Originally, military aircraft were to be exempt from carbon emissions scheme(s). Now, this no longer appears to be the case.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...e-combat-aircraft-emissions-04214/

Quote: Aviation Week's Ares reports that The European Parliament will vote on including military aviation in the EU's greenhouse gas emission trading scheme (ETS) during its plenary session in Strasbourg, France, this week. Military aircraft were not originally included, but an amendment to the draft legislation calls for flights performed by military aircraft to be included in the ETS unless they are "part of an international mission." If the aircraft are included, the cost of purchasing emissions credits would be added to the price of training flights and other military activities – presumably including local disaster relief, unless this too was exempted.

Presumably, this will exempt aircraft supporting the NATO effort in Afghanistan, as well as Kosovo and USAF's flights back and forth from Iraq. IMO most worrisome, in the short term, would be training.

I don't follow EU politics very closely, but does this thing have a chance of passing?

The EU is probably greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread, but sometimes they go over board with it. A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!). I don't think this will go through, probably an initiative of some of the green/leftist parties in the EU parliament ...

[Edited 2007-11-13 04:15:40]

Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1): The EU is probably greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread, but sometimes they go over board with it. A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!). I don't think this will go through, probably an initiative of some of the green/leftist parties in the EU parliament ...

I guess you have seen the Yes Minister episode about the Eurosausage? It was Hackers splendid handling of that tricky problem was a critical factor in Hacker's promotion to PM as I recall.

Some targets about smoke emission and noise levels in non-afterburner would seem reasonable. Certain planes are much more smoky than they need be.

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter): Originally, military aircraft were to be exempt from carbon emissions scheme(s). Now, this no longer appears to be the case.

First, the EU Parliament does not have the authority to legislate military aircraft owned by other nations, like the US, even those operating in European airspace. The international agreements muct include the agreement of the owner nation, and these agreements are regulated by the ICAO (UN). All of the member states within the EU are members of ICAO, therefore these nations already have an agreement.

So, military aircraft will continue to be exempt from "greenie schemes" like this one.

The European Parliament can do what it wants, but what ever it passes in this area is a waste of paper and ink.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):

That misses the point and you seem to be unaware of how the EU works.

EU nations have delegated their legislative supremacy to the EU in some areas. Defense and security issues do not (yet) belong to those areas. The exemptions from law that foreign forces enjoy in NATO countries are explicitly (not in a comprehensive or subsuming manner) regulated by the NATO Statute and the related contracts. These are clearly part of defense and security domain and therewith the business of each single nation. And therewith there is no institution on EU level that could have an impact on those treaties (if not wanted by the respective member).

But in the areas where it is responsible, EU law breaks national law in its final consequences. And if foreign forces are not explicitly taken out of environmental regulations (which are part of the EU's legislative authority) then foreign forces will have to obey what is ratified on a EU level. And if that means that foreign could not fly anymore within the EU then they couldn't fly.

However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members. There is also more than one way to block such decisions for example through the Ministerial Council or a full scale government conference.

[Edited 2007-11-13 08:02:46]

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5): However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members. There is also more than one way to block such decisions for example through the Ministerial Council or a full scale government conference.

In other words, trying to get military aircraft to be more environmentally friendly is a nice idea, but that's about as far as this is likely to go. There's nothing wrong with a good idea, as long as its broader impact is studied too. These folks don't seem to have looked at the much larger picture.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6): In other words, trying to get military aircraft to be more environmentally friendly is a nice idea, but that's about as far as this is likely to go. There's nothing wrong with a good idea, as long as its broader impact is studied too. These folks don't seem to have looked at the much larger picture.

   I could not put it shorter!  

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter): I don't follow EU politics very closely, but does this thing have a chance of passing?

I hope note! This is getting too far!

Quoting Wingman (Reply 2): Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

Good one! 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): So, military aircraft will continue to be exempt from "greenie schemes" like this one.

I think we have to thank a certain former US Vice-President for this madness. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but heavens: CO2! Next thing they'll ask us to breathe less!

Quoting Wingman (Reply 2): Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

  

Quoting Wingman (Reply 2): Actually, they tried to flatten the curvature of bananas so that that the lefties could slip them into fighter jet tail pipes. This was to prevent military carbon emissions altogether.

Hmmm, banana fritter with vanilla ice cream!   

Jan

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1): A few years ago they tried to standardize the curvature of a banana (no joke!).

Actually, that's an urban myth.
Daft talk from the regular's table and nothing more.

Well, it's not just aircrafts, it's vehicles (Land Rovers, troop transporters) APCs and tanks aswell, so this affects the land Army too.

There's another brilliant law that says vehicles (including military) cannot have sideward facing seats.
This means that we cannot travel in our famous 'Four tonner' troop trucks (if you don't know what one looks like, imagine a small lorry used to carry cargo) which have the old style wooden benches that are in the centre and face outwards to either side..
Because the vehicles also now have to have seat belts, not only must the seats face forwards, but must have seat belts. Now, anyone who has ever worn full combat gear, with your bergan, webbing and rifle on you, will know that you simply cannot fit in a normal seat because you're about twice as wide as you usually are, and so not only do you have the inconvenience of having to stand up, turn around while everyone else is doing the same thing and is equally wide and bundle down an aircraft size isle out the back, but also can't fit tin the damn seat !
This simply doesn't work and means everyone wastes time smashing into each other and swearing because 16 men have to go one at a time down a thin isle between the 2 X 2 (two seats - Isle - two seats) seats.

Now, because the Four Tonner trucks are extremely old (usually older than the people being transported in them), they don't meet these new requirements and the MoD is not willing to pay to have new seats fitted to the majority of the fleet (although some will get new forward facing, seatbelted seats) ans so we have to put up with getting, and I kid you not, to training areas, on white civilian minibuses or coaches.
Decide for yourself how this affects morale, you now jump into a training ground with your face all camouflaged up and rifles ready to go....in a white coach that usually transports old people on trips to the sea-sdie.


There is thankfully one exemption to the rule, and that is those Land Rovers and Four tonners on operations (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) because I kid you not, having such time wasting would cost lives.
Wrighbrothers

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 12): There is thankfully one exemption to the rule, and that is those Land Rovers and Four tonners on operations (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) because I kid you not, having such time wasting would cost lives. Wrighbrothers

The Bundeswehr soldiers in Afghanistan complained that they have to follow rules in the field, which were designed for garisson duty in Germany, e.g. vehicles were pulled out of service because the annual emission test expired and there was no equipment and personnel in Afghanistan to renew it. So the soldiers had to patrol on foot because their armoured vehicle was not allowed to be used due to one "expiry" sticker.
Or they had to strictly seperate paper, plastics, metal etc. in their camps, as per German waste disposal rules (the Afghan rubbish collector just dumped everything in the same landfill outside the camp).
Military bureaucracy at it's finest.

Jan

If this goes through I would look for more NATO nations to do their training in Canada at Cold Lake or Nellis and Holloman AFB in the US.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 8): I think we have to thank a certain former US Vice-President for this madness. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but heavens: CO2! Next thing they'll ask us to breathe less!

That just goes to prove that US Politicians are just as stupid as EU Politicians. When VP Gore was "just" a Senator from TN, that Congress passed a bill authorizing the study of the sexual habits of the common house fly.   

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 11): Actually, that's an urban myth.

But, it sounded good. Don't give up, someone may propose it yet.   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): But, it sounded good. Don't give up, someone may propose it yet.

The origin of this myth can be traced back to a German politician, Mr. Westerwelle, who said that citizens won't embrace the European Union if officials contemplate over the curvature of bananas and try to press the curvature into a norm.
Westerwelle shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway, but quite a number of people took this for real.

What promoted the myth was that there does exist a norm on the curvature of Class 1 pickles. But this norm was introduced after pressure of the industry. Before that, almost each member country had a norm of its own. Class 1 pickles from the Netherlands had a different shape than those from Britain, Italy or Germany. As a result, pickles from say Germany were clogging up automated slicers in say Britain, and only 5 say: Italian Class 1 pickles fit into a 500g jar, whereas you could put i.e. 7 British Class 1 pickles in it. Hence the industry (most noteably the British!) pressed the EU to replace the wide variety of Class 1 rulings with one single norm valid for the entire Union. After they complied to the request, one - well: British - newspaper wrote that cucumbers "must not grow bent in the EU" (they can, only they are then Class 2), and people (most noteably the British) got hirewire over the "overboarding bureaucracy in Brussel", since they have replaced a dozen or so regulations with only one.  

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 16):

Very well summarized. The EU is bashed for everything, even if it does something good. In fact, what makes the EU strong is the fact that we have a functioning rule of law. EC legislation gets enforced by courts, and this actually helps competition in the european union for the benefit of everyone.

Otherwise, one should relax: There won't be Eurofighter bans just because it is as loud as concorde... I doubt this legislation will really change anything. Nevertheless, I do think that military trucks have to obey emission standards when only used in the EU, if this is no threat to their suitability for combat...

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter): unless they are "part of an international mission."

I guess that would include attack or invasion of another nation!!

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5): However, this discussion is theoretical because the EU would not (and cannot) decide against two thirds of its member states which are also NATO members.

Wrong. Once that blighted EU constitution gets through (however they now call it), which is going through against the will of the people in pretty much every country, Brussels can decide whatever it likes and it's automatically law in all countries with no national ratification required.
And Brussels will be able to pass anything it likes because there's no more majority of countries' representatives required to vote for something.
Effectively if the German, French, and one other (there are other combinations of 4 countries) vote for something it will automatically be law in every country in the EU.
This includes votes on allowing countries to leave the EU, making it essentially impossible to leave as only 3 or 4 countries have to vote against you leaving and you're not allowed to.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 19): Brussels can decide whatever it likes and it's automatically law in all countries with no national ratification required.

Wrong. Brussels is only allowed to rule in areas which it is given competences. The fact that the European court of Justice tends to be very wide does not change this.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 19): Effectively if the German, French, and one other (there are other combinations of 4 countries) vote for something it will automatically be law in every country in the EU.

Wrong again. The practical reality is different. EC works by consensus, and this will not be changed by the new EC legislation. BTW, norway is forced to adopt every law the EC adepts anyway, as they otherwise could not sell their goods in the EC.

I am sick and tired of all this stupid EC bashing. So far, EC has been a constant success, something many fail to acknowledge, as the benefits cannot be seen directly. However, the result was increased wealth for everyone. The new treaty is just a necessary step to keep the EC able to be working, as the current system is not able to cope with so many member states, as it was designed for 6 states.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20): Wrong. Brussels is only allowed to rule in areas which it is given competences. The fact that the European court of Justice tends to be very wide does not change this.

Wrong. Under the new rules they'll be given near universal power in all member states. And that power will go to a body that's not even elected.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20): EC has been a constant success, something many fail to acknowledge, as the benefits cannot be seen directly. However, the result was increased wealth for everyone.

Wrong. It's been a success for French farmers and a lot of politicians and other kleptocrats.
For most others it's mainly meant paying a lot more for things than they would otherwise have to do to cover the cost of running the whole circus.

And now we're all being turned into peons of the French and German governments, not much better than the Russian kulaks under the Czars.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20): as it was designed for 6 states.

It was also designed for small scale economic cooperation, not to be a supernational government that replaces national authority in the member states at almost every level.

Individual US states are more independent than EU member nations will be under the new rules, a very scary thought for what are supposed to be independent countries enrolled in an economic cooperation system rather than colonies of some powerful neighbours.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): Individual US states are more independent than EU member nations will be under the new rules, a very scary thought for what are supposed to be independent countries enrolled in an economic cooperation system rather than colonies of some powerful neighbours.

I'm not at all sure I understand why the many old, proud and stable nations of Europe find what appears to be a very powerful and very suppressive "Uber-Government" that asserts it's will over all these sovereign nations is a GOOD idea for them.

Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

Perhaps such an alliance would be good for newly formed or newly liberated nations that have neither the economic or political power to assert themselves, but I don't see how such a union is helpful to the "old school" powerhouses of Europe.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): Wrong. Under the new rules they'll be given near universal power in all member states. And that power will go to a body that's not even elected.

Totally wrong. Read the treaty before stating such crap. The new treaty changes the decision making process, while not giving the EU the Kompetenz-Kompetenz about its competences.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): Wrong. It's been a success for French farmers and a lot of politicians and other kleptocrats. For most others it's mainly meant paying a lot more for things than they would otherwise have to do to cover the cost of running the whole circus.

Wrong again. Or what would the dutch economy say if their trucks weren't allowed to drive through Germany? Besides, why did Denmark and the UK join in 1972? Because EFTA proved to be much less succesful and economically beneficiary than the EC.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 22): Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

Yes and no. They have a very strong legal power, but they could not force a state to obey a ruling by sending tanks to the country. The EC has no army, no police officers, and only few own staff.

They have, however, a very strong legal influence. The European Court of Justice has ruled that EC legislation is directly applicable in all member states, with other words, a regulation the EC has adopted WITHIN its competence (which is stated in the treaty) is directly binding not only all states but also the members within the state.

The fields where the EC is allowed to rule are defined in the EC treaty, and the EC is bound to the limited powers principle. This will be retained in the new treaty.

However, and in this point I partly have to agree with Jwenting, since the EC has lots of powers for the regulation of the internal market, there are lots of measures which directly, or indirectly can affect the internal market. Thus, the EC has to be given implied powers in order to make the internal market working. These implied powers are not written in the treaty, the European Court of Justice has largely created them, in a very innovative way of jurisdiction.

This can be criticized, as the European Court is too community friendly. But if it goes too far, the national courts actually can get rather critical. For example, the Federal German Constitutional Court has ruled on this issue several times, and has also stressed that there are limits for the EC supremacy.


This discussion could lead very far, but I will give you a short answer on your question now:

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 22): Does this "EU Govt" actually have some measure of enforcement powers over it's member states?

The EC has different institutions. The adminstrative branch is taken by the Commission, which can be called the government of the EC. It controls whether member states accept the EC legislation, for example checking subsidies. A member state can violate the EC treaty in many ways. Making discriminative laws, forbidding foreign products and the like, or simply adminstrating the law in a wrong way.

If the commission finds that a member states violates the treaty (or better said, thinks the member state is doing so), it can sue the member state before the European Court, which then votes on the issue, whether the national provision was legal or not.

If the court finds the state has violated the treaty, it rules so, and the member state must adhere to the ruling.

In reality, the member state always accepts the ruling. Just to give you one example: A french brewery wants to sell their beer in Germany (the treaty allows that). Germany denies that, because of the German purity law on beer. The commission believes this law is an infringement of the treaty (which it is), and brings it before the court, which rules in favour of the commission.

If germany still does not allow the beer to be sold, the french brewery can go before German courts, which rule that Germany must pay compensation.

Since Germany has a functioning divistion of the three powers, the german administration MUST listen to the court, which will rule in accordance with the European court of justice. The german court can otherwise force the administration to accept the ruling.


So you see, while the EU is very weak in terms of administrative power, it has a very good functioning legal framework. This is what makes it so strong.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 24): So you see, while the EU is very weak in terms of administrative power, it has a very good functioning legal framework.

Absolutely correct. And if more than half of the member states have any objections against any law imposed by the EU, the ruling in question goes back to the EU Commission, no matter how small the member countries are. This is one part of the new treaty Jwenting was referring to, and which is obviously strengthening checks and balances. Of course Jwenting convenientely forgot to mention it.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): Wrong. Under the new rules they'll be given near universal power in all member states. And that power will go to a body that's not even elected.

Bull. The new treaty strengthens the parliament.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): Wrong. It's been a success for French farmers and a lot of politicians and other kleptocrats.

Yeah, that's why so many other countries want to join. They have a weak spot for French farmers.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 21): For most others it's mainly meant paying a lot more for things than they would otherwise have to do to cover the cost of running the whole circus.

Bull again. How a single European market among other things like more competition that comes along with it, can increase prices is a mystery to me (and possibly to you as well, but you wouldn't admit it).
As for costs to "keep this circus running": The Netherlands has been the biggest net payer per capita to the EU over the recent years. In 2005, you payed ~ EUR 122 (and less in 2006 and 2007 as your politicians successfully reduced the contribution of the Netherlands to the Union). I can understand that this is still bothering you, but if you take into account the low inflation, the larger market, stronger competition, the higher tax revenue and the lower prices that come along with that, as well as the easiness with which you can apply for a job in many European countries, you're still better off being a citizen of the European Union.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 24): If germany still does not allow the beer to be sold, the french brewery can go before German courts, which rule that Germany must pay compensation

Good example, but I must say it may speak volumes to the real motives of such a union in the first place....GREED!

The EU gives smaller, weaker (politically, economically) nations a chance to glean cash from the bigger states.

I think your example is fair and accurate, but what it says to me is No, German people will not be permitted to pass and enforce law that another nation may not like, if they dare exercise such an expression of freedom, they will have to part with some treasure for not capitulating to the wishes of non-germans.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 26): Good example, but I must say it may speak volumes to the real motives of such a union in the first place....GREED!

Funny to hear this from an US citizen  . You could also call it freedom and liberalism  

I would say it is a win-win situation. Economic benefit for all memberstates, which itself leads to every country getting richer. That is also why everybody joins it.

The main issue about the EU is that nobody really knows what European integration shall be when it is finished. The brits, for example, have a functionalistic approach, while Germany tends to be very friendly towards european integration. This is the major issue which leads to much frustration in the people.

However, this is not a wrong approach. The concept of souvereign national states which can do whatever they like whenever they like is outdated in Europe, as it was the main reason for WW1 and WW2. UK, France and Germany are simply too small to be global players, yet they are big enough to dominate their neighbour states.

The EU is a system which balances the interests between the member states in a very functional way. Thus, this helps to prevent war between the states.

I tend to say: Europe is, if it works regardless of all existing problems. And it does. Very good indeed, despite all critics.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 26): Good example, but I must say it may speak volumes to the real motives of such a union in the first place....GREED!

An open market is a synonym for greed?

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 26): No, German people will not be permitted to pass and enforce law that another nation may not like

Yes we can, but not to protect our market from compeition.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 26): if they dare exercise such an expression of freedom

Protectionism != Freedom
Without protectionism, I have the freedom of choice.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 26): they will have to part with some treasure for not capitulating to the wishes of non-germans.

Ahem, no I can still buy Beck's, Jever or Paulaner if I like German beer better than French. Having free access to a market does not mean to succeed by itself. If consumers in a respective country don't like my product, I won't benefit from a free market. The consumer, however always does, as he benefits from a broader product range and lower prices.

A free market is only then a bad thing if it doesn't protect brands or trade names such as Cognac, Champagne or Mercedes.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 28): Ahem, no I can still buy Beck's, Jever or Paulaner if I like German beer better than French. Having free access to a market does not mean to succeed by itself. If consumers in a respective country don't like my product, I won't benefit from a free market. The consumer, however always does, as he benefits from a broader product range and lower prices.

Very true. You see this especially in the car market. French brands dominate in France, while in Germany, there are only German cars in the top-10 of the sales list. Nobody prevents us from buying French, but every country still has its own market, with distinctive national differences.

A good example is the Aldi supermarket. In Denmark, products are completely different, as customers prefer other goods than in Germany.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27): Funny to hear this from an US citizen . You could also call it freedom and liberalism

Thanks for your feedback...brings back memories of the good old days talking about politics (and everything else) in the local gasthaus when I was staioned in Germany back in the 80s.

I don't think nationality matters a bit, the question is: How one nation (or a number of them) in the EU imposes aircraft performance standards on another state equals a meassure of "freedom" for the state who does not wish to adopt such standards?.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27): I would say it is a win-win situation. Economic benefit for all memberstates, which itself leads to every country getting richer. That is also why everybody joins it.

I too understand the economic and political concepts of socialism (and communisim) which tells us that there can be economic equality, but what they fail to tell us is this equality will be achieved when all are equally poor!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27): UK, France and Germany are simply too small to be global players, yet they are big enough to dominate their neighbour states

There are those that chuckle at the idea of a "United States of Europe", I don't laugh at the concept, but also don't think the very different cultures of the many nations will really want to submit to an overarching powerful central governement. I think the French and Brits will always hate each other, and French will always mistrust the Germans, and Germans will pretty much think of themselves as superior to most all in Europe using pretty much any meassurement (and I'd agree with them)

However, the concept again is another example of GREED...to secure greater power than any one nation could achieve on thir own.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 28): Yes we can, but not to protect our market from compeition.

I don't see this as protectionism of a market...but a socialst example of big government (EU) dictating to citizens (nations states) what they can and cannot do with their aircraft (so much for freedom), i.e. can't have an engine if is considered less "green" than what "Big Brother" finds acceptable, instead of what the German people decide is acceptable...Of course, it's fine if the EU to not allow you operate your aircraft in other member states if you don't meet their standards...but you'd still retain the "RIGHT" to decide if you wished to adopt such policy without the risk of being FINED (GREED) for not doing so.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 30): I too understand the economic and political concepts of socialism (and communisim) which tells us that there can be economic equality, but what they fail to tell us is this equality will be achieved when all are equally poor!

Communism? How is a free-trade zone with standardisation communism? The EC creates a bigger market, leading to a fair competition between the member states and their products. Either your products survive or are replaced by better ones from another member state.

And ALL member states are richer than they were 20 years ago. Without the EC, germany would never have become one of the largest economies in the world, as most of our export products go in the EC.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 30): I don't see this as protectionism of a market...but a socialst example of big government (EU) dictating to citizens (nations states) what they can and cannot do with their aircraft (so much for freedom), i.e. can't have an engine if is considered less "green" than what "Big Brother" finds acceptable, instead of what the German people decide is acceptable..

I see your point, and do agree that one must be very suspicious whether Brussels really rules only in fields it really has a written competence. Indeed they tend to broaden their legislative powers without being really authorised to do so.

Nevertheless, the EC must work this way. In a naive world, one might think every state only adopts rules which it finds appropriate for itself. This is not the case. Many legislative acts of the member states are in reality hidden protectionistic barriers, which make it next to impossible for foreign products to enter fair competition. In a globalised world, it would for example simply be madness to have 25 different rules on how a car must be built in order to be safe. This was how it was before the EC. Now we have shared standards, making it much more efficient to produce and sell the goods.

I know that in the US, the states have lots of legislative powers retained. Yet also they have given some competences to the federal government, simply because it makes sense. The same is the case in the EU.

Whether or not the EU is a democratic institution is surely debatable. It is far from being a perfect system. But it is better than no system at all.

And it surely is no communist behemoth. Funny enough, left wing partys accuse it of being only there for the sake of boosting economy.

EU= George Orwell. Hide your books. They could be used to rebut initiatives.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 30): but a socialst example of big government (EU) dictating to citizens (nations states) what they can and cannot do with their aircraft (so much for freedom)

Neither does the EU promote socialism (quite to the contrary) nor is the Union dictating member states what they can do with their aircraft. The question is if the emissions of military aircraft are going to be included in the greenhouse gas emission trading scheme. A trading scheme does not regulate emissions by itself but makes fuel efficient engines cheaper.

It's like when your Secretary of the Interior sets up mandatory guidelines to ensure availability of energy sources within the USA, while maintaining environmental protections. The guidelines would take effect, after commissioners of the governments of each member state (the Council in our case) and/or the Congress (the European Parliament in our case) would approve those guidelines. What would be so undemocratic here or why would that resemble socialism?

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 32): EU= George Orwell. Hide your books. They could be used to rebut initiatives.

Simply rediculous. I could ask about the depatment of homeland security here, but lets keep this diskussion on a better level...

However, there IS a certain problem right now with the terrorlists of the security council. People on that list cannot have bank accounts in the EU, and are exempt from lots of rights. The european court of justice found this to be in accordance with the law. Very doubtful, we might see a conflict between the federal german constitutional court and the European Court on this issue in the future. (In case you are interested, there will be an article in the German newsmag Spiegel on this issue next week, in German, of course)