
Iberia claims it is part of a department store to avoid Brexit shutdown - ValentineC
https://www.headforpoints.com/2019/01/03/iberia-claims-to-be-part-of-a-department-store-and-not-an-airline-to-avoid-brexit-shutdown/
======
qwerty456127
Why is it so hard to just cancel Brexit now as so many people have re-
evaluated it?

~~~
notahacker
Because 52% of people voted for it, and apparently any future votes on the
subject would be "undemocratic".

~~~
meddlepal
I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep
voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.

~~~
Piskvorrr
So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change?
Oh. How come the 1975 referendum is invalid then, and a new one was needed?
Smells like "keep voting etc" ;o)

~~~
krapp
>So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change?

Yes. That's the entire premise of a voting process. The will of the people who
vote, at the time the vote is taken, is binding even if they change their
minds later.

~~~
vkou
Many parliamentary democracies have recall processes, where you can vote to
remove someone that you voted to elect.

It's occasionally used when voters realize that what they voted for was
incredibly stupid. So yes, you do get take-backsies in democracies.

~~~
krapp
If an existing process allows for it then I wouldn't consider that a "take-
back." I guess it depends on the system involved.

You can't just decide a vote doesn't count because you don't like the outcome,
though. Setting that precedent would mean no one who disagreed with a result
would ever accept its legitimacy. There has to be a limit set somewhere.

~~~
vkou
You can, though, in matters of legislature and referendum.

A vote passing is not a suicide pact that locks you into that course of action
between now and the heat death of the universe. It's possible to pass
something, and then do another vote, later, to revert the changes you've made.

Likewise, in a parliament, you can keep bringing an issue up to a vote over,
and over, and over again (See: Everything that Congress did after passing
Obamacare). There's occasionally some set of procedures that prevents this
kind of denial-of-service from being used _all_ the time... And occasionally
not.

This happens in referendums, as well. The same issue appears on the ballot
every few years, until the people pushing it get 50% + 1 support for it.

It's often the only way to actually get social progress. Keep hammering on
your pet issue, until enough people agree with you, and it wins.

As long as you're not breaking any laws, or referendum procedures, it's
completely fair game.

------
arethuza
For a consideration of some alternative Brexit scenarios I can heartily
recommend this discussion:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2018/11/brexit-m...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2018/11/brexit-means-brexit.html)

I rather like the "surrender to the Republic of Ireland" option - if for no
other reason than the effect it would have on the DUP.

~~~
theoh
I'm not sure there are any unresolved disputes between the Republic of Ireland
and the UK. There's the constitutional claim on the 32 counties, I suppose.

The most significant formal dispute between the states was a trade war in the
30s, discussed here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations)

The conflict in Northern Ireland has had only very minor and indirect
connections to the governments in Dublin and London, which are both a long way
from the situation on the ground. Any central government intervention on
either side of that conflict would have been strictly unofficial.

~~~
Fordec
There is still an unresolved dispute over Lough Foyle and a semi-resolved
dispute over Rockall

~~~
theoh
But "surrendering to the Irish" on those issues wouldn't exactly be a big
deal. I was talking about substantive disputes.

------
ynniv
_From El Pais: Garanair has no economic rights over Iberia, and is itself
nearly worthless (its 7,000 shares are worth one euro)._

Some European M&A lawyer just had a heart attack. I bet this structure looked
great to when no one was paying attention... Let's see how well it holds up
under the gaze of ten thousand lawyers trying to re-unite $15B in market cap
with a "worthless" parent company. British Airways may find it's been a wholy
owned subsidary of El Corte Ingles this whole time.

------
officialchicken
The subject of this story - El Corte Ingles [0] - is the the most diverse
store I've every been in... they have everything from designer clothing to
BBQ's. Think Amazon but with groceries, banking, travel agents, books for
school, insurance, etc. Many goods and services you wouldn't find in a Walmart
(some possibly at Costco). And their "house brands" aren't too bad they're
fairly decent quality especially for the price.

[0] [https://www.elcorteingles.es/](https://www.elcorteingles.es/)

~~~
SyneRyder
_> Think Amazon..._

Interesting analogy, since Amazon also has its own airline (albeit for cargo
rather than passengers)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Air)

------
kodablah
> Only airlines which have 50.1% EU ownership have ‘flying rights’ to operate
> between two airports within the EU.

Forgive my ignorance towards this law. One wonders if this is economic
protectionism or for security (I am aware of similar situations in other
countries/regions). So I couldn't have a majority-Norwegian-owned airline that
did Germany to France stops? One wonders if all countries are happy with such
policies or if this type of protectionism is more justification for self-
determinism for the countries that disagree.

Also, could this be another way to look at it: you no longer have to be a
majority-EU-owned airline to fly between UK and EU country. I.e. UK would not
be subject to such EU rules. Of course companies with many avenues for revenue
are going to conform to the most strict of them to get all business when
reasonable. That doesn't always make it best for citizens.

~~~
dsr_
Most countries have a distinction between "domestic" airlines and
"international" airlines that both protects the domestic airlines and
regulates them more closely.

If you consider the entire EU one country from an airline perspective, this
makes sense.

~~~
kodablah
Sure, I acknowledged the "most countries" aspect specifically to avoid these
comparisons and focus on the content. I wonder, in current times, if the
policies remain more for security or economic reasons. Regardless, my comment
is less about that these laws exist and more about lack of country-level
sovereignty for those that disagree (regardless of how you consider the EU)
and whether it can also be beneficial to the UK to be free of such a law.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _Whilst 100% of the ‘economic rights’ to Iberia’s revenue and profitability
> are owned by IAG, it turns out that 50.01% of Iberia’s ‘political rights’
> are owned by the El Corte Ingles department store chain._

Does the EU have a legal concept akin to beneficial ownership [1] or control?
Iberia seems to claim it is economically owned by IAG but that El Corte Ingles
has a majority of its voting rights.

At face, that would seem to solve the EU’s issue with a no -EU owner. Whether
ECI can veto anything IAG wants to do is the real question.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership)

~~~
jrudolph
Yes, and it's used all over the place in EU corporate law. In most cases I've
seen it applied (as a EU-based founder) to money laundering, taxation etc.

I'd be curious to see how this construction pans out. I bet it's been a good
deal for the lawyers involved. They surely got paid well for figuring this out
initially and will get paid again for testing it in the courts. So much for
growing future revenue potential.

------
Cyph0n
I'm surprised that Iberia considered this whole Brexit situation back in 2011.
Smart move, but the EU could still just ruin the plan...

~~~
simonvc
ICAO Air law rules date from 1949. Airlines are super aware of these
treaties/rules whenever ownership changes hands. It's not like they thought
about brexit as a particular scenario, it's more like, lets make sure the
airline we're buying is actually embedded legally before stumping up the cash
for it.

~~~
notahacker
I imagine the notional Spanish control was originally intended more to protect
their status as a Spanish company under Spanish law...

------
chrismeller
Seems like they have followed the rules, if not the spirit of them, since well
before Brexit became a thing. Given that even the popular airports in the UK
are owned, in large part, by a variety of non-EU interests I’m not sure how
anyone can really argue the point from a legal perspective.

Edit: typo

