6 ms·

This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/05/24/european-council-conc

This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/05/24/european-council-conclusions-on-belarus-24-may-2021/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021... "- 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;" decision has still to be made by the council, and then - to my understanding - implemented by all member states one by one. It's a typical example of media interpretation of facts. See here https://en.belavia.by/news/4674378/ https://en.belavia.by/news/4674378/ -> Belavia confirms UK and FR banned, but it was their decision.

matkoniecz 5y ago
Thanks, thanks for revealing that I should trust journalism even less than I thought. I now noticed that > The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies has "decided" not "implemented" or "started", so technically it is matching reality, even if misleading.
- calpaterson 5y ago
  "Cock-up before conspiracy": problem in this case is that journalists do not understand EU process. In fairness to them it is not straightforward and in any field of politics something is said to be "done" at many different junctures: for example when it is politically inevitable, when it is informally agreed, once it has been formally agreed and then, of course, once it has actually been effected.
  - stanpinte 5y ago
    my comment was without political meaning : I have relatives who need to fly to minsk from EU on Saturday for family reasons, I'm just monitoring the legal status.
- iso1631 5y ago
  The BBC story is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57236489 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57236489 With a headline of "EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest" It states > The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies after a flight was diverted to Minsk on Sunday and a dissident journalist arrested. The specific release from the meeting: - 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; Seems reasonable reporting to me, the EU has decided to do it, and is now implementing that decision. Further in the article > The UK has suspended the operating permit for Belarusian state airline Belavia, and EU leaders have called on member states to take similar action. That the HN submitter changed the headline is hardly a damning indictment of journalism (The headline of the .com version was the same at 6:27 GMT) https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57236489 https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bb...
ChemSpider 5y ago
For all practical matters that is the same. Of course member states have to implement it. The EU is (still?) not one country. What counts is that the leaders of all EU countries agreed to it. So it will happen.
- stanpinte 5y ago
  Let's see how it evolves: I think every country shall make its cost-benefit analysis, and the ones with nothing or very little to lose shall ban. I would bet on medium compliance.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > I think every country shall make its cost-benefit analysis Nope, that the ban will happen has already passed, which is what this article is about. What hasn't happened yet is that the executive order in each country has yet to happen, but that won't include extensive debate as the decision that has been taken is a united front for the participating countries. Actively ignoring already agreed orders to pass would be going against their own interest of a united front, which obviously would go against the core principle of the EU, so unlikely to happen.
  - oblio 5y ago
    The thing is, to put it bluntly, it's Belarus. Almost all of them have nothing to lose. I imagine air traffic over Belarus can be avoided with minimal financial losses and Belarus itself only generates a small amount of traffic. Plus some of the countries voting for this are actively hostile to Belarus (I think Lithuania is in that category). The only thing that would make them change their minds is if Russia reacts somehow.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      > I imagine air traffic over Belarus can be avoided with minimal financial losses and Belarus itself only generates a small amount of traffic The ban is for Belarusian airlines over EU members countries. The one who is being targeted to be "financially hurt" is not the EU countries themselves but the Belarusian airlines. I'm sure they'll feel the impact very soon, as they'll basically need to cancel every flight unless it goes to Russia.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021... 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.
- iso1631 5y ago
  The misreading stems from the editorialising xendo did with the headline. xendo submitted "2 hours ago", so between 0629 and 0729 GMT. The BBC headline at 0627 GMT was "EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest" https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57236489 https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bb...
  - e_proxus 5y ago
    HN mods should correct the headline to match the article.
- kruxigt 5y ago
  Planes from Minsk are travelling from and to Stockholm as we speak. For what it's worth Swedish authorities claim decision not taken by EU yet.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  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.
fy20 5y ago
If it's restricting flights over their airspace then it only really needs Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. And I'm sure they would be quick to implement such a ruling, as even before this incident they weren't on the best of terms with Belarus.
- petre 5y ago
  It's important that the EU acts as a block.
lazyjones 5y ago
Also, it sounds wrong that they can allegedly ban Belarusian planes from "European" skies, with Belarus being a country in Europe...
- simonh 5y ago
  By European skies, they just mean the skies over the European Union. News articles routinely say Europe when they man the European Union. Sometimes confusingly, but I think the context is clear here.
  - lazyjones 5y ago
    It's clearly wrong, that it's pretty common to write it like that doesn't make it any better.

matkoniecz 5y ago

Thanks, thanks for revealing that I should trust journalism even less than I thought. I now noticed that > The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies has "decided" not "implemented" or "started", so technically it is matching reality, even if misleading.

calpaterson 5y ago
"Cock-up before conspiracy": problem in this case is that journalists do not understand EU process. In fairness to them it is not straightforward and in any field of politics something is said to be "done" at many different junctures: for example when it is politically inevitable, when it is informally agreed, once it has been formally agreed and then, of course, once it has actually been effected.
- stanpinte 5y ago
  my comment was without political meaning : I have relatives who need to fly to minsk from EU on Saturday for family reasons, I'm just monitoring the legal status.
iso1631 5y ago
The BBC story is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57236489 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57236489 With a headline of "EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest" It states > The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies after a flight was diverted to Minsk on Sunday and a dissident journalist arrested. The specific release from the meeting: - 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; Seems reasonable reporting to me, the EU has decided to do it, and is now implementing that decision. Further in the article > The UK has suspended the operating permit for Belarusian state airline Belavia, and EU leaders have called on member states to take similar action. That the HN submitter changed the headline is hardly a damning indictment of journalism (The headline of the .com version was the same at 6:27 GMT) https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57236489 https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bb...

ChemSpider 5y ago

For all practical matters that is the same. Of course member states have to implement it. The EU is (still?) not one country. What counts is that the leaders of all EU countries agreed to it. So it will happen.

stanpinte 5y ago
Let's see how it evolves: I think every country shall make its cost-benefit analysis, and the ones with nothing or very little to lose shall ban. I would bet on medium compliance.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > I think every country shall make its cost-benefit analysis Nope, that the ban will happen has already passed, which is what this article is about. What hasn't happened yet is that the executive order in each country has yet to happen, but that won't include extensive debate as the decision that has been taken is a united front for the participating countries. Actively ignoring already agreed orders to pass would be going against their own interest of a united front, which obviously would go against the core principle of the EU, so unlikely to happen.
- oblio 5y ago
  The thing is, to put it bluntly, it's Belarus. Almost all of them have nothing to lose. I imagine air traffic over Belarus can be avoided with minimal financial losses and Belarus itself only generates a small amount of traffic. Plus some of the countries voting for this are actively hostile to Belarus (I think Lithuania is in that category). The only thing that would make them change their minds is if Russia reacts somehow.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > I imagine air traffic over Belarus can be avoided with minimal financial losses and Belarus itself only generates a small amount of traffic The ban is for Belarusian airlines over EU members countries. The one who is being targeted to be "financially hurt" is not the EU countries themselves but the Belarusian airlines. I'm sure they'll feel the impact very soon, as they'll basically need to cancel every flight unless it goes to Russia.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021... 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.

iso1631 5y ago
The misreading stems from the editorialising xendo did with the headline. xendo submitted "2 hours ago", so between 0629 and 0729 GMT. The BBC headline at 0627 GMT was "EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest" https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57236489 https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bb...
- e_proxus 5y ago
  HN mods should correct the headline to match the article.
kruxigt 5y ago
Planes from Minsk are travelling from and to Stockholm as we speak. For what it's worth Swedish authorities claim decision not taken by EU yet.
throwaway2037 5y ago
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.

fy20 5y ago

If it's restricting flights over their airspace then it only really needs Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. And I'm sure they would be quick to implement such a ruling, as even before this incident they weren't on the best of terms with Belarus.

petre 5y ago
It's important that the EU acts as a block.

lazyjones 5y ago

Also, it sounds wrong that they can allegedly ban Belarusian planes from "European" skies, with Belarus being a country in Europe...

simonh 5y ago
By European skies, they just mean the skies over the European Union. News articles routinely say Europe when they man the European Union. Sometimes confusingly, but I think the context is clear here.
- lazyjones 5y ago
  It's clearly wrong, that it's pretty common to write it like that doesn't make it any better.