Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Ah yes, but laws change. I have never been in doubt that, under its current leadership, the UK would secure the worst imaginable form of brexit, "no deal", which would cast us into almot instant penury.

At which point most of the tory front bench will simply decamp to enjoy their ill-gotten gains in the second homes in Florida or France.

They are only intersted in profit. The state of the UK will not matter to them in the slightest, their view being "turn the lights off and shut the door behind you" as they leave.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 02:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can understand your apprehensions. These are reasonable to the extent that anyone is able or willing to comprehend the procedural rules advanced by the EU, rather than the gov't of UK. 29 Mar 2019, the withdrawal date, is not a terminal to me though. It is the end of the old trade union; it is the beginning of the trade relationship the UK gov't. indeed seeks.

Disposing of old obligations before establishing new ones is "fitting and proper". The many digits given to a "future relationships" are wasted now, disingenuous on its face and possibly malicious.

I take some consolation in my expectation that if EU's agents err in negotiation, they will do so on the side of zealous enforcement or misplaced precision of duties (as  in the case of GREEK debt service), rather than the remedy.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 03:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As of now, the UK is out of the EU on 1/4/2019 and there is no agreement as to what happens afterwards, not even a continuation of the "blue skies" agreement under which there are no restrictions on flights between the EU and UK and vice versa.

So unless one posits the supposition that the adults will take over the discussions at some stage, there will be no flights, and possibly no trade between the EU and UK from that date as Customs officials may not have any directive as to whether they should "clear" goods in transit across the EU/UK border, and if so, what tariffs they should apply.

So we are moving towards a game of chicken, where the objective is to see who blinks first at this "appalling vista," to borrow a phrase. There are many enough economic interests amongst EU and UK industries who would welcome the exclusion of their counterparts and competitors from their respective markets.  

So it is not a slam dunk, open and shut case that such a scenario will be avoided.  Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, who has lately been talking a surprising amount of sense has been warning of precisely such an outcome.

Michel Barnier, chief EU negotiator, has said from the outset that there are no winners from Brexit, and that the best we can do is damage limitation.  Unfortunately, there is no guarantee we will succeed in doing even that.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 04:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not a true representation of the EU declarations of existing, controlling laws or its position on retroactive application of EU law after 29 March 2014. (1) UK persons are still members of EU jurisdiction, today and until 29 March 2019. (2) UK withdrawal does not per se extinguish private party contractual obligations.

"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. ...


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.

by Cat on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 05:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing I've said above applies to private contracts between private parties.  However even if an airline has a "contract" to fly from London to Berlin, it cannot do so in the absence of the "Blue Skies" agreement or some successor.

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

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 05:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that European Common Aviation Area by another name?

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.

by Cat on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 06:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alrighty then!

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.

by Cat on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 06:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Michael O'Leary, an airline has to be majority owned by EU citizens to qualify for access under Blue Skies.  As a significant part of the Ryanair shareholder base is UK based, Ryanair will fall below 50% EU ownership when Brexit happens.  He is busy preparing plans to buy back British owned Ryanair shares to ensure Ryanair remains 50% EU owned.  

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

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 at 07:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FT says O'Leary is an "outspoken critic" of Aer Lingus, too. But I don't suppose, because he's strong on unions contracts.

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.

by Cat on Fri Aug 25th, 2017 at 02:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For many years, Michael O'Leary has been Ireland's answer to Donald Trump who has realised he can get more free publicity through outrageous behaviour than he can ever hope to buy with his airline's measly advertising budget. In more recent times he has finally realised that you can be cheap without having to be nasty, although that has not diminished his hostility to trade unions.

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 (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Aug 25th, 2017 at 10:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series