Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

CAA to be eclipsed by EU?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

CAA to be eclipsed by EU?

Old 10th Sep 2001, 02:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Newcastle-upon-TYNE
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question CAA to be eclipsed by EU?

In todays Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker reported that Mr Prodi and the EU were fed up with issuing "directives" that get messed about by individual countries, and that in future they would issue "regulations" that would have to be implemented completely.

The second "regulation", was reported to be the creation of the "European aviation safety agency", with responsibility for everything to do with the operation of aircraft, airports and everything to do with aviation!

Is Mr Prodi off his trolley, Christopher Booker scaremongering, or is something more sinister happening?

(see page 12 Sunday Telegraph.)
Bluelabel is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 11:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

EASA is indeed in the EC's plans and has been for a while now. It's been quite openly discussed around Europe and is seen, possibly, as an improvement over the slow process of the JAA. There will still be a need for individual regulators in each country enforcing the EASA requirements.
fen boy is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 16:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the past
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

Maybe Mr.Prodi should start with his own country.....
GEENY is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 18:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

EASA was a fact as of sept last year.
Fwd Wonder Cerebrum is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 19:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

Yes - let's introduce a new tax to pay
for some more bureaucracy umm sorry safety
critical legislation pertinant to the EU.

Nobody needs to vote for these changes
as they are the experts and ours not to
reason why...
RVR800 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 20:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

Sorry to get a bit political, but perhaps Mr Prodi would like to show me a piece of ballot paper where I put an "X" next to his name??? Until then, I am afraid I am contemptuous of everything which the EU pushes out.
SET 18 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2001, 20:22
  #7 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

From what I see on the Irish BB the IAA would be no loss...
MarkD is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2001, 14:18
  #8 (permalink)  
buzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Coincidentally I received this email today it mentions aviation and the EU specifically.


This article is worthy of a wider audience..

Dr Richard North is an epidemiologist and political researcher who works
full time in the EU for the EDP grouping of EU political parties. Bright
guy, I have met him many times and he does know what he is talking about
and just what is going on.

His article is most apposite and only highlights one area of many
thousands where power is being centralised by the EU and stolen from the
people and national parliaments.

I blame it on the Tesco and Beckham effect. So long as Tesco opens
tomorrow and the shelves are full, and Beckham scores another goal or he
and his vacuous wife are on the tele, who cares about political freedom
and democracy? What an age in which we live!

Regards.


STRASBOURG
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Letter from Strasbourg

Dr Richard North
10 September, 2001


It is not often that one stumbles on a revolution and even less often that
one walks into it when nobody else has noticed. But such was the bizarre
experience when the European Parliament decamped to Strasbourg after the
summer holidays for another week of law-making and, once again, I had my nose
to the grindstone preparing voting briefs for my members.

The revolution itself will have devastating consequences: it is set finally
to end all vestiges of independent government in the UK - and other EU member
states - as we know it. Yet, in the way of the EU, so complex and technical
were the details that it was not surprising that it was not noticed, even (or
especially) by the majority of the members of the European Parliament who
were on the spot, supposedly looking after our interests.

And if the word 'revolution' and the claims made for it sound extreme,
consider where we stand at the moment. Since our joining the EU, a large
part of our law-making powers have been given to the EU and, progressively
through various treaties, those powers have increased to the point that some
80 percent of our law is now made in Brussels. (Not surprisingly,
contemporary politicians want us to concentrate on health, education and law
and order - these are amongst the few issues over which our government
retains any power).

But, while the EU has been largely content with making laws, it has been
content to leave the implementation and enforcement to member states. And,
as is well known, implementation has been patchy and there is often little or
no enforcement. But all that is to change. The EU is now planning to take
over both implementation and enforcement. Therein lies the 'revolution'.

The clues to this forthcoming revolution came in two proposals for new
legislation up before the parliament and a speech on EU governance by
Commission president Romano Prodi.

As regards the legislation, neither were subjects calculated to set the world
on fire: one was a proposal for a regulation on civil aviation, creating 'a
European Aviation Safety Agency'; the other was a regulation on 'competition'.

The sinister thing about the aviation safety proposal was that it actually
had nothing at all to do with safety. EU member states already have their
own safety agencies, which cooperate freely though an inter-governmental
organisation known as the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA).

Thus, the true agenda was about replacing existing agencies with a single EU
institution, giving the EU Commission direct power over safety matters. And
this is no figment of a fevered, Eurosceptic imagination. In the very text
of the Commission proposal the mechanism it stated that this was to be
achieved 'through the gradual integration of national systems'.

Turning to the proposal on competition, the ostensible aim of this regulation
was to improve the enforcement of the EU rules on competition - in the
context of the single market where all sorts of market abuses continue to
exist.

As it stands, enforcement of the competition rules is a Commission monopoly
which - because Commission resources are limited - means that only a very few
cases are processed. The intention is that some of the powers should be
delegated to member states so that national competition authorities and
national courts can deal with cases of anti-competitive behaviour.

On the face of it, this looks like an admirable piece of decentralisation,
and that is how the proposal was sold to the European parliament. But, as
always, the devil was in the detail.

In carrying out their duties, the Commission wants national competition
authorities to form a 'network' which must work to Commission guidelines,
must apply Community law and must obey European Court of Justice decisions -
all under the supervision of the Commission which reserves the right to take
over any investigation or re-locate it to another member state. By this
means, the Commission will take over control of the civil servants in the
different member states.

They will be paid salaries by the member states, housed in government
buildings paid for by the member states, and will use facilities provided by,
and paid for by member state governments. They will work on competition
issues, but not for the member states which finance them. Instead, they will
be part of the 'network' working for the Commission, implementing Community
law.

Nevertheless, the two proposals - one on aviation, the other on competition -
would not necessary have signified anything as profound as a 'revolution' but
for the third event, Prodi's speech. In it, the underlying thinking behind
the two legislative proposals was laid bare, demonstrating that neither was a
'flash in the pan'.

In the first instance, what Prodi is planning is the greater use of
regulations as opposed to directives. It was, therefore, no coincidence that
the two proposals were in the form of regulations. The significance, of
course, is that directives must be transposed into the national laws of each
member states before they take effect while the regulations take effect the
moment they are 'done' at Brussels.

While the transposition process at least requires input from the legislatures
and parliaments of the member states, the regulation process completely
sidelines both, as EU regulations do not require the assent of either. The
Commission is taking over the reins of the legislative process, making our
parliament even more redundant.

As to enforcement, this goes hand-in-hand with 'cooperation'. As with the
competition proposal, enforcement authorities in each of the member states
are to be re-orientated so that they no longer work for their employing
nations but act as part of a 'network', directly under the control of the
Commission, to whom they become responsible.

And then there are the EU regulatory agencies. These are to become an
increasing feature of EU activity, with their operating statutes set out in
EU legislation. They will be responsible to Brussels; member states will
have no direct control over their activities, they cannot overturn their
decisions and neither can they ignore their rulings. The plan is that the
bulk of regulatory affairs will be managed by these organisations.

Altogether, this is indeed 'the gradual integration of national systems'.

Needless to say, we will see no outward change: we will continue to see
British officials working in British offices, using the headed paper of their
respective ministries, but they will be working for Brussels. Our own
government will be progressively turned into an impotent onlooker, its only
role being to pay the bills.

And this is the final irony and the cleverness of this 'revolution'. With
the 'network' system, the EU gets to increase its control over member states
without increasing its own budget or staff, maintaining the fiction that the
Commission is a tiny civil service with an establishment of less than a
London borough, working on a shoestring, while the agencies, of course, will
be self-funding, living off the fees charged from applying Community law.

The take-over is on its way - and nobody noticed.

ends


-----End of original message from [email protected]

--
John Moran
Branch Chairman
Kingston Branch
Democracy Movement
18 Hogarth Way
Hampton TW12 2EL
This article is worthy of a wider audience..

Dr Richard North is an epidemiologist and political researcher who works
full time in the EU for the EDP grouping of EU political parties. Bright
guy, I have met him many times and he does know what he is talking about
and just what is going on.

His article is most apposite and only highlights one area of many
thousands where power is being centralised by the EU and stolen from the
people and national parliaments.

I blame it on the Tesco and Beckham effect. So long as Tesco opens
tomorrow and the shelves are full, and Beckham scores another goal or he
and his vacuous wife are on the tele, who cares about political freedom
and democracy? What an age in which we live!

Regards.


-----Original message-----
Subject: [eurorealist] LETTER FROM STRASBOURG
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Letter from Strasbourg

Dr Richard North
10 September, 2001


It is not often that one stumbles on a revolution and even less often that
one walks into it when nobody else has noticed. But such was the bizarre
experience when the European Parliament decamped to Strasbourg after the
summer holidays for another week of law-making and, once again, I had my nose
to the grindstone preparing voting briefs for my members.

The revolution itself will have devastating consequences: it is set finally
to end all vestiges of independent government in the UK - and other EU member
states - as we know it. Yet, in the way of the EU, so complex and technical
were the details that it was not surprising that it was not noticed, even (or
especially) by the majority of the members of the European Parliament who
were on the spot, supposedly looking after our interests.

And if the word 'revolution' and the claims made for it sound extreme,
consider where we stand at the moment. Since our joining the EU, a large
part of our law-making powers have been given to the EU and, progressively
through various treaties, those powers have increased to the point that some
80 percent of our law is now made in Brussels. (Not surprisingly,
contemporary politicians want us to concentrate on health, education and law
and order - these are amongst the few issues over which our government
retains any power).

But, while the EU has been largely content with making laws, it has been
content to leave the implementation and enforcement to member states. And,
as is well known, implementation has been patchy and there is often little or
no enforcement. But all that is to change. The EU is now planning to take
over both implementation and enforcement. Therein lies the 'revolution'.

The clues to this forthcoming revolution came in two proposals for new
legislation up before the parliament and a speech on EU governance by
Commission president Romano Prodi.

As regards the legislation, neither were subjects calculated to set the world
on fire: one was a proposal for a regulation on civil aviation, creating 'a
European Aviation Safety Agency'; the other was a regulation on 'competition'.

The sinister thing about the aviation safety proposal was that it actually
had nothing at all to do with safety. EU member states already have their
own safety agencies, which cooperate freely though an inter-governmental
organisation known as the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA).

Thus, the true agenda was about replacing existing agencies with a single EU
institution, giving the EU Commission direct power over safety matters. And
this is no figment of a fevered, Eurosceptic imagination. In the very text
of the Commission proposal the mechanism it stated that this was to be
achieved 'through the gradual integration of national systems'.

Turning to the proposal on competition, the ostensible aim of this regulation
was to improve the enforcement of the EU rules on competition - in the
context of the single market where all sorts of market abuses continue to
exist.

As it stands, enforcement of the competition rules is a Commission monopoly
which - because Commission resources are limited - means that only a very few
cases are processed. The intention is that some of the powers should be
delegated to member states so that national competition authorities and
national courts can deal with cases of anti-competitive behaviour.

On the face of it, this looks like an admirable piece of decentralisation,
and that is how the proposal was sold to the European parliament. But, as
always, the devil was in the detail.

In carrying out their duties, the Commission wants national competition
authorities to form a 'network' which must work to Commission guidelines,
must apply Community law and must obey European Court of Justice decisions -
all under the supervision of the Commission which reserves the right to take
over any investigation or re-locate it to another member state. By this
means, the Commission will take over control of the civil servants in the
different member states.

They will be paid salaries by the member states, housed in government
buildings paid for by the member states, and will use facilities provided by,
and paid for by member state governments. They will work on competition
issues, but not for the member states which finance them. Instead, they will
be part of the 'network' working for the Commission, implementing Community
law.

Nevertheless, the two proposals - one on aviation, the other on competition -
would not necessary have signified anything as profound as a 'revolution' but
for the third event, Prodi's speech. In it, the underlying thinking behind
the two legislative proposals was laid bare, demonstrating that neither was a
'flash in the pan'.

In the first instance, what Prodi is planning is the greater use of
regulations as opposed to directives. It was, therefore, no coincidence that
the two proposals were in the form of regulations. The significance, of
course, is that directives must be transposed into the national laws of each
member states before they take effect while the regulations take effect the
moment they are 'done' at Brussels.

While the transposition process at least requires input from the legislatures
and parliaments of the member states, the regulation process completely
sidelines both, as EU regulations do not require the assent of either. The
Commission is taking over the reins of the legislative process, making our
parliament even more redundant.

As to enforcement, this goes hand-in-hand with 'cooperation'. As with the
competition proposal, enforcement authorities in each of the member states
are to be re-orientated so that they no longer work for their employing
nations but act as part of a 'network', directly under the control of the
Commission, to whom they become responsible.

And then there are the EU regulatory agencies. These are to become an
increasing feature of EU activity, with their operating statutes set out in
EU legislation. They will be responsible to Brussels; member states will
have no direct control over their activities, they cannot overturn their
decisions and neither can they ignore their rulings. The plan is that the
bulk of regulatory affairs will be managed by these organisations.

Altogether, this is indeed 'the gradual integration of national systems'.

Needless to say, we will see no outward change: we will continue to see
British officials working in British offices, using the headed paper of their
respective ministries, but they will be working for Brussels. Our own
government will be progressively turned into an impotent onlooker, its only
role being to pay the bills.

And this is the final irony and the cleverness of this 'revolution'. With
the 'network' system, the EU gets to increase its control over member states
without increasing its own budget or staff, maintaining the fiction that the
Commission is a tiny civil service with an establishment of less than a
London borough, working on a shoestring, while the agencies, of course, will
be self-funding, living off the fees charged from applying Community law.

The take-over is on its way - and nobody noticed.

ends


-----End of original message from [email protected]

--
John Moran
Branch Chairman
Kingston Branch
Democracy Movement
18 Hogarth Way
Hampton TW12 2EL
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.