search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 22nd, 2014, 04:57 PM   #821
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Major blow for HS2 project, since UK legislator was not capable of dealing with this matter in a way that is in line with EU law.

http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/01/2...dicial-review/
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 22nd, 2014, 06:55 PM   #822
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,217

Err, that's one of the court cases that got lost in the Supreme Court today - hardly a blow for the scheme. Rather it is a nail in the coffin of the antis - the judiciary will not hold phase 1 up.

And it's clear from Lords Neuberger and Mance that if the Court has not interpreted EU law correctly, that UK law must trump it on similar grounds of complaint that the petitioners are making against the Government - not enough time, space, knowledge of the consequences before voting...

The concurrent opinions merely were a chance for the Justices to weigh in on a debate being had among the judiciary on the subject of EU legal supremacy, rather than any view that this wasn't a suit that had enough merit to be heard in Strasbourg, let alone win.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 11:21 PM   #823
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Since I can't be bothered to read up the whole procedure: At what stage of HS2 are we right now? As I understand the Parliament adopted some scheme that has now been challenged infront of the Supreme Court by local councils et al. saying plans under the SEA directive (which applies on HS2) must be subject to judicial reviews and it's not enough for the parliament to just pass a law. From what I've read, this clearly was a violation of EU law, otherwise it would be up the UK lawmake to change EU law. Treaty violation procedure up ahead!
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 12:25 AM   #824
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,217

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingNick View Post
From what I've read, this clearly was a violation of EU law
The Supreme Court unanimously feel otherwise and that was incredibly clear from the article you posted.
Quote:
otherwise it would be up the UK lawmake to change EU law.
Did you read what the article you linked said? The 2 Justices said that if EU law was broken then they changed a fundamental UK law without telling us when we signed up 40 years ago, not that they want to change EU law...
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 01:42 AM   #825
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The Supreme Court unanimously feel otherwise and that was incredibly clear from the article you posted.Did you read what the article you linked said? The 2 Justices said that if EU law was broken then they changed a fundamental UK law without telling us when we signed up 40 years ago, not that they want to change EU law...
No, they did not since, it is up to the UK law maker to create an environment that is in line with EU law and not the other way round. It is also not carved into stone that the UK has to handle matters that are clearly of an administrative nature in a legistlative way without changing fundamental principles of the UK. All you have to do is treat the project as what it is: an ordinary building projekt. You don't pass seperate laws to make them happen, you apply for a building permit. And the supremacy was already well established when the UK joined so this argument is legally on rather weak feet, especially since this fundamental principle would not have to be changed in order to create a sitation that is sound with EU law. The EU is not overstepping it's competences either, when they passed this directive, just to have it mentioned.
__________________
Europa per gli europei

SAS 16 liked this post
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 04:13 AM   #826
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,217

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingNick View Post
No, they did not since, it is up to the UK law maker to create an environment that is in line with EU law and not the other way round.
where did they not?

Where are the Supreme Court wrong on this?
Quote:
All you have to do is treat the project as what it is: an ordinary building projekt. You don't pass seperate laws to make them happen, you apply for a building permit.
without a change in the law, that would be illegal. You know nothing about this issue at all, do you? Certainly no knowledge of UK law... I'd also strongly argue that repealing the relevant laws and merely applying for a building permit for HS2, as you suggest here, IS VERY MUCH a violation of the EU law in question!
Quote:
And the supremacy was already well established when the UK joined so this argument is legally on rather weak feet,
its not even part of the argument, but an interesting aside that if the petitioners were right and such common parliamentary process is unlawful under EU law, then this is not only the first we've heard of it in the 40 years we've been under it, but that our passing of the European Community Act 1972 was unlawful under this EU law, and also of dubious legality (due to the contradiction of the Bill of Rights 1689 without express discussion of the rendering of it obsolete) under UK law, ergo the status of EU law's dominion in the UK is on shaky ground, as well as a large number of laws passed since 1973. I think, reading between the lines, that the message sent by those two Justices is that the ECJ shouldn't open Pandora's box here by saying that the Supreme Court has interpreted EU law wrong!

But, as we didn't violate EU law, everything is fine...
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 09:49 PM   #827
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
where did they not?

Where are the Supreme Court wrong on this?without a change in the law, that would be illegal. You know nothing about this issue at all, do you? Certainly no knowledge of UK law... I'd also strongly argue that repealing the relevant laws and merely applying for a building permit for HS2, as you suggest here, IS VERY MUCH a violation of the EU law in question!its not even part of the argument, but an interesting aside that if the petitioners were right and such common parliamentary process is unlawful under EU law, then this is not only the first we've heard of it in the 40 years we've been under it, but that our passing of the European Community Act 1972 was unlawful under this EU law, and also of dubious legality (due to the contradiction of the Bill of Rights 1689 without express discussion of the rendering of it obsolete) under UK law, ergo the status of EU law's dominion in the UK is on shaky ground, as well as a large number of laws passed since 1973. I think, reading between the lines, that the message sent by those two Justices is that the ECJ shouldn't open Pandora's box here by saying that the Supreme Court has interpreted EU law wrong!

But, as we didn't violate EU law, everything is fine...
As you're right, I am not very familiar with UK law. What I am familiar though is EU law and especially the EIA directive, as it was part of my Bachelor thesis about the foundations of EU-law on industrial and operational plants.

1) What is the directive asking for? An assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Is HS2 such a project? Yes, it is as HSR is explicitely mentioned in the Annex.

2) What's the result? The public concerned (owners of the land HS2 is supposed to run through, those living nearby, also NGOs with a focus on environmental protection) shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken.

To me knowledge this did not happen, did it?

3) Certain excemptional projects may be excempted from the application of the directive, but only in matters of national defense and civil emergencies.

Does not apply to HS2. Thus the project falls under the scope of the directive.

4) Once consent is given by the competent authorities, the public concerned must be given the opportunity to have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this directive.

Was this the case? No, it was not. That is why the whole fun ended up at the Supreme Court.

Result: By simply passing the scheme in Parliament and start building afterwards, the EIA Directive was violated on various grounds.

1) Most likely no proper involvement of the public concerned and the general public and giving them the opportunity to express concernes, make remarks and so on.

2) No proper review of the consent by a court of law or another independent and impartial body.

3) Supreme Court failed to hand the case to the ECJ in a preliminary ruling, since there is not acte claire about the whole matter and due to the fact that there is no court above the Supreme Court it would have had the obligation to refere the case. A clear violation of Art 267 TFEU.

How could the UK create a situation in sound with EU law? Have a seperate authority decide about such matters and not the parliament. End of story. No need to change the Bill of Rights.



Edit: I understand the reasoning of the Supreme Court though. Their ruling is most certainly more comfortable for all parties to deal with, however from a legal perspective it is just wrong.
__________________
Europa per gli europei

SAS 16 liked this post

Last edited by KingNick; January 23rd, 2014 at 10:03 PM.
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 04:38 AM   #828
Christopher125
Registered User
 
Christopher125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 752
Likes (Received): 171

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingNick View Post
Result: By simply passing the scheme in Parliament and start building afterwards, the EIA Directive was violated on various grounds.
Eh? The scheme hasn't been passed by parliament.

Chris
Christopher125 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 10:48 AM   #829
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Doesn't change the unlawfulness, once the hybrid bill actually passes.
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 02:17 PM   #830
Christopher125
Registered User
 
Christopher125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 752
Likes (Received): 171

Not only does your argument make no logical sense, but two court rulings disagree with you. Of course you can believe what you want, but I'm afraid in this case you are wrong.

Chris
Christopher125 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 02:26 PM   #831
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

You don't even remotely go into any legal detail why that would be the case. I assume you're no jurist at all, otherwise you'd understand the reasoning.
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 03:44 PM   #832
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,382
Likes (Received): 349

I'm no lawyer either, but isn't whatever the highest court decides legal by default?
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 04:35 PM   #833
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,995
Likes (Received): 8610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
I'm no lawyer either, but isn't whatever the highest court decides legal by default?
No, they're creating facts, but that does not necessarily mean their ruling is right. It actually happens quite often that highest courts interpret the law wrong and reverse their ruling in a later decision (in the meantime they're given a hard time in all the literature). Nobody is perfect.
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2014, 07:16 PM   #834
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,217

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingNick View Post
2) What's the result? The public concerned (owners of the land HS2 is supposed to run through, those living nearby, also NGOs with a focus on environmental protection) shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken.

To me knowledge this did not happen, did it?
Yes it did - there was a route consultation. I responded to it, as did those taking the case to court.

Your entire case is based on total ignorance.
Quote:
4) Once consent is given by the competent authorities, the public concerned must be given the opportunity to have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this directive.

Was this the case? No, it was not. That is why the whole fun ended up at the Supreme Court.
No - to end up in the Supreme Court, there must have been a court case - they challenged the substantive and procedural legality of decisions in a lower court and lost, so appealed to the Supreme Court. Where they lost again.

They did win one court case - out of 18 or 19 (can't remember if it is 18 they lost, or 18 total).
Quote:
1) Most likely no proper involvement of the public concerned and the general public and giving them the opportunity to express concernes, make remarks and so on.
"most likely" <- as I said, you are arguing out of ignorance of the facts. There very much was opportunity to express concerns, make remarks, etc. As such, the Supreme Court could not possibly overturn the decision of the lower court, because the case was silly.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 05:02 AM   #835
437.001
Sister Greed EU
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tarragona (Spain)
Posts: 31,299
Likes (Received): 13877

I post this, but it doesn´t mean that I agree with the content of the articles, nor the views of the people mentioned in the articles.

From December 14, 2013:

Quote:
The scathing HS2 report ministers want to hide

Ministers are fighting to stop full publication of report which raises “major concerns” about “risky” construction timetable for HS2


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...t-to-hide.HTML


From January 25, 2014:

Quote:
Nigel Farage: 'Skint' Britain cannot afford HS2

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, says the country is "skint" and cannot afford the planned HS2 high-speed rail link


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...fford-HS2.html
He said that in... Amersham (Buckinghamshire). What a coincidence.
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat Imputados en Tarragona
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Last edited by 437.001; January 26th, 2014 at 05:14 AM.
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 02:52 PM   #836
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 853
Likes (Received): 145

A large portion of Telegraph readership has links to the areas where HS2 will be passing, even the deputy ed has a relative out there. It's rare to see much positive coverage from them at all, to be fair.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.

437.001 liked this post
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2014, 02:53 PM   #837
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,217

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
He said that in... Amersham (Buckinghamshire). What a coincidence.
To a small audience as well (that's not a big venue, especially in winter).

To be fair to him, his whole party is against it, whereas the others are only against it locally - that they are reporting him saying this in Amersham doesn't really matter - he'd say the same in Altrincham.

Odd he used a phrase "big two parties" in a place where Labour don't even bother with local council seats (they bus in someone from elsewhere to be their General Election candidate, and OK, he doesn't lose his deposit, but barely breaks double digits) - I know he's decided not to kick a horse when it's down, and sees UKIP as the third party, but he should have included the Lib Dems in his takedown as they are the traditional non-Tory option for voters in the area.
__________________

437.001 liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2014, 08:58 PM   #838
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,045
Likes (Received): 25445

Published today:

Quote:
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/0...heathrow-link/

UK government needs to rethink HS2 Heathrow link
30 JAN, 2014

The UK needs to act quickly and integrate its rail and air strategies by adding Heathrow to the HS2 route plan, a new parliamentary report has urged.

Britain’s plans for high-speed rail and its hub airport strategy should not be developed independently of one another but rather form part of a wider transport masterplan, concluded the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on UK Integrated Transport Strategy study.

By placing Heathrow at the centre of the UK’s rail network, HS2 could not only bring the country’s major cities closer together, it could bring regional businesses within reach of global markets.

The report refers to examples of successful airport rail links in Germany and France. Specifically, it cites high-speed lines connecting Frankfurt International Airport and Paris Charles-de-Gaulle (CDG) Airport that connect directly to through lines without relying on branch lines or loops.

The report said: “The UK has a unique opportunity to consider an integrated approach to its air and rail strategies. This is particularly important in view of the UK’s peripheral offshore location in Europe, and the country’s dependence on global access for its future competitiveness in an increasingly connected world.”

The report also points to HS2 estimates that an alternative route via Heathrow would actually be cheaper, with marginally longer journey times being the only drawback.

For the actual passengers using the service, rail travel expert Mark Smith – The Man in Seat 61 – believes that there is one very practical flaw that is overlooked when linking high-speed links to airports.

“The typical question is ‘my flight from JFK lands at CDG at 7.30am at what time can I book my non-refundable, miss-it-and-I’m-screwed rail ticket on the TGV from Charles-de-Gaulle to Avignon, Marseille, Nice wherever’ and of course the answer they get is your PREM ticket is non-refundable non-changeable.

“You have to allow four hours between the flight landing and the train going because otherwise the flight might be an hour late, it might take ages to get your baggage off, which begs the question why did we bother building a high-speed rail network to the airport? Why didn’t we just buy a cheap and cheerful slow rail link and let people turn up, buy a ticket and hop on the next train.”
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2014, 01:47 PM   #839
ramakrishna1984
Registered User
 
ramakrishna1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 1,038
Likes (Received): 782

Introducing the UK's first Tram-Train :

http://www.railway-technology.com/fe...-rail-4149853/
ramakrishna1984 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2014, 02:47 PM   #840
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,045
Likes (Received): 25445

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramakrishna1984 View Post
Introducing the UK's first Tram-Train :

http://www.railway-technology.com/fe...-rail-4149853/
This thread is about high speed rail in the UK. For standard rail - here
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, hs2, railways, scotland, trains

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu