Originally Posted by
TheJayHatch
I certainly don't intend to start some sort of in/out debate on FT (please, no!) however I suspect Brexit will start to effectively collapse over the next 12 months on the little details like these. If legally we accept jurisdiction in one area of UK commerce, others will insist it applies to them. And the Government know it - its why they look so consistently shell-shocked.
This is the central point of the entire issue. Without getting into the in/out debate, does accepting EU law mean that EC 261/2004 applies but is interpreted by UK courts without regard to the doings of the ECJ or that the Swiss interpretation (voluntarily applied by Switzerland) applies, e.g., that the Regulation is the law of Switzerland, but the machinations of the ECJ and its interpretation of EC 261/2004 are not of precedential effect?
The easy answer is, of course, to accept EU jurisdiction over this slice of commerce. But, that could have deep impact on trade deals between the UK and non-EU nations. What if the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia all offer better terms to the UK than to the EU, but predicated on air carrier access of some kind?