The decision is taken. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.
The press release follows an urgent meeting from the Council. The Council is the reunion of all the EU heads of state. They have already agreed to the ban. The sentence you are quoting just means that they now have to pass the corresponding executive orders in their respective countries which, as you are rightfully pointing, has already been done by France.
Obviously the decision has to be implemented by all member states one by one. That's how the EU works. It's the case for every decision taken and law passed by the EU.
> That's how the EU works. It's the case for every decision taken and law passed by the EU.
Not exactly. It depends on the area of law one is in.
For some areas of law the EU itself can create law in itself which immediately becomes law in the member states, overriding member state's laws (typically via EU Regulation)
But this works only in areas where EU contracts give those powers to EU.
Of course this then still depends on execution by the member states, but it is a law and affected citizens can sue accordingly if a member doesn't execute.
Air control is related to defense etc. and is not such an area, thus EU's powers are limited and individual member states have to agree according to their individual legal frameworks.
That's true - it's also worth explicitly noting that when the EU does make law directly, that is still done in a fully democratic way.
The fact that that EU laws can override national laws does not mean that the EU Commission has unilaterally imposed law without consent. Law changes must first must be approved by the Council - comprising heads of state - and then by the EU parliament, consisting of directly elected representatives from all member states.
I know you weren't asserting otherwise - I just wanted to provide additional important context for those who wouldn't otherwise be aware.
It becomes quite complex, but any system, which tries to bring more than 400M oppionons together, while giving a voice to minorities and dealing with complicated issues is inherently complex.
To me, full democracy just means a democratic system which enjoys the consent of the majority of the people. It could be parliamentary, presidential, proportional representation, direct democracy, whatever. I don't think outsiders or third parties have a right to decide whether a system of rule that enjoys the support of the people 'counts' or not.
That's entirely independent of my view that direct democracy is a terrible mistake because it decouples responsibility for making a decision from responsibility for implementing it *. However, if you can persuade a population that it's right for them, then fine.
* We can see this with the Brexit referendum. For 2 years the UK had a government and parliament that didn't want to leave the EU responsible for implementing legislation and a treaty to leave it. The result was political paralysis. Fortunately we now have a government aligned with the goal, but that's just pure luck.
> * We can see this with the Brexit referendum. For 2 years the UK had a government and parliament that didn't want to leave the EU responsible for implementing legislation and a treaty to leave it. The result was political paralysis. Fortunately we now have a government aligned with the goal, but that's just pure luck.
That's not entirely accurate. Theresa May called a snap election within a year (explicitly on the basis of building a stronger base to achieve Brexit) that resulted in a lessened majority for the pro-Brexit faction. The paralysis in Brexit was caused by the question of where the customs border would lie in a Brexit world: on the Irish island (jeopardizing the Good Friday Agreement), in the Irish Sea (jeopardizing the UK), or around Great Britain as well (negating most of the point of Brexit), on which point the British government effectively refused to provide an answer until almost the last possible moment.
That's quite right, this is the trickiest issue. However if Brexit had been decided in the usual way then responsibility for addressing and resolving that issue would have been clear. So a party would have put Brexit in their manifesto, campaigned on the issue of delivering Brexit, and perhaps held a referendum to double-guarantee they had a solid mandate to do it. This is the exact process we followed to join 'Europe' in the first place, after all.
Instead the May government utterly collapsed the moment it got anywhere close to actually delivering anything. We're very, very lucky that Boris ended up leading the Conservative Party on a deliver Brexit platform and got a solid majority.
And I say this as a dedicated, thoroughgoing Remainer that will never forgive Boris for his sheer political opportunism over Brexit in the first place. But still. My attitude is, we eventually did have an election on the issue and a government committed to the goal, so let's get on and do it, and get it over with.
> The press release follows an urgent meeting from the Council. The Council is the reunion of all the EU heads of state. They have already agreed to the ban. The sentence you are quoting just means that they now have to pass the corresponding executive orders in their respective countries which, as you are rightfully pointing, has already been done by France.
That's not what the quoted sentence ("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") means. The quoted sentence is the European Council calling on the Council of the European Union to act. The two bodies are distinct despite their very similar names. In the European Council, the member states are represented by their heads of state or government; in the Council of the European Union, the member states are represented by lower-ranked government ministers (finance ministers, foreign ministers, agriculture ministers, transport ministers, etc). The European Council sets the political direction, but (with rare exception) lacks legislative powers. So here the European Council is calling on the Council of the European Union to enact legislation. Of course the Council of the European Union is going to do what the European Council says. But the Council of the European Union needs to wait for the Commission's lawyers to draft the legislation, etc.
The Council of the European Union actually has legislative powers in this area. Based on the wording of the European Council conclusions, I think we can expect formal legislation from the Council of the European Union to enforce the ban. That doesn't stop the member states from acting themselves (under emergency powers they retain) before the ban has formally passed at the EU level. And of course the member states have to enforce the ban, and the EU has only limited recourse if member states refuse (in many but not all cases, the Commission can take the member state to the European Court of Justice). But I doubt that's going to be an issue here, I think there is a clear political consensus in this case.
To be horribly pedantic about it, they haven't actually implemented the decision because the decision hasn't formally been enacted yet. (Decision is actually a technical term in European Union law – EU legislative acts can be classified as directives, regulations, decisions, or recommendations. I'm not sure in this case what type of legislative instrument they are going to use – it could be either a regulation or a decision, it won't be a directive or a recommendation.)
They've just decided to do the same thing independently while they wait.
Dear WastingMyTime89 (<-- not at all!): Excellent post. Thank you to clarify these important details! I wonder if but other (non-EU) European states will follow suit, such as United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, etc.
In the interests of pedantry, there are several ways. The simplest might by to bring the plane over land. There's also the option of going above the vertical limit of the controlled airspace, which seems to be debated, although it must be at least 30km, and less than the boundary with "space" which must be near the Kármán line at around 100km. A tunnel would be possible also, but prohibitively expensive. It would probably be cheaper and easier to get Hungary and Austria to leave the EU.
The decision is taken. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.
The press release follows an urgent meeting from the Council. The Council is the reunion of all the EU heads of state. They have already agreed to the ban. The sentence you are quoting just means that they now have to pass the corresponding executive orders in their respective countries which, as you are rightfully pointing, has already been done by France.
Obviously the decision has to be implemented by all member states one by one. That's how the EU works. It's the case for every decision taken and law passed by the EU.