The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
"Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commerical Matters" (pdf, 13 July 2017)
I. General principles The following principles should apply in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement: (1) The relevant provisions of Union law applicable on the withdrawal date on the applicable law for contractual and non-contractual obligations should continue to apply to contracts concluded before the withdrawal date, and (regarding non-contractual liability) to events which occurred before the withdrawal date. ...
(1) The relevant provisions of Union law applicable on the withdrawal date on the applicable law for contractual and non-contractual obligations should continue to apply to contracts concluded before the withdrawal date, and (regarding non-contractual liability) to events which occurred before the withdrawal date. ...
EU will enforce those claims.
The UK gov't however is unlikely to intervene in EU or EU27 venue litigation between private parties unless invited by same. (1) It's too cheap to spend. For this reason, UK.gov has invested in a PR campaign --which I'v surmise has alarmed you-- to persuade the world to select UK jurisdiction for all its legal needs, because "continuity". Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Equally customs controls are entirely oblivious to private contractual obligations, although they may use contract prices to compute tariffs due, or to ensure that the relevant parties have any required import/export licence or meet required quality certification standards.
The EU or UK can promulgate whatever regulations post Brexit they want, but neither can enforce their rulings on he other in the absence of some over-arching agreement between them as to who has jurisdiction in a particular case. Without such agreement, legitimate trade may become impossible.
The UK certainly has a strong position currently regarding the juridical resolution of disputes regarding contracts entered into by parties in various jurisdictions, but why on earth would the EU agree to post Brexit contracts disputes involving EU entities being subject to UK court determination?
The US judicial system may be able to bring the Argentinian government to book because of it's global power and reach. The UK government less so, and the EU will never be taken seriously as a global economic power sans UK if it cannot handle it's own legal "needs".
Continuity be damned. Brexit is all about rupture. Index of Frank's Diaries
Here text a/o Mar 2009, appears to amend the Act to regulate standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables in accordance with EU WTO commitment
Here text a/o Oct 2008 appears to establish a number of facilities for air carriers operating between the "Contracting Parties" not least of which prohibition of discrimination between carriers. And I note with interest Articles 7 and 8 acknowledge the rights of various classes of private parties ("air carrier"), distinguished in Art. 9.
The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 shall not apply to activities which, in the territory of any Contracting Party, are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority. 2. The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action of the Contracting Parties regarding entry, residence and employment or providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
This legislation provides benefits of EU membership. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Let's imagine how BREXIT will affect Aer Lingus business.
No links Aer Lingus Limited provides passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company offers its services from Ireland to the United Kingdom and other Europe, as well as to the United States. It also provides insurance claims management services. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland. Aer Lingus Limited is a subsidiary of Aer Lingus Group DAC.
The company's website says that IAG (International Airlines Group) is the parent company of Aer Lingus, British Airways, Iberia and Vueling. AG is a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London Stock Exchange and Spanish Stock Exchanges, but the corporate head office for IAG is in London, UK. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
On that logic IAG would have to divest itself of its Aer Lingus ownership (only recently acquired) if Aer Lingus is to be able to continue to fly it's Ireland UK routes. IAG CEO, David Walsh (also Irish and ex Aer Lingus) has said that with "policy support", it should be a simple enough to extend "Open Skies" to the UK post Brexit. That may well be the case, and should be an early and easily agreed part of any Brexit deal.
But if there is no Brexit deal? Why would the EU allow the UK cherry pick the things it wants whilst reneging on other obligations? O'Leary is worried it would suit Lufthansa et al just fine to have UK/EU routes shut down for a few months causing greater damage to Ryanair by comparison. It all depends on whether some adults enter the room... Index of Frank's Diaries
Open Skies is an international aviation treaty (Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1992) containing many subdivisions, or regimes, of which the US-EU agreement (2008) granting traffic control, landing rights ("freedoms") to particular commericial and military carriers operating between those states.
But I read in Torygraph that
The Open Skies agreement allows EU airlines, including those registered in the UK, to operate in each other's countries.
As if ECAA legislation (2006) has not regulated EU interstate air traffic and its internal market, e.g. transitional licenses, state monopolies (ANNEX III), and just recently, "third countries and their nationals are not eligible for majority owning or effectively controlling EU carriers" (8 June 2017) to shake those free-trade bushes.
It's clear EC Reg. 2407 can be quite the shareholder's number crunching friend, if it wants to. Congratulations, Swissair/Sabena! First to pass the test.
Mr O'Leary related to Boris? How melodramatically he warned the European Parliament's Transport and Tourism Committee "aviation cannot fall back on World Trade Organisation rules" and that the "only sensible option" was for the British government to "overturn the plebiscite and remain in the EU," or else.
Perhaps he like Walsh at IAG was lobbying for dispensation? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
But his biggest volte face has been in relation to the EU itself. For many years the EU was deemed to be the incarnation of evil, restricting competition between airlines, airports, and ancillary services to the disadvantage of Ryanair, the lowest cost operator in the marketplace. With Brexit, he has suddenly realised (or at least publicly admitted), that without the EU there could have been no Ryanair at all, because it liberalised competition between airlines and airports within the EU.
This has enabled Ryanair to successfully undermine the "high cost" flag carriers, together with their state subsidies, and turn Ryanair into the fifth largest airline in the world, by number of passengers carried. He has revolutionised air travel to/from Ireland, which is, on average, cheaper now than it was 30 years ago, and enabled the rapid growth of the Irish tourist industry.
Brexit represents an existential threat to Ryanair's business model, which is still very heavily based on the UK. I have not seen his central contention challenged, which is that without a Brexit agreement, the UK will no longer be part of "Blue Skies", and without that UK/EU flights will simply cease, as there is no WTO like fall-back position in the event of no deal. He appears concerned that a combination of negotiating incompetence, allied to the interests of his mortal foes, the large EU flag carriers, could allow that seemingly outlandish situation persist for quite some time.
As Airlines plan and publish their schedules 6-12 months in advance, he needs a deal by mid-2018 if he is not to dramatically reduce Ryanair's exposure to the UK/EU market and cut flights to/from there on a wholesale basis and this would put huge pressure on the UK government to come to a deal. I doubt he is joking. Unlike Boris, he has a track record of following through on his threats, and in this case he may have very little option. His comments to the European Parliament were quite moderate and measured by his standards... Unlike Trump, his antics have been calculated to maximise publicity for his airline, and not simply a narcissistic conceit. He means business. Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 14 78 comments
by Oui - Nov 13 20 comments
by ARGeezer - Nov 7 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 5 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 71 comments
by fjallstrom - Oct 31 5 comments
by gmoke - Oct 30 2 comments
by Oui - Nov 152 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 1478 comments
by Oui - Nov 1320 comments
by Oui - Nov 132 comments
by Oui - Nov 9
by Oui - Nov 75 comments
by Oui - Nov 711 comments
by ARGeezer - Nov 773 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 271 comments
by Oui - Nov 14 comments
by Oui - Oct 31
by fjallstrom - Oct 315 comments
by gmoke - Oct 302 comments
by Oui - Oct 29
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2521 comments
by Oui - Oct 243 comments
by Oui - Oct 205 comments
by Oui - Oct 192 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1747 comments
by Oui - Oct 171 comment