Hi,
The problem with the French is that they are very POOR SALES PEOPLE & very poor in MARKETING their product----. They are equally clueless in the fine arts of sales and deal making.
But that is not the whole story---the onus falls on the buyer of the product as well---. They need to look beyond the fanfare, sales pitches and all the ra ra ra---.
The French also scored a massive deal for supplying train electric locomotives---and that is a huge contract as well.
Sir,
I would disagree with you regarding the French are poor sales people and are not able to market their product. French are opportunists and when they get this they also become extortionist. Libya is a prime example in recent history.
The reason for Rafales failure to make a name was due to the EU politics not French. France could not sell these jets as freely to other countries because EU would tell them if you sell them to those that were under sanctions or potential Human Right violators then Government of France and their citizens would be held responsible under the European Treaty of Human Rights.
Unfortunately France or for that matter all member states to the EU have given their sovereignty to European Union.
These cases are very important in proving EU Laws Supremacy.
- Van Gen den Loos and Costa v ENEL make it clear that EU law is supreme because by signing the treaties member states surrendered their right to sovereignty. Therefore highlighting the continuing supremacy of EC law over conflicting national law.
- Simmenthal and Factortame highlight the five obligations national courts have. They must:
- Apply community law in its entirety and protect rights which the latter confer on individuals
- Any provisions of national law which may conflict with community law must be set aside
- Any conflicting provision of current national law will be rendered automatically inapplicable
- Preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measure
- National courts should suspend national legislation that may be incompatible with EC law until a final determination on its compatibility has been made.
Case of Van Gen den Loos opened up an entirely new concept of Direct and Indirect effect regarding EU Law on member states legal systems.
Article 4(3) Treaty of European Union – as interpreted by the ECJ
- National courts are under a duty to interpret national law consistently with EU LAW, so far as it is possible to do so, whether or not the Directive has direct effect.
The abovementioned Article has been in discussions in British Parliament for a long time.
The British Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
They include:
- The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
- The Human Rights Act 1998.
- The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
- The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.
These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.
The main concept behind the Brexit campaign is to bring back complete Parliamentary Supremacy.
For further reading.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...n-law-is-supreme-can-parliament-be-sovereign/
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...ke-control-sovereignty-and-the-brexit-debate/
