Originally Posted by
fastair
I truly doubt the US govt believes it is your civic duty to enforce a regulation that they have not endorsed.
Talk about going overboard!
Really, where did I say that?
My post was about US law (see the first sentence, as well as the specific examples of US law). My point was (in response to the message i quoted) that the US has statutes similar to this in which individual citizens are compensated, and that it's not just an EU thing.
So, I was obviously saying that, in the case of these US statutes, a US citizen should feel entitled to collect on them, and that it "may" even be his/her civic duty because that is what his/her government would like its citizens to do when it designs a penalty to be enforced by individual citizens.
Of course, the same logic applies to an EU citizen, like the OP, enforcing an EU consumer protection statute.
But where in any of that do you get me saying that the US government wants its citizens to enforce
EU law, and based on that say that I went "overboard?"
Originally Posted by
fastair
Again, reread my posts. My post said that the person calling it a "civic duty to get paid" was overboard on that statement. Please, read what I wrote before telling me I ignored your posts. I have read them, but ask you to do the same thing.
As you're telling other people to read your posts carefully before responding, could you please extend me the same courtesy?
Originally Posted by
fastair
to the poster I quoted, who I believe is not a citizen of an EU state, but rather of the US, and his reference to the President, was vague as to whose president.
Actually, you don't know my citizenship. But I made general points about EU law and US law, and I did not put my own citizenship at issue; I request that you not make this more personal than it needs to be.
Originally Posted by
fastair
how many people can honestly say that they have seen Jerzy Buzek tell them it is their duty to collect this money?
This is a red herring. As a general rule, legislatures pass laws that they want to see obeyed and enforced. (Do you disagree?) Accordingly, citizens should follow and/or enforce the law as appropriate--a personal message from the legislature to every citizen is not required to make the law binding, and everyone should know that the government wants its laws to be enforced, without the President individually telling you so.
Originally Posted by
fastair
I believe that UA has chosen to operate there before there was such a cartel as the EU, but they flew into individual states. Yes, UA has chosen to continue to operate there after the formation of the EU, but it isn't like UA started flying into those countries as they became EU states, rather UA flew to Europe long before, and continues to after. . . . A subtle and legally moot point, but a valid perspective shift none the less.
I agree that this point is legally moot, but I don't think it's a meaningful perspective shift. I think it's entirely irrelevant.
By flying to the EU, UA and other carriers must accept that they will be subject to EU laws and regulations, which everyone knows may change over time. And it's not like UA is permanently locked into every route it opens--UA has dropped lots of of routes in its history. So, unless you believe that UA should eternally be subject only to the laws in place in the various EU states when it first started serving them (and based on reading your posts, I don't think that's what you believe), then I don't see how this point, or any of the ensuing discussion of route maps, and treaty history/trivia, is relevant at all. As long as UA serves EU destinations, UA is subject to EU law, period. And if this was a very recent law that the EU sprang on UA without notice, then maybe you could say it was unfair to expect UA to immediately be ready to comply. But this is a law from 2004, so for UA not to be following it in in 2011 is simply indefensible. Whether UA started serving LHR in 2002, or in 1902, makes no difference whatsoever.