Jacko wrote:
In other words, if you see a nice field or glacier or beach or lake in most of EASAland the neo-totalitarian default is that it is forbidden to land there, regardless of any bylaws or landowner’s permission.
What do you mean by neo-totalitarian?
Jacko wrote:
or indeed anyone living elsewhere than the EU, DPRK or PRC
What do you mean by that? Where does the EU – with respect to aviation of course – compare to the DPRK or PRC?
Jacko wrote:
a right so diluted in the EU Charter and the European Convention, that it is effectively denied.
The UK has been both, part of the EU and of EASA, and yet, you were able to land in public spaces, not?
Germany has a law made by the nationalist right NSDAP to prohibit takeoffs and landings outside of airports – mainly to “take back control over the borders” and thus prohibit the Jews to flee the country. For some reason we’re stuck with this and hope the EU will regulate to get rid of this – (the same with the Flugleiter in Germany). But that are just implications by right wing or “conservative” politics. Nothing to do with EU legislation.
What do you mean by neo-totalitarian?
Well, it’s a kind of dungheap of leftover laws, customs and social attitudes of former communists and of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (two of which you mention) and this sort of petty vindictiveness which makes me ashamed to be an EU citizen:
Where does the EU – with respect to aviation of course – compare to the DPRK or PRC?
Mainly in respect of the EU’s “democracy with European characteristics” – in which most laws (aviation-related and otherwise) are made by an unelected politburo or commission and the outcome of periodic plebiscites for a pseudo parliament is always the status quo ante.
Jacko wrote:
in which most laws (aviation-related and otherwise) are made by an unelected politburo or commission
I always thought the European Parliament is formed of elected officials. Although, tradionally, people in the UK were largely ignoring those elections.
Also the main force behind EU law is the council of ministers, consisting of the leaders of each of the 27(now) countries which make up the EU. And each have an equal say.
This crap about unelected Brussels making all the rules has been spouted by the British press for years along with much other anti European rubbish. Thankfully it might come to an end now as people won’t care what the Brit media thinks about Europe as it is nothing to do with them.
gallois wrote:
Also the main force behind EU law is the council of ministers, consisting of the leaders of each of the 27(now) countries which make up the EU. And each have an equal say.
Note quite. I quote Wikipedia:
The Council votes in one of three ways; unanimity, simple majority, or qualified majority. In most cases, the Council votes on issues by qualified majority voting, meaning that there must be a minimum of 55% of member states agreeing (at least 15) who together represent at least 65% of the EU population. A ‘blocking minority’ can only be formed by at least 4 member states representing at least 35% of the EU population.
They still have equal say like you and I are having an equal say now.
OTOH, the fact that the executive of the member states form, ex officio, a legislative body of the EU is, in my opinion, a violation of the principle of separation of powers which I’m not too happy about.
gallois wrote:
They still have equal say like you and I are having an equal say now.
No. To take the extreme, the four biggest countries (roughly 57% of the population) can, together, block most (any?) legislation by voting against it. The four smallest countries, voting as a block, cannot. Heck, even the ten smallest countries voting as a block (approx 5.5% of the population) cannot block legislation.
But isn’t the executive made up (in most European countries) from the majority elected legislative body?It would be difficult to have the whole legislature meeting once a month to decide things.
Although I would agree that in some cases the executive gives itself too much power.
