reds8n wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.

The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. Under its terms all main UK-based carriers would have reduced access to the US market because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.

One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.

Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.

“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.

Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.

In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.





The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.

There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.

The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.

London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.

Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.

The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.

One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”

Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.

“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.

British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.

The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.

British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.

A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”

The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.

“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”

Does it mean we all have to get up in the morning a swear allegiance to a family that stabbed its way into power hundreds of years ago

Spoiler:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

Cadbury have been forced to halt chocolate production at their Bournville site.

The confectionary giants have been affected by water shortages in the area.

Cadbury insist that the UK’s supply of chocolate will ‘is not immediately impacted’ as they have considerable levels of stock.

 Whirlwind wrote:


The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's

I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.

You're damn right it doesn't make any difference. All I see is elites selecting other elites.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?

It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?

It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.

When I say the government, I mean the unelected ministers appointed by the unelected prime minister. They are the people who direct the civil service to draw up new legislation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Theresa May was elected.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's

How the EU works, in two simple charts (business interests and farmers not included).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Your argument assumes they want to.

In reality, the entire budget of the EU is under 1% of its GDP, The cost of maintaining two parliaments is within the margin of accounting error due to rounding.

If they don't want to, your argument is meaningless.

In a November 2013 resolution, MEPs called for a treaty change to allow Parliament to decide where it sits. Parliament said it would initiate an EU treaty revision procedure to propose the changes needed to allow Parliament itself to decide on the location of its seat and its internal organisation. It would be "more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place", MEPs said.

A 2013 study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million could be saved per year should all EP operations be transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels (2014 prices). This is a significant amount, though it corresponds to just 6% of Parliament’s budget, or 1% of the EU’s administrative budget or just 0.1% of the entire EU budget. In 2014 the Court of Auditors prepared its own, independent analysis in response to the EP’s resolution of 20 November 2013. The Court confirmed the conclusions of the 2013 EP study but arrived at a total expenditure associated with the Strasbourg seat of €109 million per year. A further €5 million could be saved on missions in the budgets of the European Commission and the Council.

The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has amongst most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue (...), especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the member states", said the resolution, which was approved by 483 votes to 141, with 34 abstentions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm sure you didn't vote Leave in order to save the 16 million Euros that the UK pays towards the EU double parliament.

For you to focus on it so strongly makes it seem as if you haven't got a better argument to make.

From a practical angle, 0.1% of the overall budget is not the place I would spend my efforts in reducing waste.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Theresa May was elected as the member for Maidenhead. She was not elected as PM.

May then becomes a member of the European governining structure, the ministers she appoints become memebrs of the council of ministers, and so on.

In other words the governance structure of the EU that you blame for its lack of democratic accountability is actually rather similar to the UK government you praise so much, which isn't actually nearly as democratic as you like to think.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?

It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.

When I say the government, I mean the unelected ministers appointed by the unelected prime minister. They are the people who direct the civil service to draw up new legislation.

We do have private members bills.
..

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not 100 million Euros. It's £14.6 million a year to the UK.

Boris Johnson spent over £40 million on his garden bridge plan.

You should have a go at him if you want to save the country some money.

I'm ignoring the EU parliament problem because it's so tiny it isn't worth spending time on.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Mr Morden

The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.

Claim: The European Union is so corrupt that the European Court of Auditors has not signed off its accounts for 20 years.

Reality Check verdict: The Court of Auditors has signed the EU accounts every year since 2007, while pointing out that EU countries, once they receive the EU funds, misuse about 4.4% of the total budget....

If the auditors do suspect corruption, they pass the cases to OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud office. According to the latest figures provided by the Commission, fraud affects 0.2% of the EU's annual spending. The estimated cost of fraudulent irregularities was €248m in 2013.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Boris is estimated to have wasted as much as £940 million of London taxpayers' money during his time in office.

The list of his failed projects consists of; the new double-decker bus, the Boris bikes, the Arcal-MIttal tower, the Emirate Airline cable-car, and the garden bridge.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/this-is-what-boris-johnson-being-mayor-has-actually-cost-london-10491163.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/18/bridge-940m-bill-boris-johnsons-mayora-vanity-projects-garden-bridge-routemaster-bus