It's not just about Brexit

[aggi]

It was actually based on tax evasion that's what the 25% figure stated, it's absolutely rife people working cash in hand, so you've got the illegal immigrants here which is a uncertain but high number, you've potentially got taxi drivers, near enough every service offered on Facebook again file under potential, mobile hairdressers, gardeners, window cleaners, odd-job men, ect ect, are you trying to suggest people earning money declare all their earnings to the taxman when the taxman isn't even aware that the people are earning money, I actually think 25% is too low I'd legitimately argue far higher I'd also legitimately argue the illegal immigrants are far higher than the estimates suggest, there's a very good reason people are absolutely desperate to settle within the UK & let me reassure you it's isn't for our weather.

So virtually all of those people you list are self-employed, approx 12% of the workforce. Are they doing it so much that it counts double?

Unemployment figures are very low so they can't be not earning at all.

[Devils_Advocate]

This is where you and I differ about what is reasonable and what is not.

Proposition: that the UK side opf the Channel Tunnel link should operate under EU law.

On the one side, we have the EU who say that their law says this cannot happen, full stop, end of. This is considered by you to be fair and reasonable and prgamatic.

On the other side, we have the UK who say that our law says this cannot happen. And you say that this is hard Brexiters putting ideology over what's best for us.

Don't you think that the view that UK laws must take precedence on UK soil is at least as valid as that view that EU laws must take precedence on UK soil?

Incidentally, I;m still interested in what they did when Estonia joined the EU. According to you, there is no way the EU could accept a railway line crossing an EU border could be operated other than under EU rules. If that's true then what happened with the line from Estonia to Russia? Did Russia accept that Estonian law takes precedence?

You are still completely misunderstanding the situation and whilst we can disagree you first need to understand the issue before you can disagree on it

"Proposition: that the UK side opf the Channel Tunnel link should operate under EU law."

This is not the proposition at all. The EU are not asking the UK to operate their side of the tunnel under EU law. There will be a legal agreement that both parties have to agree to that will have all the rules, regs, standards etc the both must meet as operators. If you are still struggling to understand think of this agreement like a trade deal. If we sign a deal with Japan we will not be operating under Japanese law or them under ours but we will have agreed legal terms that satisfy both sides.

Im not going to repeat for a third time why the role of the arbitrator is so complex and the key to this issue unless you can first grasp the basic premise stated above.Let me know when you understand that the issue isnt regarding either side operating under the others laws and I'll see if I can explain the next bit (which is the crux of the matter) around arbitration, the ECJ and EU law.

Im sure you'll still disagree with me but it would be nice to get you to be disagreeing about the actual problem and not some misunderstood version that doesnt really exist

[evensteadiereddie]

Tony deemed your groundless vile comments about my son , poisonous enough to be deleted.

End of.

Now troll along. Or stick to what your apparently best at. Starting unusual, if not creepy, threads about inappropriate Audi adverts. (Why post that on a football messageboard?)

It's "you're" not "your"...

"Poisonous" ! To be honest, I reckon Tony just got sick of your usual bickering. Again.


An "unusual, if not creepy" post about a potentially inappropriate Audi advert which quite a few posters discussed in some depth, some believing it was a little iffy, others not seeing a problem ? Aye, OK.

My God, your humiliation re your inability to prove that racism and sexism is rife in our schools and holding white, working-class boys back and, even worse, you not being bothered enough to do do anything about it, has really, really hurt you, hasn't it ?

You were wrong in the first instance and your subsequent inaction is still difficult to fathom.

Anyway, dry your eyes, mate, and move on. Everybody else has.

[NewClaret]

Can’t we just close the tunnel? Brexit isn’t Brexit with a tunnel.

[martin_p]

It's "you're" not "your"...

"Poisonous" ! To be honest, I reckon Tony just got sick of your usual bickering. Again.


An "unusual, if not creepy" post about a potentially inappropriate Audi advert which quite a few posters discussed in some depth, some believing it was a little iffy, others not seeing a problem ? Aye, OK.

My God, your humiliation re your inability to prove that racism and sexism is rife in our schools and holding white, working-class boys back and, even worse, you not being bothered enough to do do anything about it, has really, really hurt you, hasn't it ?

You were wrong in the first instance and your subsequent inaction is still difficult to fathom.

Anyway, dry your eyes, mate, and move on. Everybody else has.

It’s probably time for both of you to put this one to bed. Let’s not get another thread closed eh?

[Jakubclaret]

So virtually all of those people you list are self-employed, approx 12% of the workforce. Are they doing it so much that it counts double?

Unemployment figures are very low so they can't be not earning at all.

I’m not questioning the unemployment figures nor whether they are raising sufficient income. You’ve got all walks of society earning a crust some honestly some dishonestly I feel as if we could potentially be straying off course here, nobody is right nobody is wrong here as it’s absolutely impossible to be 100% accurate on the figures, the only way to determine it would be to obtain the complete whole figures for the illegal immigrants here (home office don’t even know what chance do we have) & also to obtain a complete whole figure for everybody earning cash in hand & evading any taxable income, both scenarios are impossible to establish with any accuracy statistically.

[evensteadiereddie]

It’s probably time for both of you to put this one to bed. Let’s not get another thread closed eh?

Absolutely right ; the guy dragged the lie up on a previous page for some reason and I've just used my right of reply to show how much of a failure he is and in so many ways.

Job done.

We move on.

[KateR]

You are still completely misunderstanding the situation and whilst we can disagree you first need to understand the issue before you can disagree on it

"Proposition: that the UK side opf the Channel Tunnel link should operate under EU law."

This is not the proposition at all. The EU are not asking the UK to operate their side of the tunnel under EU law. There will be a legal agreement that both parties have to agree to that will have all the rules, regs, standards etc the both must meet as operators. If you are still struggling to understand think of this agreement like a trade deal. If we sign a deal with Japan we will not be operating under Japanese law or them under ours but we will have agreed legal terms that satisfy both sides.

Im not going to repeat for a third time why the role of the arbitrator is so complex and the key to this issue unless you can first grasp the basic premise stated above.Let me know when you understand that the issue isnt regarding either side operating under the others laws and I'll see if I can explain the next bit (which is the crux of the matter) around arbitration, the ECJ and EU law.

Im sure you'll still disagree with me but it would be nice to get you to be disagreeing about the actual problem and not some misunderstood version that doesnt really exist

I would like to hear your views on arbitration since I have never seen any business deal in the last few decades fail to happen because of an arbitration clause.

[Devils_Advocate]

I would like to hear your views on arbitration since I have never seen any business deal in the last few decades fail to happen because of an arbitration clause.

This is a little more than a business deal but if you look at my two previous posts on this subject in this thread you will see what my understanding is of the situation relating to the Channel Tunnel post transition period.

Edit: Sorry, my post comes across as a little short but I welcome your views and input

[KateR]

This is a little more than a business deal but if you look at my two previous posts on this subject in this thread you will see what my understanding is of the situation relating to the Channel Tunnel post transition period.

Edit: Sorry, my post comes across as a little short but I welcome your views and input

yes it is somewhat more complicated than a normal business deal. However arbitration works the same and in fact you do not even need an arbitration clause but that means you become subject to Litigation in disputes and when you don't make adequate provision then the the litigation will take place in the "seat" of those bringing the case. Litigation is something most people don't want, law becomes that of the seat, court appointed judges and usually more costly.

I certainly do not know the in's and out's of this particular chunnel discussion, however on most cross border contracts it is normal to go to the International Court of arbitration and select your rule of law, certainly when looking at pipelines that cross numerous borders for example, they solve rule of law because no one country wants to accept the next countries law, if the issue is within their own territory. 160 Countries are signed up to International Arbitration and in fact "The Contract" rule of law usually defaults to the rule of Arbitration Law so if the parties agreed they could select a neutral venue and even law. It would be interesting to understand what the "Contract" Law is and as you pointed out it is clear neither part will apply the others law as to how they operate within their own territory but one can assume it was under the EU Law. Therefore the contract in and of itself may also need to be reworded/agreed in terms of Contract Law, which would be a larger problem than agreeing arbitration.

However, I have been following the various discussions and thoughts here before asking the question, my real belief is that it is nothing more than posturing and will be resolved without issue. Arbitration is usually held by a panel of three, each party allocates one and the third, who is chairman is through a mutual selection from a neutral source.

Below is an example of how it gets complicated. Yet I find it odd to believe that English Law and the EU (French) Law through ECJ will differ that much, also an arbitration hearing will never be heard through ECJ, as arbitration is not in the courts in reality but it is either English Law or European Law that is applied to the hearing. Home advantage is often considered a bonus, so London or Paris but many will state it is not, there are only a few cities considered to be fit for selection in any international arbitration hearing.

Many follow the outline below:
The test laid out in Sulamérica for deciding the law applicable to an arbitration agreement (in order of priority) is as follows:

1) Is there an express choice, if not;
2) Is there an implied choice, if not;
3) What is the law under which the [arbitration] agreement has the closest and most real connection.

This test was applied in the case of Arsanovia Ltd & Ors v Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702 (Comm) in circumstances where the parties had expressly chosen Indian law to govern the underlying contract and London as the seat of arbitration provision. In this case, debate centred upon the relative significance of the (Indian) governing law clause compared to the (London) seat of arbitration when determining the law of an arbitration agreement. The court found that on the facts the parties had intended that Indian law should apply.

[RingoMcCartney]

It's "you're" not "your"...

"Poisonous" ! To be honest, I reckon Tony just got sick of your usual bickering. Again.


An "unusual, if not creepy" post about a potentially inappropriate Audi advert which quite a few posters discussed in some depth, some believing it was a little iffy, others not seeing a problem ? Aye, OK.

My God, your humiliation re your inability to prove that racism and sexism is rife in our schools and holding white, working-class boys back and, even worse, you not being bothered enough to do do anything about it, has really, really hurt you, hasn't it ?

You were wrong in the first instance and your subsequent inaction is still difficult to fathom.

Anyway, dry your eyes, mate, and move on. Everybody else has.

Troll along you attention craving freak.

[Devils_Advocate]

First I agree with you that a way/compromise will be found although I disagree that it is just posturing. I appreciate your input and Im not going to try th get into the level of detail on arbitration as this isnt my point so happy to accept what you say.

The issue (as I see it) that is being highlighted is that EU case law states that the EU cannot enter into an agreement where a legal dispute could lead to a binding decision being made by a non EU body that conflicts with current EU law

As per your detailed explanation of arbitration the many standard approaches that are usually taken (and centre around International law) could potentially result in EU law being amended by a non EU body.

An example might be if there was a dispute on the interpretation of a clause around minimum safety standards and the UK's position took safety standards below what the EU legislates as being legal minimum limit then if the UK won then this would force EU law to change

This is where the conflict lies and if the EU agreed a treaty/contract/agreement with the UK where the ECJ did not have the final say on legal disputes then from a EU perspective the contract wouldnt be worth the paper it was written on. Any challenge of any sort to the agreement (within the EU) would win on EU case law simply because of what Ive explained above

The question is how does the EU get round this as like we both seem to agree there is not likely to be any disputes or contention but nevertheless its a legal problem on the EU side

A simple solution would be just to allow the ECJ to be the arbitrator but even though in practice this would not have any impact on the UK the politics around Brexit with out govt has become very ideological.

I hope you can make sense of this as I find it tricky to explain in written form but basically its not the rules and laws and standard practices around arbitration that im disputing but just trying to show that a quirky conflict between these usual practices and EU law has been thrown up and when you add the UKs ideological stance (whether its right or wrong) into the mix then we seem to have hit an impasse

To end as I started I am sure something can be worked through and its not as black and white as it seems to me at the moment but I'll be interested to see how this all plays out

[KateR]

First I agree with you that a way/compromise will be found although I disagree that it is just posturing. I appreciate your input and Im not going to try th get into the level of detail on arbitration as this isnt my point so happy to accept what you say.

The issue (as I see it) that is being highlighted is that EU case law states that the EU cannot enter into an agreement where a legal dispute could lead to a binding decision being made by a non EU body that conflicts with current EU law

As per your detailed explanation of arbitration the many standard approaches that are usually taken (and centre around International law) could potentially result in EU law being amended by a non EU body.

To end as I started I am sure something can be worked through and its not as black and white as it seems to me at the moment but I'll be interested to see how this all plays out

definitely not black and white, nothing regarding law appears to be beyond what we know is wrong and a criminal offence.

For me the easiest way to look at this is "will this stop the chunnel operating"? For me an emphatic no, business will continue and each party will work it's side under the rules of law pertaining to each side of the border. One thing to remember is that if you buy travel packages then in your fine print there will information regarding arbitration should you have any dispute so it's not an unusual element. I am sure Air France and the like operate under EU law, however do they have the right to arbitration with say Russia/China/USA, they probably do but if it is in regard to one of their planes for example in one of those countries, then arbitration is unlikely to be under EU Law in Paris, for KLM in the Hague, or BA in London.

International arbitration would never alter/amend any jurisdiction law, however France and UK could agree to use USA Law for any dispute that goes to arbitration and agree to those findings, which would be independent from any actual court as we understand it. It would be via an independent arbitration panel, perhaps a UK rep, A French rep and a US Chairperson which both sides agree to. NO actual laws would ever be changed in UK/EU due to arbitration but the arbitration ruling would be final in it's findings.

Totally agree on it being interesting to see how it unfolds.

Additionally, I would imagine this issue of arbitration is being played out across thousands of companies, as a group in the EU with UK counterparts, where previously the arbitration law would have been easy under EU Laws as outlined be ECJ.

[dsr]

You are still completely misunderstanding the situation and whilst we can disagree you first need to understand the issue before you can disagree on it

"Proposition: that the UK side opf the Channel Tunnel link should operate under EU law."

This is not the proposition at all. The EU are not asking the UK to operate their side of the tunnel under EU law. There will be a legal agreement that both parties have to agree to that will have all the rules, regs, standards etc the both must meet as operators. If you are still struggling to understand think of this agreement like a trade deal. If we sign a deal with Japan we will not be operating under Japanese law or them under ours but we will have agreed legal terms that satisfy both sides.

Im not going to repeat for a third time why the role of the arbitrator is so complex and the key to this issue unless you can first grasp the basic premise stated above.Let me know when you understand that the issue isnt regarding either side operating under the others laws and I'll see if I can explain the next bit (which is the crux of the matter) around arbitration, the ECJ and EU law.

Im sure you'll still disagree with me but it would be nice to get you to be disagreeing about the actual problem and not some misunderstood version that doesnt really exist

So to repeat - did Russia agree to ECJ arbitration with the Estonia-Russia railway line? If not, doesn't that destroy all your arguments? Or is the line between Estonia and Russia entirely different from the line between France and England?

[Devils_Advocate]

International arbitration would never alter/amend any jurisdiction law

But it could do if it interprets a dispute in the contact which results in the channel tunnel operating to standards that fall below standard EU law.

Just this possibility puts the EU in direct conflict with their own case law if they were to agree to international arbitration and this needs to be squared somehow.

[Devils_Advocate]

So to repeat - did Russia agree to ECJ arbitration with the Estonia-Russia railway line? If not, doesn't that destroy all your arguments? Or is the line between Estonia and Russia entirely different from the line between France and England?

I'll come to that when we make it past stage 1. So do you finally except that the issue in question is not that the EU wants the UK to operate under their law for the channel tunnel or do you accept that this will be based on a mutual legal agreement that both parties agree to?

[dsr]

I'll come to that when we make it past stage 1. So do you finally except that the issue in question is not that the EU wants the UK to operate under their law for the channel tunnel or do you accept that this will be based on a mutual legal agreement that both parties agree to?

The EU wants the rule of the Eurolink line to be subject to ECJ arbitration in case of legal argument.

So what about Estonia and Russia?

[martin_p]

So to repeat - did Russia agree to ECJ arbitration with the Estonia-Russia railway line? If not, doesn't that destroy all your arguments? Or is the line between Estonia and Russia entirely different from the line between France and England?

Yes, there’s a border post that the train stops at for passport checks etc. for a start. The Channel Tunnel and the lines within it are owned by a private company that I believe is based in Europe.

[dsr]

Yes, there’s a border post that the train stops at for passport checks etc. for a start. The Channel Tunnel and the lines within it are owned by a private company that I believe is based in Europe.

I dare say the carriages are a different colour too. None of those points have anything to do with which court should be the ultimate arbiter.

[martin_p]

I dare say the carriages are a different colour too. None of those points have anything to do with which court should be the ultimate arbiter.

But there’s no need for arbitration on the Russia Estonia border. They both operate their own lines on their own side of the border. The Channel Tunnel company (forget it’s name) operates a line that crosses a border, hence the need for arbitration in the event of dispute on that stretch of line.

[Devils_Advocate]

The EU wants the rule of the Eurolink line to be subject to ECJ arbitration in case of legal argument.

So what about Estonia and Russia?

Thank you and now happy to discuss Estonia and Russia.

First of all you need to show/explain to me where Russian trains are allowed to operate on the Estonian side of the border in a way that conflicts EU law and explain what joint agreements are in place that might result in a legal dispute where a 3rd party could enforce a change on the EU side against their wishes

Im not discounting what you say and that you might have a point that challenges my argument about the Channel Tunnel situation but this is an area I know nothing about so youre gonna need to state the situation and issue like I have done around the channel tunnel issue so that I can look in to and consider

[dsr]

Getlink.

But at least one company runs trains right across the border. Doesn't the EU have a system for arbitration there?

[martin_p]

Getlink.

But at least one company runs trains right across the border. Doesn't the EU have a system for arbitration there?

It’s not about the trains it’s about the line. The trains go beyond the limits of the tunnel on both sides of the channel anyway. Why would you need to arbitrate over trains? They either run on the line or don’t.

[dsr]

Thank you and now happy to discuss Estonia and Russia.

First of all you need to show/explain to me where Russian trains are allowed to operate on the Estonian side of the border in a way that conflicts EU law and explain what joint agreements are in place that might result in a legal dispute where a 3rd party could enforce a change on the EU side against their wishes

Im not discounting what you say and that you might have a point that challenges my argument about the Channel Tunnel situation but this is an area I know nothing about so youre gonna need to state the situation and issue like I have done around the channel tunnel issue so that I can look in to and consider

I can answer the first question easily. There is no country, anywhere in the world, where it is legal to do what is illegal. So there is not now, and never will be, a situation whereby Russian trains in Estonia are allowed under EU law in a way that conflicts EU law.

Trains run from Moscow to Tallinn. That could give rise to disputes.

[dsr]

It’s not about the trains it’s about the line. The trains go beyond the limits of the tunnel on both sides of the channel anyway. Why would you need to arbitrate over trains? They either run on the line or don’t.

And the same with the tunnel. It's either open or it's shut.

The whole point of arbitration is that if the parties to the agreement can't agree, someone else will make the decision. Obviously with both the tunnel and the trains, one government or other could say "that's it, we're not allowing them to run" and the whole thing grinds to a halt, literally. That's why there is arbitration, to get things moving again.

[martin_p]

I can answer the first question easily. There is no country, anywhere in the world, where it is legal to do what is illegal. So there is not now, and never will be, a situation whereby Russian trains in Estonia are allowed under EU law in a way that conflicts EU law.

Trains run from Moscow to Tallinn. That could give rise to disputes.

No it couldn’t. If there’s some EU standard that a train doesn’t comply with it won’t be allowed in the EU. No dispute. But again, the tunnel arbitration issue is about the line not the trains.

[martin_p]

And the same with the tunnel. It's either open or it's shut.

The whole point of arbitration is that if the parties to the agreement can't agree, someone else will make the decision. Obviously with both the tunnel and the trains, one government or other could say "that's it, we're not allowing them to run" and the whole thing grinds to a halt, literally. That's why there is arbitration, to get things moving again.

No, you still don’t understand the issue here. It’s not about the trains.

[dsr]

No, you still don’t understand the issue here. It’s not about the trains.

Are you saying that if a private company owns a railway track running between the EU and an independent country it is necessary to have an arbitration agreement, but if it's running a railway train there isn't any need for an arbitration agreement?

[martin_p]

Are you saying that if a private company owns a railway track running between the EU and an independent country it is necessary to have an arbitration agreement, but if it's running a railway train there isn't any need for an arbitration agreement?

In a word, yes!

Edit, especially if it’s 200 feet below the sea!

[KateR]

But there’s no need for arbitration on the Russia Estonia border. They both operate their own lines on their own side of the border. The Channel Tunnel company (forget it’s name) operates a line that crosses a border, hence the need for arbitration in the event of dispute on that stretch of line.

Owner Getlink HOWEVER, this was a 55 Year Lease from the UK & French Gov's starting 1994.
Operator DB Cargo UK, Eurostar, Getlink

However, the lease has been extended on more than one occasion and now finishes 2086.

The Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber has been used previously, which gives a good clue as to where it was previously in terms of arbitration.

IGC operates, or operated as the regulator to ensure compliance etc. between owner and operator, IGC's role may well be under review from the UK as everything that side is Euro centric.

On 31 December 2009, Eurostar (U.K.) Ltd changed its name to Eurostar International Ltd and on 1 September 2010, we completed the legal transformation to become one unified business owned by three shareholders: SNCF (55%), SNCB (5%) and LCR (40%). LCR’s holding was transferred to the Treasury in June 2014. In May 2015, the UK government completed the sale of its 40% share to a consortium made up of two companies: Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (CDPQ) and Hermes Infrastructure.

Given the above I can see nothing but arbitration being under ECJ and in Paris, but have only scratched the surface.

Below is just some additional info
The Channel Tunnel (often called the 'Chunnel' for short) is an undersea tunnel linking southern England and northern France. It is operated by the company Getlink, who also run a railway shuttle (Le Shuttle) between Folkestone and Calais, carrying passengers in cars, vans and other vehicles.

Eurostar is a totally separate company and is Getlink’s biggest customer, running high-speed passenger services through the Channel Tunnel between London and a number of other European cities on the continent, including Paris, Brussels, Lille, Lyon, Avignon and Marseille.

The Chunnel is actually comprised of three tunnels: two rail tunnels, used for freight and passenger trains, and a service tunnel.

[evensteadiereddie]

Troll along you attention craving freak.

Are those real tears ?

I know you've been humiliated, mate, and much of it self-inflicted but please drop this embarrassing nonsense.

You were shown up, we get it.

You really do need to move on and let the genuine posters speak.

[JohnMcGreal]

Are you saying that if a private company owns a railway track running between the EU and an independent country it is necessary to have an arbitration agreement, but if it's running a railway train there isn't any need for an arbitration agreement?

Come on, dsr. It's a bit insulting to suggest that EU member states are not independent countries.

[dsr]

Come on, dsr. It's a bit insulting to suggest that EU member states are not independent countries.

They're not independent of the EU.

[JohnMcGreal]

They're not independent of the EU.

But the member states are the EU. So does that mean that they're not independent of...themselves?

[aggi]

I’m not questioning the unemployment figures nor whether they are raising sufficient income. You’ve got all walks of society earning a crust some honestly some dishonestly I feel as if we could potentially be straying off course here, nobody is right nobody is wrong here as it’s absolutely impossible to be 100% accurate on the figures, the only way to determine it would be to obtain the complete whole figures for the illegal immigrants here (home office don’t even know what chance do we have) & also to obtain a complete whole figure for everybody earning cash in hand & evading any taxable income, both scenarios are impossible to establish with any accuracy statistically.

Well you can't establish it with deadly accuracy statistically but you can look at all of the available information and take a good guess at what is realistic.

That's the point, you like to pluck a wild figure and say "well it could be right, no-one knows" but once you factor in x, y and z then it is incredibly unlikely.

This is really just a microcosm of the whole Brexit debate where uneducated statements that "feel" right are given excessive weight regardless of whether they bear any resemblance to the facts.

[aggi]

But the member states are the EU. So does that mean that they're not independent of...themselves?

Have you learnt nothing? The EU is an entirely separate entity from its member states and does whatever it wants regardless of what the members want. That's what happens when unelected politicians rule Europe!

[Jakubclaret]

Well you can't establish it with deadly accuracy statistically but you can look at all of the available information and take a good guess at what is realistic.

That's the point, you like to pluck a wild figure and say "well it could be right, no-one knows" but once you factor in x, y and z then it is incredibly unlikely.

This is really just a microcosm of the whole Brexit debate where uneducated statements that "feel" right are given excessive weight regardless of whether they bear any resemblance to the facts.

In reality though that doesn't really stand up scrunity as so far regarding brexit I've been right far more times than I've been wrong & I think if you was to really analyse what's been said you would begrudgingly admit this despite disagreeing from an entrenched remain point of view, I've always maintained let's wait & see & let's make an informed opinion when somethings been allowed to develop as opposed to some opinions on here that made hasty & ill informed opinions without even looking at what's happening in the wider world nevermind the UK in isolation.

[Guller Bull]

Wow you guys should work in Brussels!

but on the upside you are just slack jawing on a footie messageboard and not getting paid thousands of pounds an hour for your nit picking bllx

[KateR]

Am sure the EU member states are fully aligned and are one big happy family, all singing form the same hymn sheet and no internal squabbles.

The row over border checks covering a planned direct rail link between Amsterdam and London is costing the operator of the Channel Tunnel millions of euros each quarter, its chief executive has said.

Jacques Gounon, chief executive of Getlink, the company formerly known as Eurotunnel, said that the impasse over controls affecting Eurostar passengers at the border between the Netherlands and Belgium had cost the company between €2 million and €3 million of lost revenue per quarter.

[martin_p]

Am sure the EU member states are fully aligned and are one big happy family, all singing form the same hymn sheet and no internal squabbles.

The row over border checks covering a planned direct rail link between Amsterdam and London is costing the operator of the Channel Tunnel millions of euros each quarter, its chief executive has said.

Jacques Gounon, chief executive of Getlink, the company formerly known as Eurotunnel, said that the impasse over controls affecting Eurostar passengers at the border between the Netherlands and Belgium had cost the company between €2 million and €3 million of lost revenue per quarter.

Who was the row between? The border checks are necessary because the train is going to the uk which isn’t in the Schengen Area.

[aggi]

Who was the row between? The border checks are necessary because the train is going to the uk which isn’t in the Schengen Area.

The Dutch Government were refusing to sign off it seems. Interesting conspiracy theory is that it's because they're worried about the impact on passenger numbers at Schipol airport (which is majority owned by the Dutch government)

[aggi]

In reality though that doesn't really stand up scrunity as so far regarding brexit I've been right far more times than I've been wrong & I think if you was to really analyse what's been said you would begrudgingly admit this despite disagreeing from an entrenched remain point of view, I've always maintained let's wait & see & let's make an informed opinion when somethings been allowed to develop as opposed to some opinions on here that made hasty & ill informed opinions without even looking at what's happening in the wider world nevermind the UK in isolation.

I'd suggested that randomly plucking stuff out of the air, as you are wont to do, and ignoring the facts is more indicative of an ill informed opinion.

As I say, this was just a convenient example of the bigger situation, you couldn't argue against any of the figures or the actual reality of the situation, so you just ignored them.

[KateR]

Who was the row between? The border checks are necessary because the train is going to the uk which isn’t in the Schengen Area.

I thought my writing was clear, the dispute is between Netherlands and Belgium, nothing to do with UK.

[martin_p]

I thought my writing was clear, the dispute is between Netherlands and Belgium, nothing to do with UK.

I saw your words but am still confused. The issue was that there was no agreement to do U.K. border checks in Amsterdam like there is in Paris and Brussels so the Eurostar from Amsterdam had to stop in Brussels for border and security checks. I’m not sure why Belgium would be involved in an agreement between the U.K. and the Netherlands over U.K. border checks, hence the confusion. I haven’t followed the story so I’m happy to be corrected. From what aggi says it sounds like the Netherlands had delayed signing an agreement over worries about the impact on airport traffic.

[aggi]

I saw your words but am still confused. The issue was that there was no agreement to do U.K. border checks in Amsterdam like there is in Paris and Brussels so the Eurostar from Amsterdam had to stop in Brussels for border and security checks. I’m not sure why Belgium would be involved in an agreement between the U.K. and the Netherlands over U.K. border checks, hence the confusion. I haven’t followed the story so I’m happy to be corrected. From what aggi says it sounds like the Netherlands had delayed signing an agreement over worries about the impact on airport traffic.

I think the big question is how do they do it in Estonia?

[Paul Waine]

I saw your words but am still confused. The issue was that there was no agreement to do U.K. border checks in Amsterdam like there is in Paris and Brussels so the Eurostar from Amsterdam had to stop in Brussels for border and security checks. I’m not sure why Belgium would be involved in an agreement between the U.K. and the Netherlands over U.K. border checks, hence the confusion. I haven’t followed the story so I’m happy to be corrected. From what aggi says it sounds like the Netherlands had delayed signing an agreement over worries about the impact on airport traffic.

Here you go, martin. Details of new treatises signed between UK, France, Belgium and Netherlands - announced by UK gov't on 7th July 2020.

New Eurostar treaties open up direct travel from Amsterdam to London

New treaties signed today make direct train services from Amsterdam to London possible later this year.

Direct high-speed train services from Amsterdam to London will be possible later this year, after new agreements were signed today (7 July).

For these services to operate, existing agreements between the UK, France and Belgium signed in 1993 have been modified to include the Netherlands. Representatives from all four countries signed the treaties at a ceremony in Brussels.

The Home Office-led treaty concerning Frontier Control arrangements extends the existing model of “juxtaposed border checks” to the Netherlands; whereby passengers are checked, prior to departure, successively by border officials from the departure and arrival countries.

This means UK Border Force officials will be stationed in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and able to carry out checks before boarding, as they already do in France and Belgium. It also allows for further cooperation between the police forces of the 4 countries involved in the fight against cross-border crime.

Alongside this, The Department for Transport-led quadripartite Security Arrangement will give responsibility for security to the government of the country in which the service is operating from. The Dutch authorities will become responsible for the security of Dutch stations operating UK bound services, and for train security, such as the screening of passengers.

These new arrangements will enable direct services between the Netherlands and the UK to start operating later this year, without the need to change trains at Brussels for immigration and security checks – making it easier for passengers to carry on their journey.

Stientje van Veldhoven, Dutch State Secretary for Infrastructure, said:

Due to coronavirus these are challenging times, but we also have to plan for the near future. The new direct train service enables us to travel from Amsterdam to London in just over four hours. It’s fast and convenient, and without the hassle of disembarking in Brussels for border and security checks.

A Eurostar train roughly has twice as many seats as an average airplane on the Amsterdam-London route and CO2 emissions are significantly lower. The train service to London therefore is a sustainable and competitive alternative to flying.

All 4 states have been working closely with Eurostar to provide support and guidance on security procedures and the necessary infrastructure arrangements at the 2 stations. The new agreements form an important step in further facilitating efficient rail traffic between close neighbouring countries.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... -to-london

EDIT: I should add, I've not seen/read the text of the Treaties. I don't know at this stage whether they operate under arbitration provisions or are subject to ECJ....

[KateR]

I saw your words but am still confused. The issue was that there was no agreement to do U.K. border checks in Amsterdam like there is in Paris and Brussels so the Eurostar from Amsterdam had to stop in Brussels for border and security checks. I’m not sure why Belgium would be involved in an agreement between the U.K. and the Netherlands over U.K. border checks, hence the confusion. I haven’t followed the story so I’m happy to be corrected. From what aggi says it sounds like the Netherlands had delayed signing an agreement over worries about the impact on airport traffic.

A little more detail to add to Paul's post and I have made a couple of things bold, which I think are of more importance and adds to Aggi's conspiricy theory around flying versus train being part of the cause. I also did the same with regard to sustainability/global warming as thas is something I am very interested in. Buy shares in Eurostar perhaps


The governments of the Netherlands, France, Belgium and the United Kingdom signed on Tuesday (7 July) an updated version of the Eurostar treaty, which will streamline border checks and shave a full hour off the Amsterdam-London journey time.

Cross-channel rail operator Eurostar launched the UK-Netherlands route back in 2018 but the return trip from Amsterdam has always required passengers to leave the train at Brussels in order to go through passport control. So one way was ok but not from Netherlands, this was not a UK issue I believe, I have no real idea why is was the case but I don't believe it was a UK issue as you could travel from the UK to Amsterdam via Rotterdam.

Following the signing of the updated agreement between the four countries, which includes the non-Schengen UK, passport checks will now be possible in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, so Eurostars can run directly for the first time. This is personally good for me in that I can fly into Amsterdam or Brussels and jump a train to central London, the delay in the Netherlands?Belgium sector was always something that put me off after a /9/10 hour flight from Houston - Amsterdam, plus the frequency offers so much more flexibility.

“We are still living in corona times, but of course we also look ahead. Soon you will travel comfortably, easily and therefore quickly by train from Amsterdam to London. No more hassle with checks and delays in Brussels,” said Dutch infrastructure state secretary Stientje v Veldhoven.

UK transport secretary Grant Shapps said: “As we begin to emerge from one of the greatest international challenges of our time, we are working hard to support the recovery of international transport and tourism sectors.”

The changes should reduce the journey time by up to 60 minutes, matching the three hours and 52 minutes duration of the outward trip from London.

Eurostar had intended to debut the direct service in April but virus lockdown measures slashed passenger demand and the route was suspended. Trains will run in limited numbers as of Thursday (9 July) and the streamlined service is set to come into effect in the autumn.

The company has long harboured plans of extending its network beyond the traditional destinations of Paris and Brussels, and rail advocates hope that the Amsterdam leg will be a stepping stone towards other cities like Berlin or the Nordic capitals.

In June, 25 European countries – the UK not included – signed a pledge geared towards boosting international rail links and leveraging the low-carbon attributes of train travel for the EU’s Green Deal.

The declaration said that EU member states and third countries should work together to improve cross-border services, citing the Eurostar’s Amsterdam link as an example. It added that the UK should be involved, despite ceasing to be a member of the bloc.

24 countries sign pledge to boost international rail routes
Twenty-four European countries agreed on Wednesday (3 June) to work together on international rail transport and make it “an attractive alternative” over distances where it is currently not competitive.

State Secretary v Veldhoven also mentioned the climate aspect of train travel, saying that a Eurostar train has roughly twice as many seats as an average plane and CO2 emissions per passenger are considerably lower.”

“This makes the train a really sustainable and fully-fledged alternative to flying,” she added. Countries are looking more seriously at replacing short-haul services with rail, Dutch KLM has started to do it with Brussels flights and Austrian Airlines recently scrapped the Vienna-Salzburg route.

Eurostar has had a significant impact on London-Paris air travel since first starting a full timetable in 1995. Airlines offered 4.8 million seats per year between the two capitals in 1996 but last year’s figure was just 2.7 million seats, signifying a 55% reduction.

Eurostar CEO Mike Cooper said in February of the Amsterdam route that “it’s a huge market, 4.3 million air market at the moment. What’s interesting is that there’s a precise parallel to when we started Paris, it was the same size air market, and look what’s developed since.”

[KateR]

meanwhile, moving swiftly on to the migrants topic a little snippet/update that should please quite a few.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53739585

[Greenmile]

I presume dsr has no issues with these migrants/refugees crossing the channel. After all, they’re just doing what they think is best for their families, so it doesn’t matter if they’re breaking any rules or laws.

[aggi]

I presume dsr has no issues with these migrants/refugees crossing the channel. After all, they’re just doing what they think is best for their families, so it doesn’t matter if they’re breaking any rules or laws.

A lot of people have been incredibly strident in pointing out that All Lives Matter. Here's their chance to put their money where their mouth is.