Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

As the days tick on, I'm starting to come round to the 'Norway then Canada' Plan - bin the entire withdrawal agreement, park in EFTA for 20 months instead of the transition period, and implement a Max-Fac Canada+ from there. Short-term it's worse terms than May's plan, but at least it will be in our volition to exit it

 

[scaramanga]

You could well be right. But Corbyn is in the short-term. In the longer term, they will be more concerned with NI being closer (politically) to the rUK than to the Irish Republic. If they choose to put May on notice, I don't think they will bluff. But we'll see, not long to wait now until the vote and the subsequent fallout.

I think if they're holding a deciding vote they'll tell the Labour party "Choose a leader who isn't a terrorist sympathiser and you can have our votes."

 

[Gutter Boy]

Corbyn is definitely a Eurosceptic, but both he and McDonnell rule out a 'no-deal' Brexit. So the spectrum of the Labour Party dealing with Brexit goes from Customs Union, with a fudge of keeping close alignment with EU over worker protections, environment, etc.etc all the way through to outright Remain, probably via a 'People's Vote.' This is a long way from the Tory Party, where they have a not insignificant amount of head-bangers who actively want no-deal, all the way to May whose deal still falls short of Labour's starting position.

Corbyn and McDonnell are very close to getting into number 10 and attempting to not only reverse Tory austerity, but move the whole Overton Window to the left and swing us away from Thatcherism/Neo-Liberalism/whatever you want to call it. IMO, they are not going to trash this opportunity over Brexit. The way the party has handled it so far has been to let the Tories drown in their own mess, and Brexit is a Tory mess.

The contradiction is they can't move away from neo-liberalism in the customs union. The CU is the neo-liberal heart of the EU. State aid and competition laws are to the left what workers and environmental ones are to the right. They prohibit nationalisation, make you open public services to the private sector, and prevent interventionalist (Keynesian) economic management. The CU is literally the most evil part of the whole EU.

 

[the dza]

The contradiction is they can't move away from neo-liberalism in the customs union. The CU is the neo-liberal heart of the EU. State aid and competition laws are to the left what workers and environmental ones are to the right. They prohibit nationalisation, make you open public services to the private sector, and prevent interventionalist (Keynesian) economic management. The CU is literally the most evil part of the whole EU.

There must be technical ways around it, as the industries that Labour seek to have owned by the state are state owned industries in many other EU countries. Who stopped Gordon Brown intervening in the banking sector in this country and recapitalising them to the tune of billions of pounds, including buying large stakes in them? People can debate whether that was right or wrong, but it was most definitely large scale state intervention, partial nationalisation of certain banks and the EU did not stop it from happening.

We haven't had a government who wanted to nationalised anything since...when? Where there is political will, there is a way. See the 2008/09 banking intervention.

 

[Gutter Boy]

There must be technical ways around it, as the industries that Labour seek to have owned by the state are state owned industries in many other EU countries. Who stopped Gordon Brown intervening in the banking sector in this country and recapitalising them to the tune of billions of pounds, including buying large stakes in them? People can debate whether that was right or wrong, but it was most definitely large scale state intervention, partial nationalisation of certain banks and the EU did not stop it from happening.

We haven't had a government who wanted to nationalised anything since...when? Where there is political will, there is a way. See the 2008/09 banking intervention.

State owned franchises are allowed to operate in an open market, but you can't have nationalised industries. So for example we could take over British Gas again, but not stop the other suppliers from operating

 

[Gutter Boy]

Other things we can't do:

- Ban the production and import of virgin plastic
- Ban the sale of new diesel cars
- Have different tax regimes for green products

That why all green initiatives are wrongly reliant on the consumers, rather than the producers.

It's like the EU insisting we can't ban everyone being given lots of poison, so we can only advise people to behave responsibly with their poison.

 

[the dza]

State owned franchises are allowed to operate in an open market, but you can't have nationalised industries. So for example we could take over British Gas again, but not stop the other suppliers from operating

That sounds like a technicality, whereby we can have a de facto nationalised industry, having an utterly dominant state owned franchise that renders the competition virtually obsolete. As I said, if there is the political will then is no real reason why it can't be done, even if a bit of legalese has to be employed to do it.

 

[Gutter Boy]

That sounds like a technicality, whereby we can have a de facto nationalised industry, having an utterly dominant state owned franchise that renders the competition virtually obsolete. As I said, if there is the political will then is no real reason why it can't be done, even if a bit of legalese has to be employed to do it.

We could move a bit more in that direction, but we've already seen examples of companies suing (or threatening) government over these areas - Virgin and NHS services, even Levy and West Ham over the OS.

 

[the dza]

We could move a bit more in that direction, but we've already seen examples of companies suing (or threatening) government over these areas - Virgin and NHS services, even Levy and West Ham over the OS.

I found this article which talks a little bit about this subject. There is some of what I'm saying about some of the legal wrangles (I'm sure there are plenty of counter-argument articles out there also). https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/

In the end, I think it comes down to what our politicians want to do. If they want to have a nationalised industry, they can make the legal arguments, find the loopholes etc. But since Thatcher, our governments haven't wanted to do this and could either flat out say that they don't want to, or shrug their shoulders and blame the constraints of the EU.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I found this article which talks a little bit about this subject. There is some of what I'm saying about some of the legal wrangles (I'm sure there are plenty of counter-argument articles out there also). https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/

In the end, I think it comes down to what our politicians want to do. If they want to have a nationalised industry, they can make the legal arguments, find the loopholes etc. But since Thatcher, our governments haven't wanted to do this and could either flat out say that they don't want to, or shrug their shoulders and blame the constraints of the EU.

There are people who have responded to this a few times who know a lot more about it than me or GB - it comes up every month or so. The main crux is tendering does not have to have the outcome of the cheapest option there can be a lot of other goals that can be put in there meaning state run industries are possible in the EU.

 

[Gutter Boy]

State run industries, but not state industries

 

[r-u-s-x]

if govt tender govt owned train network and govt wins the tenders who owns the industry?

 

[the dza]

if govt tender govt owned train network and govt wins the tenders who owns the industry?

That's how I see it, even if I'm only looking at it as a layman. De Facto nationalisation, even if a few legal clauses have to be applied here and there. If they want to do this (and they do) then they will find a way, just as other countries in the EU fudge things when it suits them.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

if govt tender govt owned train network and govt wins the tenders who owns the industry?

Are there not constraints around having a monopoly as well? Competition law etc?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Are there not constraints around having a monopoly as well? Competition law etc?

Cant see how there can be as pointed out other countries within the EU have them. And for that matter the NHS.

 

[the dza]

Are there not constraints around having a monopoly as well? Competition law etc?

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/

It is possible to generally promote liberal markets and operate some industries as national monopolies. Arts. 176 and 345 are not mutually exclusive. The ECJ has often been tolerant of member states accused of violating the treaties if their actions are “proportionate“, i.e. for a legitimate aim (which would include one endorsed by the electorate) and effective, but not excessive, in achieving that aim. Assuming that nationalisation was prominent in Mr Corbyn’s manifesto, conducted on a transparent timetable and proper compensation was paid, Mr Corbyn would have a strong case based on Art. 345.

But even without Art. 345 EU law would not prohibit the Corbyn plan. Professor Nicol relies heavily on Art. 106 TFEU. But this provision doesn’t ban nationalised industries. It simply regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises. In essence, enterprises with a dominant position in the market due to state action cannot use that position to behave unreasonably. The ECJ will only intervene if Art. 106 is breached.

Professor Nicol argues in his book that the ECJ now presumes that a government supported enterprise will always breach Art. 106. But this is based on a case in which the enterprise in question acted truly outrageously. It’s not clear that the decisions in this case would apply across the board. It almost certainly wouldn’t apply to the railways as these are already operated by government subsidised monopolies. If there’s only one player in the game it doesn’t make the market any more or less competitive if his name is Corbyn or Branson.

Even the court decides Art. 106 has been breached, the treaty includes exceptions allowing a state supported entity to operate without or with limited competition if it is necessary in the national interest.

This gives the Corbyn plan two defences. It could ensure that its nationalised enterprises cohere with Art. 106 ab initio(for example by writing a duty to respect it into the Act of Parliament). Or it could argue that it qualifies for an exemption.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Shouldn't be the EU or ECJ's business how a nation chooses to operate in terms of it's industry and and economic management;
If the Government wants to sell off all it's public utilities or make them publically-owned monopolies it's for that nation's population to get involved and protest/lobby etc accordingly. It should not be any of the EU/ECJ's business.
Another reason i want us out ASAP

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Cant see how there can be as pointed out other countries within the EU have them. And for that matter the NHS.

I dont claim to know better, Im just aware it can be an issue when someone gets too much of the market share.

While @the dza post seems to validate your point, I dont like the "should be ok..." element of it. The idea that its up to the ECJ but they should allow us on precedent, my instinct lends more towards @glorygloryeze response on things like that.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If you want freedom of trade (which we do) then this is why it is their business, otherwise you could have a situation where all services and manufacturing is state owned in Germany with subsidies and then they export everything (undercutting with the subsidies) to the other countries. If you want a free market you need to have rules and these are the rules that have been put in place, they don't mean you cant have nationalised utilities but have rules to make sure you don't abuse this.

 

[the dza]

Shouldn't be the EU or ECJ's business how a nation chooses to operate in terms of it's industry and and economic management;
If the Government wants to sell off all it's public utilities or make them publically-owned monopolies it's for that nation's population to get involved and protest/lobby etc accordingly. It should not be any of the EU/ECJ's business.
Another reason i want us out ASAP

I largely agree. However, if we get lots of benefits as a nation by being in the club, and we can get around those rules on a few technicalities and stay in the club with the benefits, then imo there's no need to burn the whole place down and start again. It's not worth the aggravation so that's why we should either stay in a very close relationship with the EU, or remain -- if the electorate have changed their mind in suitable numbers, now knowing what a ball-ache this all is.