this was an attempt to interfere with internal issues.  So there.  End of.  After that, Greece<\/strong> tried to pour oil on the water.  Safety is a high priority.  Fully supportive etc, but need an assessment, and oh, by the way, will not support any reduction in role of member states.  Much better to have a constant talking shop \u2013 why not convene it at the agora?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This late in the round it was getting hard for the representatives to be creative.  The Netherlands<\/strong> supported the aims of the proposal, but, but, there was no impact assessment.  And did they tell you that their airspace is sacrosanct?  So much so that even extending the rights of the Performance Review Board infringed their holy right not only to that airspace but to regulate it.  Somehow, that right did not extend to delegation or any sort of sharing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final member of the Visigrad Group \u2013 Slovakia<\/strong> \u2013 realised that it too had to have a turn.  It was in favour of heightened efficiency, but Chicago Convention…  Austria<\/strong> took another route.  It was happy that this proposal was being discussed.  It goes partly in the right direction.  It is the partly there that you have to watch out for.  More discussion about the devil lurking in the detail is needed… <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bulgaria<\/strong> was less interested in a diplomatic put down.  There is no need for more efficiency as the system is running at 97% and anyway, Chicago Convention…  Croatia<\/strong> on the other hand supported the efforts taken, but could not support the creation of new bodies \u2013 this was mentioned by a number of others as well.  Just to note, the principle proposal is to move the Performance Review Body into EASA, so which new body this is a bit of a mystery.  National regulators will be doing national economic regulation, begging the question of what they were doing up to now.  New bodies cost money, Croatia noted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By now, creative put downs were getting hard to conjure up, but Cyprus <\/strong>had a try.  It was fully supportive of the principles (oh oh).  But, new bodies, sovereignty, interdependence of safety and economics… Cyprus did not want more assessment and more detail, it wanted simplification.  By having more studies.  And discussions.  And a high-level conference.  Denmark<\/strong> on the other hand, wanted to be sure that their general support was noted, but their concerns on the best way to achieve the goals also be noted, particularly regarding the military aspects.  Denmark is also concerned about member state autonomy.  Not that anyone thinks that Brexit was a good idea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One state that is sure that Brexit was a bad idea is Ireland<\/strong> and it stood apart.  It walked out to the opposite end of the court and supported the proposal, with no but.  No but!  Now is the time to make the changes, to make a positive out of Covid.  The proposal is ambitious and that is a good thing.  How much longer Ireland can stay in this club must now be a talking point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was up to Estonia<\/strong> to re-right the ship, and it tried to be emollient to both sides.  We need to find a balance between the member states.  That is code for the large central states respecting the peripheral ones. Central control is not a good thing, in other words.  This is too important, etc.  Finally, it was Portugal\u2019s <\/strong>turn.  We need simplification, Portugal noted, but we need more in-depth analysis.  If the architecture of governance is not simplified we cannot ascertain what the value add will be, it noted, like a builder increasing their quote for some repair work you need.  We also need more cooperation, and did we mention the Chicago Convention?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through all this, it should be noted, Germany <\/strong>got a bye, because as current president, it introduced the file.  Completing the day\u2019s play, Commissioner V?lean noted that it was good that we all agree on the increasingly urgent need for change.  She then managed to note the Brexit-iness of their arguments without using the B word.  States continue to designate air traffic service providers, they control airspace design and their local procurement rules apply.  This is an attempt to simplify.  Unlike the Transport Council.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Words matter: Single Skies Meets Wimbledon Round 1.\u00a0 Oh, and Brexit is all about sovereignty right?\u00a0 As I write the negotiations continue between the Brexiting UK and the European Union.  Each side is trying hard to make it clear that the other side is at fault.  At the risk of cutting it too simply, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,29,13,16,40,26,32,44,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-air-navigation-service-providers","category-air-services-agreements","category-air-traffic-management","category-climate-change","category-covid-19","category-interlining","category-international-civil-aviation-organization","category-regulatory","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1079"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1080,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1079\/revisions\/1080"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}