martin_p wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:13 pm
‘My understanding of the Treaty’
You mean what Google has just told you. I suspect you, like me, didn’t know this treaty existed until you read about it in the article above.
Hi martin, there's some truth in what you say, but not all correct.
aggi posted the Guardian link and made a comment connecting the proposed EU-UK trade deal with the Channel Tunnel.
So, I took a look at the Guardian article and read the following:
Boris Johnson is facing a major Brexit test with the future of Eurotunnel operations at stake, it has emerged.
The EU wants the UK to drop its opposition to a role for the European court of justice in British affairs to ensure trains keep running between France and the UK after Brexit is implemented on 1 January.
The European commission has this week asked the European parliament and the European council to officially mandate France to urgently negotiate a new bilateral deal with the UK giving the ECJ the powers to resolve future disputes between the two countries as “union law would not longer be applicable to the part of the channel fixed link under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom” after Brexit.
Unless there is an overarching deal with one body responsible for legal disputes regarding the entire 30-mile (50km) tunnel there will be chaos, insiders say.
“It would mean train drivers would have to have two sets of qualifications to drive on the British and French side of the tunnel. It would affect how you operate the tunnel with potential for divergence in the future on everything from signalling, voltage, the radio systems, the signalling system, ventilation, hydraulics. It would be like driving on the left- and right-hand side of the road at the same time,” said a source.
The EU’s plan to keep the ECJ as an arbiter in disputes will be anathema to Downing Street.
I found this interesting and wondered why these things would be the case.
I posted my reply to aggi. The Canterbury Treaty is mentioned in the Guardian article - though at that stage I only asked aggi why EU needed ECJ to govern that bilateral treaty - which existed before Maastricht Treaty. It didn't appear logical to me, or necessary. Certainly nothing to do with trading agreements.
Then aggi responded. He mentioned the (short) length of the Canterbury Treaty and the Concession Agreement. So, it was at that stage that I used google to find copies of both those documents and that's when I read them. Having read them I could confirm that ECJ has a very minor role in the Canterbury Treaty - limited to being a backup to the appointment of the chairman of an arbitration panel, if one is required according to the agreement. Similarly, EU (Community) Law is only relevant to the extent that it has been incorporated in national law.
Did google "tell me" this? or did google merely help my find copies of the agreements?
I'll give you this: it's a pity the Guardian journalist didn't show the knowledge that they could have obtained by reading the CT and CA. If they had done - and assuming their statement about what the EU commission was mandating France to urgently do.... maybe the article would be about why was the EU commission taking that approach? Maybe they would have asked what is the connection between the UK leaving the EU and the Channel Tunnel Treaty and Concession Agreement...
As for the concern that "train drivers would have to have two sets of qualifications...." I'd hope that the train drivers are already trained and qualified to perform their duties all the way from St Pancras to Gare du Nord. Just like we all expect that the drivers, whatever they are driving, are properly qualified to drive safely in both the UK and in countries that drive on the other side of the road.
I am old enough to recall the signing of an agreement between UK and France to give the Channel Tunnel the "go ahead." Yes, I'd need to rely on a little research to add details to me memories. That's allowed, isn't it?