UK aviation and BREXIT

There is no reason we have to accept ECJ oversight while remaining wirhin EASA. The ECJ is just a convienience, other options are available and could be used.
Delusional to a fault. There are no other options, none will magically appear just for us and - this is the bit you can't accept, I know - the UK is not asking for any.

So either we crash out without a deal and export the industry along with all the jobs and tax revenue over the next decade, or we get the fix the Tories are currently putting in place and stay in in all but name.
 
Delusional to a fault. There are no other options, none will magically appear just for us and - this is the bit you can't accept, I know - the UK is not asking for any.

So either we crash out without a deal and export the industry along with all the jobs and tax revenue over the next decade, or we get the fix the Tories are currently putting in place and stay in in all but name.

I'll ask you the same question as @Baglock

Cite ECJ rulings with regards EASA.
 
I'll ask you the same question as @Baglock

Cite ECJ rulings with regards EASA.

Why? They're irrelevant to the fact that the UK is currently planning to accept ECJ jurisdiction in this area. If anything that argument supports signing up to something that will make no difference in any material sense.

And you still keep ignoring the fact that right now no-one is offering anything else, no-one is asking for anything else and the issue exists only in your head.
 
Why? They're irrelevant to the fact that the UK is currently planning to accept ECJ jurisdiction in this area. If anything that argument supports signing up to something that will make no difference in any material sense.

And you still keep ignoring the fact that right now no-one is offering anything else, no-one is asking for anything else and the issue exists only in your head.

So you cant cite an example, just keep stating ECJ oversight is a 'must'
Bt of a Cargo Cult you seem to be worshiping there.
 
That's nice. It's not an example of what he asked for however as it's not about EASA.

Why embarrass yourself further?

EU EXTERNAL AVIATION POLICY:

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EU MODEL HORIZONTAL AGREEMENT

This text, in question and answer format, is intended to answer questions arising from examination of the text of the proposed Model Horizontal Agreement (MHA) between the EU and partner States.

1. At the ICAO Assembly in mid-2004, the EU presented a working paper on ownership and control and designation of air carriers.[18] What is the EU objective? If a partner State agrees to this kind of agreement, does it need to conduct additional bilateral negotiations with individual EU Member States? Is a partner State obliged to negotiate a "horizontal" agreement with the European Commission, rather than pursuing the familiar method of bilateral discussions with individual EU Member States?

REPLY:

The main purpose of the EU proposal is to bring all existing bilateral Air Service Agreements (ASAs) into line with European Community law, as defined by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).[19] The intention is to ensure legal certainty and the continued application of those Agreements.

In its ruling, the ECJ – equivalent to a supreme court in the EU context – found that if an ASA permits designation only of companies owned and controlled by nationals of the signatory EU Member State, such discrimination between EU economic operators is in breach of EC law.

Since the issue of non-discrimination between economic operators is one of the basic principles on which the EU Single Market is based, a solution needs to be found as a matter of urgency. Until this is done, any EU carrier may make a legal challenge to the continued application of such agreements; and such a challenge is very likely to succeed. In such a case, the European Commission would find itself obliged to request the denunciation of the bilateral ASA in question.

There are two possible methods for amending existing ASAs.
 
Why embarrass yourself further?

EU EXTERNAL AVIATION POLICY:

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EU MODEL HORIZONTAL AGREEMENT

This text, in question and answer format, is intended to answer questions arising from examination of the text of the proposed Model Horizontal Agreement (MHA) between the EU and partner States.

1. At the ICAO Assembly in mid-2004, the EU presented a working paper on ownership and control and designation of air carriers.[18] What is the EU objective? If a partner State agrees to this kind of agreement, does it need to conduct additional bilateral negotiations with individual EU Member States? Is a partner State obliged to negotiate a "horizontal" agreement with the European Commission, rather than pursuing the familiar method of bilateral discussions with individual EU Member States?

REPLY:

The main purpose of the EU proposal is to bring all existing bilateral Air Service Agreements (ASAs) into line with European Community law, as defined by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).[19] The intention is to ensure legal certainty and the continued application of those Agreements.

In its ruling, the ECJ – equivalent to a supreme court in the EU context – found that if an ASA permits designation only of companies owned and controlled by nationals of the signatory EU Member State, such discrimination between EU economic operators is in breach of EC law.

Since the issue of non-discrimination between economic operators is one of the basic principles on which the EU Single Market is based, a solution needs to be found as a matter of urgency. Until this is done, any EU carrier may make a legal challenge to the continued application of such agreements; and such a challenge is very likely to succeed. In such a case, the European Commission would find itself obliged to request the denunciation of the bilateral ASA in question.

There are two possible methods for amending existing ASAs.
All of which has diddly to do with EASA.

It's internal EU 'non discrimination' business wrangling.

EASA do not agree terms of ASAs, governments do.
 
Adjudicated by the ECJ, obviously.
EU govertments are, obviously. 3rd party governments, no.

The document you cited was about an internal EU business dispute on 'non discrimination' which happened to involve aviation. Nothing to do with EASA.

And despite the ECJs intervention the nation states told them to f off so nations still control ASAs.

International Aviation - Mobility and Transport - European Commission

'EU Member States can still negotiate individual bilateral air services agreements, until the Council grants to the European Commission an authorisation for negotiating a Comprehensive EU Agreement '
 
EU govertments are, obviously. 3rd party governments, no.

The document you cited was about an internal EU business dispute on 'non discrimination' which happened to involve aviation. Nothing to do with EASA.

And despite the ECJs intervention the nation states told them to f off so nations still control ASAs.

International Aviation - Mobility and Transport - European Commission

'EU Member States can still negotiate individual bilateral air services agreements, until the Council grants to the European Commission an authorisation for negotiating a Comprehensive EU Agreement '

If you say so.
 
Which court adjudicates on the responsibilities and duties of the EASA? This is very elementary stuff.
As far as I am aware, none. As the previous poster challenged, can anyone provide a link to any court adjudicating on the EASA?

Clearly the ECJ would be the court that would but given the nature of the industry and the EASA it's vanishingly unlikely they would be called to do so.
 
As far as I am aware, none. As the previous poster challenged, can anyone provide a link to any court adjudicating on the EASA?

Clearly the ECJ would be that court that would but given the nature of the industry and the EASA it's vanishingly unlikely they would be called to do so.

You think the EASA acts outwith the law and an adjudicating court?

Are you serious?
 
You think the EASA acts outwith the law and an adjudicating court?

Are you serious?
No, I think I'm tired of you particular brand of strawman drivel.

You posted a link you clearly didn't read about something you clearly know bugger all about. Find someone elses time to waste with your tedious oneline responses.
 
No, I think I'm tired of you particular brand of strawman drivel.

You posted a link you clearly didn't read about something you clearly know bugger all about. Find someone elses time to waste with your tedious oneline responses.

Thank you for your important comment.
 

Similar threads

Top