Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40827
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by sn26567 »

Update on fact-finding investigation into Ryanair flight FR4978


Montréal, 16 June 2021 – In response to the ICAO Council’s decision that the ICAO Secretariat establish a fact-finding investigation into events surrounding Ryanair flight FR4978, official Requests for Information (RFIs) have now been issued to countries with direct ties to the events.

Belarus and Poland had already provided some preliminary details. Information has also been sought from Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, and Switzerland.

An interim report will be presented to the ICAO Council by the end of its current session, on or near 23 June.

As RFI responses are still being sought, the investigation is ongoing, with a report expected at the Council’s next session, which begins on 13 September.

The ICAO fact-finding investigation is being led by its Aviation Security team, with additional support from experts in the areas of Aircraft Operations, Air Navigation, and International Aviation Law.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Bracebrace
Posts: 272
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Bracebrace »

Xan wrote: 15 Jun 2021, 22:58I wasn't aware that this was a political forum. I thought it was about aviation, leaving politics aside.
If an American pilot comes over to do your job, the discussion is far from political. It's about making a living and supporting your family, paying taxes yet not being supported nor defended by your own government. It doesn't matter to talk about what government you are talking about. Those governments are made out of the same people. I don't see how one can "advocate more competences" if the current system seems to have evolved somehow into a political retirement scheme for national politicians. Because you end up in the same old discussion: national politics still wants to govern, and Europe is a side project that should only generate benefits.

Peace is what EU has given us in the past. But the situations EU has had with Russia and Turkey show what kind of childish levels EU has reached. Peace or no peace, the past is never a guarantuee for the future. To stay on topic, the Ryanair diversion is a fantastic example of how fragile that concept of "peace" is. A flight (between 2 Schengen countries) is forced to divert outside of EU and a passenger is detained. How much protection have we seen? None.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Bracebrace wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 16:36 I don't see how one can "advocate more competences" if the current system seems to have evolved somehow into a political retirement scheme for national politicians. Because you end up in the same old discussion: national politics still wants to govern, and Europe is a side project that should only generate benefits.
The EU is not a federal state, it is not even a state, it is a partial confederation with very limited competences.

Just like in any confederation, in order for it to be democratically legitimate, it is led by the leaders of the members of the confederation (would you have it any other way? who, in your opinion, should lead a partial confederation? )

The EU is led by elected heads of state/government of the member states. That is: the current Prime Ministers/Presidents of the member states. Their meetings are prepared by the Council of National Ministers who also make EU law together and on par with the EU parliament. Do you think our current PM and ministers as well as the MEPs are retired politicians?

If you refer to the Commission: this is just the Guardian of the Treaties, it has no legislative decision power and its task is to make sure that all members stick with the treaties they signed with each other and to launch proposals to translate those treaties into laws - and that is only for the competences that are put in the pool by those treaties.

Those proposals are first sent to the national parliaments (retired politicians??) one third of which collectively can block the proposal dead in its track it they opinion it should not be regulated by the EU. If not, the proposal moves on to the Council of National Ministers (retired politicians?) and the EU parliament (retired politicians?) that can each amend, reject or adopt the proposal. Only if both agree on a final text does it become law, and only after it has been ratified by national parliaments (retired politicians?) does the law enter into effect.

Where are those retired politicians in this legislative and political decision making chain?
Bracebrace wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 16:36 Peace is what EU has given us in the past. But the situations EU has had with Russia and Turkey show what kind of childish levels EU has reached. Peace or no peace, the past is never a guarantuee for the future. To stay on topic, the Ryanair diversion is a fantastic example of how fragile that concept of "peace" is. A flight (between 2 Schengen countries) is forced to divert outside of EU and a passenger is detained. How much protection have we seen? None.
How did the Ryanair incident endanger the peace between 27 EU member states?

the EU is a union of sovereign member states who used to be at war with each other for centuries.

There has not been a single war between EU member states since the EU was set up.

When do you expect the next war between any of the EU member states to take place?

That - that - is the peace the EU brought you.

The only thing that can possibly endanger this peace between EU member states, is extremist nationalism to play the union apart and turn us in enemies again, resuming the wars between our countries from yesteryears.

The EU's single market makes us the world's most important global rule maker, more important even than the US. What this means is that we can set the standards for products, foods, health, social standards etc in our trade deals with other countries and in doing so, promote our values of democracy and human rights (you can find the values of the EU in article 5 of the Lisbon treaty).

The alternative is becoming a rule taker again, and let others - the US, China, Russia - set the rules and standards (which means lowering our standards) for everything we do and comply with their values.

However, our union is not complete. Economic power on a global scale is one thing, you have to be able to back up what you say with military and foreign policy power.

Foreign policy still is a national competence, not a EU competence.

Same goes for Defence, which is a national competence. At least the member states agreed to set up PESCO, where, on a voluntarily basis, they can join projects, such as streamlining purchases of military gear. If all member states take part in this, it will save us a 30 billion euros per year on our combined national budget at the start, increasing to 100 bn per year when it's up to speed - money we can put to much better use - by being able to procure lower prices and driving down maintainance costs instead of having dozens of different military equipment that costs a fortunate to buy and maintain.

The EU member states are also making good progress now in implementing the Defence Union.

The EU has been evolving steadily since its start but there is much work left to be done.

Take for instance health. This is a national competence, not a EU competence. I think everybody has learnt from the Covid pandemic that it doesn't work like that as we were constantly overtaken by events and that we need a shared and joint policy. The only thing EMA can do at the moment is advise the member states, who then do what they want so that you get a patchwork of often conflicting measures in various member states.

Same for asylum: purely national competence. As a result, there are loopholes caused by differences between national laws. It would be much better if there was a single EU Asylum and Immigration Agency. Asylum seekers could apply there once, if not successful, would be expelled from the EU from there.

The treaty of Rome was a major step in our history. The next big step was the creation of the single market. Currently the member states are working on their next huge step: strategic autonomy. It's either that, or we can be the puppet on the string of the US, China and Russia.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Might I add that the next EU Council meeting (the board that leads the EU consisting of the elected heads of state/government of the member states ) is at 24-25 JUNE which means that government aircraft from most member states will be flying in to Brussels for the occasion, providing an opportunity to spot them for those who have not already done so.

Passenger
Posts: 7266
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Passenger »

Xan wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 17:47 If you refer to the Commission: this is just the Guardian of the Treaties, it has no legislative decision power and its task is to make sure that all members stick with the treaties they signed with each other and to launch proposals to translate those treaties into laws - and that is only for the competences that are put in the pool by those treaties.

Those proposals are first sent to the national parliaments (retired politicians??) one third of which collectively can block the proposal dead in its track it they opinion it should not be regulated by the EU. If not, the proposal moves on to the Council of National Ministers (retired politicians?) and the EU parliament (retired politicians?) that can each amend, reject or adopt the proposal. Only if both agree on a final text does it become law, and only after it has been ratified by national parliaments (retired politicians?) does the law enter into effect.
The European Union (Parliament, Commission, Council, Court) does has legislation power. And a lot.

An EU Rule is firm legislation in each of the 27 countries. Countries can't minimize or ignore a Rule by own legislation.
Example: EU Rule 261/2004 on passengers right in case of denied boarding, cancelled flights, delayed flights. If a Belgian citizen books a flight from Frankfurt to Brazil, 261/2004 is valid.

An EU Directive must be adopted into national legislation. The Directive sets out what the minimal demands are. Countries are allowed to make their legislation more strict then what the Directive demands, but not weaker.
Example: Directive EU 2015/2302 on Package Travel legislation. Example stronger legislation: the Directive states that payments from tourists must be secured. The Netherlands states that the touroperator has to be insured against insolvency, whilst Belgium states that both the touroperator and the travel agent must be insured.

A Decision from the EU Commission is valid legislation too, but limited to one case/one subject/one country. Example: state aid...

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Passenger wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 19:47 An EU Rule is firm legislation in each of the 27 countries. Countries can't minimize or ignore a Rule by own legislation.
Example: EU Rule 261/2004 on passengers right in case of denied boarding, cancelled flights, delayed flights. If a Belgian citizen books a flight from Frankfurt to Brazil, 261/2004 is valid.
Sorry, I fail to see your point. Of course EU law is binding for member states. Did anyone claim otherwise? The EU is a law based values based union. It is based on treaties in which countries commit to doing some things together. Treaties are - obviously - legally binding. What else would be their point?

however, the issue at hand is that:
(-) it is the member states who make the EU laws together with the EU parliament and the national parliaments act as third virtual chamber.

(-) they can only legislate within the competences that were put in the pool by the EU treaties and can only do so provided this is not blocked by the national parliaments who get an early warning of every proposal launched by the Commission and one third of which can block the proposal there and then dead in its track.

There are three interested represented in how the EU works and this is unique in the world (just like the fact that the EU is first and foremost a values based union is unique in the world. Article 5 of the Lisbon Treaty defines those values (democracy, human rights, rule of law etc), article 7 is the infringement procedure against member states who violate those fundamental values. For instance, article 7 has been launched against Hungary and Poland over violations of the values of the EU. This procedure can lead to losing their voting rights until they realign themselves with the key requirements of democracy and human rights. It can also lead to losing access to EU funds.

Anyway. The three interests are:

(1) the interests of the treaties themselves concluded between the member states.

This interested is represented by the Commission. For this purpose it does two things:

- monitor if everyone sticks with the EU treaties they signed between themselves. If not, the Commission can take action against a member state and for instance bring them before the ECJ. It is the member states+ EU parliament who make the EU treaties and EU laws, the Commission monitors if member states comply with those treaties and laws and takes action if they don't.

- launch law proposals within the competences given to the EU by the national parliaments. The Commission has no legislative decision power.

In all other tasks the EU Commission acts on the explicit instruction of the member states. For instance, the member states pass instructions to the EU commission to negotiate a trade deal with a third country on their behalf. That is the mandate within which the Commission has to negotiate. When a draft deal is reached, it again goes to the member states who can reject it or ratify it. Only if all member states ratify it can a trade deal enter into force.

(2) the interests of the national governments of the member states.
This interest is represented by the Council of National Ministers

(3) the interests of the citizens of the European Union.
This interest is represented by the national and EU parliaments.

"EU nationalists" want more or all power to go to the Council of national ministers and less or no power to the EU Parliament.
"EU federalists". want more or all power to to go the EU parliament and less or no power to the Council of National Ministers.


In addition to those three interests, the EU is led by the EU council consisting of the elected heads of state/parliament of the member states. The EU council sets out the course and strategic agenda of the EU.

Their meetings are prepared by COREPER, which consists of the ambassadors to the EU of each of the member states.
They prepare the meetings of the Council of National Ministers. If there is agreement at COREPER level, then the council of national ministers can just sign it off, if there is no agreement at COREPER level, it is the Council of National Ministers that seeks an agreement among themselves.

If the Council of national ministers finds an agreement among all member states, the EU Council can just sign it off.
If the Council of national ministers does not find an agreement, then it is up to the EU Council (elected heads of state/government) to try to forge an agreement among them.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40827
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by sn26567 »

Bracebrace wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 16:36 A flight (between 2 Schengen countries) is forced to divert outside of EU and a passenger is detained. How much protection have we seen? None.
The EU doesn't have a lot of competencies in the military field. NATO is the right body to protect our countries, but what could NATO have done in this case? Scramble fighter jets over Belarus? Unthinkable. Hence the only possible reaction was a posteriori: EU economic and political sanctions against Belarus. Without much hope for them to be efficient...
André
ex Sabena #26567

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

sn26567 wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 21:45
Bracebrace wrote: 17 Jun 2021, 16:36 A flight (between 2 Schengen countries) is forced to divert outside of EU and a passenger is detained. How much protection have we seen? None.
The EU doesn't have a lot of competencies in the military field. NATO is the right body to protect our countries, but what could NATO have done in this case? Scramble fighter jets over Belarus? Unthinkable. Hence the only possible reaction was a posteriori: EU economic and political sanctions against Belarus. Without much hope for them to be efficient...

Exactly. Defence is a national sovereignty, not a EU competence. There is no EU army either. For this to come into existence, all national governments would have to unanimously agree, each backed by their national parliaments, to transfer their military sovereign into the EU pool put under central command.

The user you quote one the one hand says there is no point in giving the EU more power but then complains that the EU doesn't have more power.

Bracebrace
Posts: 272
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Bracebrace »

That's a lot of words for a plain simple reality:

Start: an intra-Schengen flight full of European citizens is intercepted and guided by a MIG to land on non-schengen, non-EU soil. A guy who had every right to be intra-Schengen on that flight is taken off and put into prison outside of Europe

End: a debate about how "non-political" this all is and there is even an admiration leaflet on the established peace intra-Europe.

Like wait... weren't all those passengers legally flying intra-Europe?

When a Mig intercepts you (yes "intercept', not "escort" because an escort would possibly be handed over at the border to the next governing authority), you don't think about all those peace-talkers on the ground. It takes one touch on that trigger, and your peace is gone. The MIG is there, armed. And he just takes you out of your "European protection" in a fraction of a second.

How did we react?

"Not my responsability, but give me power"

War happens when politics stop to talk about "who gets this power?". Peace is acquired when politics talk again about "who gets this power?". EU has become a pretty expensive and inefficient talking machine for the retired politician. It started of on great ideas, it ventured into ego-fights. It doesn't need more power. It needs to change.

There's a lot more to talk about when it comes to European borders and how politics tries to influence everyday flights. But I'll leave it at that.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Bracebrace wrote: 18 Jun 2021, 13:53 How did we react?
"Not my responsability, but give me power"

Give me strength.

It's like sulking that your teacher didn't take you on a warp drive space trip to another galaxy while your teacher hasn't got the competence to do so.

Do enlighten us: on what legal grounds could the EU have done more than it did?

And this time kindly answer the question.

Within the competences the EU has, the EU did all it could: it called on the member states to block their airspace for Belarusian airplanes, and it took additional economical sanctions against Belarus

You attribute powers to the EU that it does not have.

Then you complain that the EU does not use the powers it does not have.

At the same time you claim that there is no point in giving the EU more powers - the powers it needs for a more adequate response.

Where is the logic in this?

Bracebrace wrote: 18 Jun 2021, 13:53 Start: an intra-Schengen flight full of European citizens is intercepted and guided by a MIG to land on non-schengen, non-EU soil. A guy who had every right to be intra-Schengen on that flight is taken off and put into prison outside of Europe
Why do you drag Schengen into this?

Schengen simply is a visa-free travel area for Schengen citizens (EU member states + EFTA countries).
Belgium is member of Schengen. it means that you don't need a visa to travel to any other of the Schengen member states.

What is the relevance of this for your repeated complaint that "the EU " did not react tough enough while the EU has no say in this?

Schengen is not a military alliance, there is no Schengen army, etc.

You persistently want a response that does not exist and then complain that it is not forthcoming.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

This is the decision/conclusion adopted by the EU Council (consisting of the elected heads of state/government of the member states) about the incident:

(note that in the text below "Council" is the Council of National Ministers)


--- quote ---

European Council conclusions on Belarus, 24 May 2021
III. Belarus

The European Council strongly condemns the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Minsk, Belarus, on 23 May 2021 endangering aviation safety, and the detention by Belarusian authorities of journalist Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega.

The European Council:

- demands the immediate release of Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega and that their freedom of movement be guaranteed;

- calls on the International Civil Aviation Organization to urgently investigate this unprecedented and unacceptable incident;

- invites the Council to adopt additional listings of persons and entities as soon as possible on the basis of the relevant sanctions framework;

- calls on the Council to adopt further targeted economic sanctions and invites the High Representative and the Commission to submit proposals without delay to this end;

- calls on all EU-based carriers to avoid overflight of Belarus;

- calls on the Council to adopt the necessary measures to ban overflight of EU airspace by Belarusian airlines and prevent access to EU airports of flights operated by such airlines;

- stands in solidarity with Latvia following the unjustified expulsion of Latvian diplomats.

The European Council will remain seized of the matter.

-- end quote --

Source: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pres ... -may-2021/

Note that EU council conclusions are not just statements, there are published in EUR-Lex and have force of EU law.


Kindly enlighten us, which other measures could the EU Council have taken withIN the powers that it has?

Bracebrace
Posts: 272
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Bracebrace »

Xan wrote: 18 Jun 2021, 16:58 Do enlighten us: on what legal grounds could the EU have done more than it did?

And this time kindly answer the question.
Effective diplomacy.

Aviation security is EU responsibility (includes hijacking)
EU already cooperates directly with ICAO when it comes to safety and security
All nations have already subscribed to ICAO conventions

There is no need for some kind of "transfer"

Nation leaders have always – in search of power – used doubtfull means to establish power, and this is what is happening in Belarus. Even western countries have used those means in the past, no reason to deny that.

When IS took over control in Iraq in 2015, all of a sudden USA started lifting bans on Iran (nuclear agreement). Diplomacy. US Airlines were the first to avoid Iraq airspace, when a large airline like Emirates followed that decision something had to be done. New airways were created in Iran and all commercial traffic exchanged the Iraq routes for Iran routes. Then IS power was reduced by 2017, and what happened? 2018 Trump blew up the deal. End of diplomacy, with the assasination of Soleimani to make things really clear.

But also Russia is starting to play with the boundaries of the “political acceptable” and... close to our borders. First MH17... and now we have a hijack of an aircraft full of innocent European and non-European people who were travelling intra-Schengen (_free_ movement) and they were all held at gunpoint of a MIG. And a guy who was – again – FREE to travel (schengen) was detained and is probably being tortured as we speak. There were also 3 passengers on board who later on left the aircraft in Belarus for doubtful reasons.

The airspace at some of our borders has been under “pressure” for a while now. From the minor effects of GPS jamming, to ATC units trying to put pressure on flights in certain ways. So we reached a new low with a forced diversion and Mig interception. Is this the end? Or is the pressure going to rise more?

Peace is when “diplomatic talking” works, war is when “diplomatic talking” ends. But what happens on the EC level? When it comes to diplomatic talking we have seen the biggest blunders in the history of the EC. Many have seen the Sofagate... but Borrell's visit to Moscow shows even more how egoplay divides the EC internally continuously. What kind of diplomatic power does the EC still have in this world? Or can I at least say, retired national ego-politicians spending too much time looking for camera's and little less time preparing?

If the EC is responsible for aviation security and many more aspects but has childish diplomatic power, it is becoming useless. And it's waiting for the next incident, I hope not accident.

Anyway, couldn't resist. Call it a bis-answer.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy's job is to speak on behalf of the EU member states provided they are in unanimous agreement on an issue at the Council of National Ministers on Foreign Affairs...

Again you blame the EU for not doing what it cannot do.

The EU is not a federation, it is a value and law based economical and political partial confederal union with very limited competences.

In the area of foreign affairs, it is the member states who decide on a joint position and this requires a unanimous agreement. The Commission - and more to the point the High Representative etc - then acts on the unanimous instructions of the member states.

If you want the EU to play a more active role, then at the very least the requirement of unanimity for foreign affairs matters should be dropped and it should be possible to make decisions with a (qualified) majority. Changing the required level of agreement from unanimity to a (qualified) majority however in itself requires the unanimous agreement of all member states.

Good luck convincing 27 national governments and their national parliaments that their national foreign policy should be determined by a majority of the member states and that it should no longer be their own government and parliament that decides on its foreign policy.

If you want to go further than that, make it an exclusive EU competence. But you will need even more luck for that.

FYI: the 27 member states adopted a unanimous position with regard to Belarus. Which is why yesterday the Council of National Ministers (in the format of foreign ministers) adopted further economic sanctions against Belarus.

All the criticism of the EU I read here,
- is based on a very fundamental lack of understanding what the EU is
- is based on attributing competences to the EU that it does not have
- of subsequently critising the EU for not doing what it cannot do.
- while at the same time opposing giving the EU the competences it needs to be able to do what you want it to do.

If you want to oppose the EU, fair enough, but then oppose the reality of what the EU is, and not an imagined entity that does not exist in reality.

Bracebrace
Posts: 272
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Bracebrace »

Xan wrote: 22 Jun 2021, 16:47 The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy's job is to speak on behalf of the EU member states provided they are in unanimous agreement on an issue at the Council of National Ministers on Foreign Affairs...

Again you blame the EU for not doing what it cannot do.
Then why was Borrell in Russia when there wasn't even a concencus amongst member states, I quote "lack of unity in the Council"? But he went anyway. He got humiliated by the Russians, questioned why he was there anyway and slammed by his own parliament for the complete disaster.

I admire your theoretical knowledge of the EU, I do admit. But it doesn't matter if the EU itself doesn't respect those rules.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Bracebrace wrote: 22 Jun 2021, 20:09
Xan wrote: 22 Jun 2021, 16:47 The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy's job is to speak on behalf of the EU member states provided they are in unanimous agreement on an issue at the Council of National Ministers on Foreign Affairs...

Again you blame the EU for not doing what it cannot do.
Then why was Borrell in Russia when there wasn't even a concencus amongst member states, I quote "lack of unity in the Council"? But he went anyway. He got humiliated by the Russians, questioned why he was there anyway and slammed by his own parliament for the complete disaster.

I admire your theoretical knowledge of the EU, I do admit. But it doesn't matter if the EU itself doesn't respect those rules.
Thank you! That's much better, we'll get there, eventually. This time you criticise the EU as it is. Which I very much welcome. Through criticism our union can become better.

I fully agree with you that Borrell should not have gone to Russia. That he went regardless, was heavily criticised by the EU parliament (and some member states). Many MEPs said that he shouldn't have gone to Russia. At the same time they sharply criticised the member states (i.e. Council of National Ministers) for failing to come up with a strong unanimous stance against Russia.

Theoretically, there is a possibility to take action against such a "transgression" by Borrell but clearly the MEPs didn't consider this serious enough to do so and sufficed with a strong political condemnation which is the sensible thing to do anyway.

The Treaties of the EU define the competences everyone has, who is answerable to whom, the election procedures and the dispute settlement or infringement procedures. As it to be expected, when you have 27 sovereign member states who pool a bit of their competences into a pool,govern this collectively, set up the necessary institutions to make this operational etc, there are bound to be infringements of the agreements.

There are various mechanisms to address this, legal ones as well as political ones.

For instance, the high rep gets his mandate from the EU parliament. After the EU parliament elections (with proportional representation in all member states), the elected heads of state/government of the member states draw up several lists of nominees for the EU institutions. For instance, they nominated von der Leyen as candidate chairman of the Commission and so on. Each national government also nominates a candidate Commissioner in coordination with the candidate Commission chairman.

The candidate Commission chairman as well as each individual candidate commissioner is then vetted by the EU parliament for suitability for his or her job. For instance, the nominee for the job of foreign affairs rep is first vetted by the EU Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. These hearings are public and televised and can be followed by everyone. Similar to the US where the specialised committees also first grill the nominees for ministerial jobs (although the Commission is not the equivalent of the US government since the EU is not a federal state).

Those hearings are pretty tough exams. At those hearings, the MEPs always fail one or more candidate Commissioners and send them back home. Their countries then have to nominate a new candidate who again is vetted by the corresponding committee and so on.

After candidate commissioners are found suitable for the job, the EU parliament takes a vote in the plenary session and if successful, this votes the commissioners into office. That is where the Commissioners get their democratic legitimacy from. The EU parliament can vote them out of office again too.

In other words, the Commissioners get their job from and are democratically answerable to the EU Parliament.

Obviously the action of Borrell was not so grave that the EU parliament should want to kick him out of his job. Instead, they voiced strong political criticism.

Also, in the background there always is a level of tension between the EU's major institutions because they currently are only halfway there, so to speak, the EU is work in progress. The Treaty of Rome laid the foundation for an "ever closer union", but obviously this is a trajectory and we are currently neither here nor there. So, there is some background noise and tension about how to proceed and how competences should be adjusted in future to get better performing union.

Against this evolutionary background of a union in development, it is inevitable that every now and then somebody tests the waters and tests how far he or she can stretch his or her job description within the current treaties. And then you get a push back by others to put him or her back where he or she belongs, usually at the political level, sometimes with a legal procedure as well.

Only Borrell knows what his motives where. He may have tried to show that he can get results that benefit all 27 EU members even if there was no unanimous agreement giving him a mandate to do so. If so, he failed spectacularly.

PS:

A word to clarify where I come from.

I have always been interested in politics and the more I studied our past, the EU project and the challenges we face today, the more passionate I became about the whole EU project. If it didn't already exist, we would have to invent it to be able to face the challenges ahead of us. But it's work in progress. And that is where you and I and everyone else comes in. We, as citizens of this union, should play our part in shaping our union into a better union so that we can face the challenges of today's complex world as well as those of the future, in a better and more confident way.

One criticism I do have is that much more information about what the EU is should be taught at school, in order to prevent disinformation agents from undermining our union. And there are plenty of them, not in the least Russia that actively spreads disinformation to sow discontent (albeit based on fiction, not facts) in order to play our union apart.

The reason why I replied to the initial comment made by another user here about the EU, is because I have seen what happened in the UK and how the "Leave" campaign was one gigantic disinformation campaign, how it tore a country apart that still is split down the middle, how big capital hijacked what should have been democratic process, and convinced a fair amount of people that the problems that were caused by their own governments, were all down to the EU (while the EU had no say in them) so that they voted against the EU - and voted to make themselves poorer in the process for the benefit of making the rich richer. The only reason why they succeeded, is by lack of knowledge of what the EU is. That made it easy to persistently blame the EU for things the EU had no say in.

I'd hate to see that happen anywhere else in the EU. Again: be critical of the EU, yes, by all means. But let's talk about what the EU is, stick with the facts, and let's not fall prey to disinformation campaigns that are not out to help us but to make us weaker and undermine us.

It is not in our Belgian genes to have a sense of patriotism, but I do believe that we should become a bit more patriotic about the EU. It is an incredible accomplishment.

I very strongly believe that we should be able to define our own path to the future - we should not let the US, Russia, China or anyone else tell us what to do or where to go. We have to define our own destiny.

However, we have forgotten what Spaak said so many years ago ‘There are two kinds of European countries. There are small countries, and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small countries".

Being member of this meanwhile powerful union has made us forget that each on our own, we are just small fish in the big world out there. That too is why our visionary founding fathers laid the foundation for our union: to give as a change to pave our own way. The EU has become a major player on the global scale, we have our chance to go our own way. Let's not let it go to waste and all revert back to being small fish in the big ocean. Let's instead go for strategic autonomy . There is so much at stake in a world in which democracy itself is coming under attack, and in which we can only protect and preserve our democracies when we form a strong union that can protect us and our democracies against the global attacks against it and against the challenges that await us.

To be ready for this, we will have to improve our union. In the US you almost constantly hear people say: "our union is incomplete", and "we have to make our union better". And they already are a federal state!

We may never become a federal state and instead choose a path of a more complete confederation. But either way, we should take some more pride in what we have accomplished so far too, and indeed, work together to make our union better. A good debate can certainly contribute to that. Criticism is fine, is necessary even. But let's embed this in a constructive discourse, in a desire to make our incomplete union better too. We stand to loose to much if we don't.

Xan
Posts: 107
Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 12:30

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by Xan »

Bracebrace wrote: 22 Jun 2021, 20:09 I admire your theoretical knowledge of the EU, I do admit. But it doesn't matter if the EU itself doesn't respect those rules.

Might I add that legally Borrell did not violate any rules of the EU treaty - he is the EU's top diplomat, his job is to talk and listen.

His mistake was of a political nature, which is why there was a political push back from the EUP.

Borrell should not have gone. If he wanted to hear what the Russians had to say, he could have given them a phonecall but even that was not a very good idea given the circumstances.

In the absence of a unanimously agreed position about Russia, what was he going to say or negotiate at such a meeting? Since all these EU decisions (and their voting record) are published, Russia knew there was no mandate so they could ignore whatever he said - which pretty much is what they did.

Borrell will certainly pay a political price for this ill advised action.

While the EU is not a federation and therefore the Commissioners can't be compared with our national ministers, for the sake of argument: if a national minister does something that is considered a political mistake by the Belgian parliament, what happens? Nothing. There was a time when a minister would step down - this no longer happens - although Commissioner Phil Hogan stepped down last year after he came under heavy criticism for having violated the Covid lockdown measures - he did so because else the EUP or Commission would have moved to "sack" him.

Borrell is not that deep into heavy weather yet, but he will have to be much more careful about his future actions.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40827
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by sn26567 »

The full exchange between Minsk ATC and Ryanair pilot, courtesy of Radarbox24:

ATC: Minsk
Pilot: Yes, go ahead.
ATC: For your information, we have information from special services that you have a bomb on board and it can be activated over Vilnius.
Pilot: Standby.
Pilot: Ok, could you repeat the message?
ATC: I say again, we have information from special services that you have a bomb on board. That bomb can be activated over Vilnius.
Pilot: Roger that, standby.
ATC: For security reasons we recommend you to land at UMMS. (ICAO code for Minsk airport)
Pilot: Ok…that..it..understood give us an alternate, please.
Pilot: The bomb….direct message, where did it come from? Where did you have information about it from?
ATC: Standby, please.
Pilot: Go ahead.
ATC: Airport security staff informed them they received the e-mail.
Pilot: Roger, Vilnius airport security staff or from Greece?
ATC: This e-mail was shared with several airports.
Pilot: Roger, standby.
Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
ATC: This is our recommendation.
Pilot: Can you say again?
ATC: This is our recommendation.
Pilot: Did you say that is your recommendation?
ATC: Advise your decision, please.
Pilot: I need to answer the question: what is the code of the (unreadable - presumably threat level) green, yellow or amber, red.
ATC: Standby.
ATC: They say the code is Red.
Pilot: Roger that, in that case, we request holding at present position.
ATC: Roger, hold over your position, maintain FL390 turns at your own discretion.
Pilot: Ok holding at our discretion at present position maintaining FL390.
Pilot: We are declaring an emergency on MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY RYR 1TZ. Our intention would be to divert to Minsk airport.
André
ex Sabena #26567

SR20
Posts: 691
Joined: 17 Apr 2017, 09:14

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by SR20 »

The air traffic controller who directed a Ryanair plane to divert to Minsk over a fake bomb threat has allegedly been missing for quite a while. Presumably he has quite a bit of information, so it’s not known for sure if he decided to escape Belarus (knowing he was a key witness to what happened), or if something else happened.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/air-tra ... s-missing/

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40827
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by sn26567 »

Belarus expects that ICAO will take a decision to lift the sanctions against Belavia. Hope gives life!
André
ex Sabena #26567

TLspotting
Posts: 3075
Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
Location: Uccle/Ukkel, BE
Contact:

Re: Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

Post by TLspotting »

sn26567 wrote: 21 Oct 2021, 20:56 Belarus expects that ICAO will take a decision to lift the sanctions against Belavia. Hope gives life!
EBBU :
A3706/21
From:06 SEP 21 13:00 Till:05 DEC 21 22:59 EST
Text:ALL FLIGHTS TO/FROM THE AIRPORT OF THE G.D OF LUXEMBOURG OR OVERFLYING LUXEMBOURGISH TERRITORY, ARE NOT ALLOWED IF AIRCRAFT ARE OPERATED BY BELARUSSIAN AIR CARRIERS AND/OR REGISTRATED IN BELARUS EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT IN EMERGENCY OR HUMANITARIAN FLIGHTS
A3758/21
From:09 SEP 21 13:30 Till:22 DEC 21 12:00 EST
Text:ALL FLIGHTS TO/FROM THE AIRPORTS OF BELGIUM OR OVERFLYING BELGIAN TERRITORY, ARE NOT ALLOWED IF AIRCRAFT ARE OPERATED BY BELARUSSIAN AIR CARRIERS AND/OR REGISTRATED IN BELARUS EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT IN EMERGENCY OR HUMANITARIAN FLIGHTS.

Should be until at least December in Belux.
Hi. I'm Thibault Lapers. @ThibaultLapers & @TLspotting

Post Reply