Just to expand on this point, a little bit – The United Kingdom, for example, doesn’t like the union to interfere in U.K. domestic issues, so the U.K. government is not going to advocate that the commission interfere in French domestic issues either.
In case any of this is aimed at me, note that the only phrase I’ve used is “put pressure on France”.
There’s a difference between diplomacy and interference in domestic issues.
The former is what the EU is all about.
Nope. It would be, if the strikers didn’t enjoy massive support from other unions, and the general population (down to 59% in the latest poll - still a large majority of the country). In that case, the government could send in the cops under applause, and the blockaders would have very little leverage. Which is why the fuel stranglehold isn’t a routine technique unions use - in normal circumstances, it would alienate a lot more people that it would help their cause.
But that’s not what’s happening here - not only has the government been hesitant to use force against a popular movement in the first place ; but now that they’ve tried, they’ve more or less failed - the cops evict one group of blockaders, only to have a new one springing up to replace them a few hours later. However you slice it, fighting against a popular uprising is a dog of the female persuasion. Keyword being popular.
Not to mention of course that if the refinery workers stayed exactly within the bounds of the law and contented themselves with shutting down their plants indefinitely, the damage would be worse, and the government absolutely powerless - it’s anticonstitutional to break a strike by force, to arrest a person for striking, or to hire replacements to take over a striking worker’s job, or to fire a striker.
But as I said, in that case they would mess France up good, proper and durably, unlike now when they can open or shut the gas tap at will. I’d rather the former didn’t happen thankyouverymuch 
It wasn’t directed at you- but since you replied 
Put pressure on France to do what? What option do you think that the European Commission can make France exercise that the French Government hasn’t already thought of and either used, or discarded for their own reasons?
And further what do you think the backlash against European integration would be like once it got out that Barroso rung up Sarkozy and was like “hey, we think you send in the troops!” Nobody would trust the Commission ever again. So when you say “put pressure on France” that has an awful lot of meaning when it comes to the delicacy of European politics.
Not to mention that Sarkozy and Barroso aren’t exactly best buds, any move from the commission would probably backfire.
And thanks ascenray that’s exactly what I meant.
How about a contingency plan where if there are massive ATC strikes in future, neighbouring countries are given control of critical areas of french airspace? That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure there are other options beyond “send in the troops”.
There’s no point speculating about what options the french government may or may not have considered already.
That would significantly piss off all the unions in the other member states. It is not the role of the EU to help national governments circumvent their populace. And any such policy would need to be reciprocal and thus necessitate a treaty change, unless you want to make an argument for this being legitimate under one of the current articles?
My main beef with the premise of this thread is the complete lack of understanding of what the EU is and what it is capable of. Every action that one of its bodies takes is based upon specific treaty articles, and if there is no such articles all 27 member states will need to agree to an amendment.
Yet anything suggested so far has been based upon- “This would be nice”. Thats not a sufficient justification for the EU to take action.
And you didn’t answer my point about the political consequences of the EU becoming involved with an internal dispute.
Even in the U.S. unionized workers have the right to strike regardless of the inconvenience they cause people. Only a few categories of workers are specifically forbidden from striking. They include public safety people such as police, firemen, and ATC, as has been said on this thread.
But public transit workers have gone on strike many times in the U.S., just as one example, and that usually causes tremendous inconvenience.
So it’s not just Europe.
However, one difference that I have noted is that strikers get far less sympathy here. A few years ago the Bay Area Rapid Transit (local rail transit) workers threatened a strike, and the anger directed at them by the general public was palpable. And in the end they never went ahead with the strike.
I’m not going to speculate about how foreign unions would interpret such a move.
And I wasn’t aware that all treaties need to be reciprocal. For example, there are quotas on the movement of labour from countries such as Romania to countries in Western Europe (note that this is over and above individual nations’ rules). Does that mean that there are laws limiting the number of Western Europeans that can emigrate to Eastern Europe?
Really? What about when the EU was putting pressure on Greece over sovereign debt? Was there an amendment, is there something specific in the constitution?
You’re ignoring what I said about diplomacy versus intervention. If France is doing something that affects other nations negatively, they are quite right to inform France of this fact in the first instance.
Then if the problem continues, they’re quite right to pressure France using the various diplomatic levers. None of this is meddling or treading on France’s sovereignty.
As for “political consequences”, there’s virtually nothing that the french government can do that will be acceptable to the populace now anyway.
Greece has signed to the economic requirements of the EU treaties, like staying within the framed deficit numbers. The pressure stems from this.
What I dont really understand with this thread and its premises is the talk about a massive continouous ATC strike. Maybe I’m living in an alternate dimension where things make sense, but it seems to me the ATCs were on strike two days. You want to declare martial law for two days of strike? Thanks for making clear what your views on democracy are…
BTW, in the whining of the OP, I can only note that in 4 pages, there’s still not one cite (even a biased one) about what the ATC strike supposedly cost. Considering the OP constantly refers to said costs to justify a treading on Constitutional rights, that would be the first place to start. If the OP had really wanted to make an argument instead of a rant, that is. As it is GDs and not the Pit, I suppose that’s the kind of things that is expected of us, I think.
P.S: I do find funny to see people objecting to the way the strikers behave and lecturing them on what they have the right to do or and what they dont. Strikers stayed within the rights they have in France. What’s your base for lecturing them?
Other than how your own personal dictature would work, I mean.
You’re right of course that Treaties do not physically need to be reciprocal, I was speaking of political needs. There is zero chance of France giving up control of its airspace (even in strictly limited circumstances) without other member state being willing to do the same.
The treaties with Bulgaria and Romania were negotiated prior to their accession, which meant such uneven deals could be imposed upon them. Now they are inside it’s not possible to pull the same trick.
As for Greece, the legitimacy for the EU’s involvement came from clauses in the TEU pertaining to management of the Eurozone, there are requirements based upon debt levels etc that members of the zone are are supposed to stay within. Greece failed this and therefore the EU had the right to intervene. In fact I believe that at one point the Commission could have legitimately fined Greece for their behaviour, they chose not to because it was felt that adding more debt on them would have made matters worse.
And despite this the majority of the pressure and negotiations came from the member states and not the EU, and that was a crisis that could have torn the EU apart. This is an inconvenience.
You’re right that sometimes the difference can be crucial, but you have to distinguish between the institutions of the EU and the actions of member states. The EU is not free to engage in diplomacy with member states in that manner - Germany or the UK would be.
Then comes the second part of my argument, the “speculation” as you’ve termed it. First I don’t see the point in not doing, that as the OP wants the EU to “get France under control” we can’t debate that without speculating on the consequences of any actions they take.
I’d be surprised if there is not similar leverage under common aviation law.
I was basing my thoughts on earlier claims that the French ATC had conducted 5 strikes in the last year. That’s at the point where contingency plans should be drawn up, or ATC strikes made illegal, because more sustained action may be just a matter of time.
If these claims were incorrect then I’ll happily retract Point (2) described below.
My position is that (1) these strikes / protests are based on arguments that are not economically defensible. And (2) that if ATC strikes cause severe disruption to other nations, then they should put pressure on France to take action.
What the French government should do, or how unpopular Sarkozy could become if he takes option X, is besides the point for me. We can speculate about it, but it doesn’t affect my point.
I may even agree with those those points. What I don’t agree follows is the capability and responsibility for the EU to act. And unless you can point to a certain point in ‘common aviation law’ then I believe you should acknowledge that the EU is not there to ‘get France under control’.
Well, after some googling, I see that there is an organisation that coordinates air traffic control across the eurozone called Eurocontrol.
And furthermore this organisation has drafted plans for pooling air traffic control responsabilities, and for making special provision for emergencies: The Single European Sky. France is one of the signatories of these regulations.
SES regulations have not been put into effect yet. And I’m not sure how they apply specifically to the issue of national strikes. I think there is enough leverage here however to “validate” pressure on france if these strikes become disruptive enough.
What’s funny is that contrary to what most anti-strikers posters here think, it would probably confort the strikers’ position by forcing the government to the bargaining table. As that would put the French government between the French Constitution and some EU pressures.
Truly, nobody really gives a shit about whether the French strike or not as long as it doesn’t affect us and the wider European economy. In fact, the only time I actually think about France is when I’m forced to: bombarded with news of yet another French general strike as I find out Western Europe is once again paralysed due to idle French ATC workers. We’ll just point and laugh at the adolescent idiots who think the best way to run a country is shut down the power stations and cut off the fuel when something doesn’t suit, as we merrily fly over.
On the good news side, an article on CNN said the strikes should end in about 2 weeks.
Apparently vacations are coming.
Maybe not Texas, but definitely Hartsfield!
Oh you mean what pisses you off is when those that you like to consider as your inferiors force you to abide by their rules? Man, was that supposed to make us consider the strikers in a positive or a negative way, I just cant tell here.
P.S:what’s the fucking point in writing in ALL of your posts “idle” next to French ATCs?
I wonder how many kids flying back to see a dieing relative missed their chance to say a final goodbye because of Capitaine and the rest of the Les Miserables? Tears pouring down their faces as they finally realise their flight was canceled due to yet another pointless strike by idle French ATC staff. How many weddings were ruined and birthdays spoiled just so the French could attention whore once more? How much business lost? How much more strain can European airlines be expected to suffer at the hands of first an act of God in the Icelandic volcano, and now a repeated onslaught of strikes by the French that could have been avoided if there was a better commitment to Representative Democracy on their part? And in the end, what for? The Senate has passed the bill, and through this France’s economic future perhaps doesn’t look like the black hole it did just a few days ago.
You forgot to mention all the kittens with cancer AND AIDS that God killed because French ATCs dared to strike for a whole two days.
BTW, either* Les Misérables*, or the Misérables. The *Les *makes as much sense as The La Brea Tar Pits.
Oh, and don’t crow just yet : the Senate has passed absolutely nothing, because that’s not what the Senate does.
Rather, they’ve done their job as the Senate, which is to examine the legality and constitutionality of a bill proposed by the House. They then sent it back to be voted upon for realz. The bill isn’t a law yet. The final rounds of votes have been fast tracked to Monday and Wednesday (not quite sure why there are two votes, actually - possibly a side effect of the extraordinary rules they invoked to get that bill voted upon so fast).