akerosid
10th Sep 2003, 03:06
According to this week's Flight (p15), the EU is to adopt a new approach to bilateral negotiations, starting with the US, which would allow individual nations to open negotiations and to be subject to EU audit powers. The EU recognises that with over 2,100 bilaterals in places, it would be impossible for it to negotiate all bilaterals.
The question is, how does this square with the ECJ case last year against countries which had concluded bilaterals. If the court says that negotiating power rests with the EU, then can the commission hand the negotiating power back to individual countries? How effective will this audit power be? In practical terms, it will probably mean that those bilaterals also negotiated will stay in place, but those not yet concluded will continue - i.e. Ireland and the UK. In the UK's case, how will the right of all EU carriers (in theory) to operate flights from LHR to the US be accommodated?
It all sounds a bit messy and the EU also wants to consider emissions and US protectionist policies (such as Fly American and various other policies). It's difficult to understand this, in that one of the big benefits of one EU negotiating team was that the US couldn't play one state against the other. This seems a retrograde step.
The question is, how does this square with the ECJ case last year against countries which had concluded bilaterals. If the court says that negotiating power rests with the EU, then can the commission hand the negotiating power back to individual countries? How effective will this audit power be? In practical terms, it will probably mean that those bilaterals also negotiated will stay in place, but those not yet concluded will continue - i.e. Ireland and the UK. In the UK's case, how will the right of all EU carriers (in theory) to operate flights from LHR to the US be accommodated?
It all sounds a bit messy and the EU also wants to consider emissions and US protectionist policies (such as Fly American and various other policies). It's difficult to understand this, in that one of the big benefits of one EU negotiating team was that the US couldn't play one state against the other. This seems a retrograde step.