butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Go on then.
Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Highlight a state run utility that has been nationalised in the EU and ran on a non-profit basis please.Exactly. No-one can realistically argue that SNCF isn't state run. You have to jump through a hoop or two to nationalise your railway, but it isn't difficult.
You have a state owned "private" company, and then rig the bidding process such that only that company can realistically meet the contract requirements.
Though as someone pointed out yesterday, the state run railways were shit, and the private railways are shit. So maybe the problem isn't the railways. It's us.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Is this a serious reply? You outline how something should work, i point out this situation is exactly how it works or doesn't now - openly said at the time, we let you run and use the profits for good. You say shut up. In effect it's a demand to ignore reality.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
This is a good example of the liberalism that has been prevalent on this thread.
*Even if we do restrict the debate to the legal/regularly framework it's the EU opposition to anti-marketisation is clear. They might not strictly ban nationalisation but the laws/regulation/policies are specifically designed to restrict the running of public services as public services.
The EUs long standing political opposition to publicly owned industries is reduced to a legal debate.*
Nonsense, returning control of industries to the state (or ideally the workers) doesn't have to mean paying off the thieves. Of course "Lord Fat Cunt and all the other investors" are among the the loudest voices arguing for remain, I wonder why that could be.
And we're back to "don't upset the markets", great. "Austerity" wasn't, and won't be, imposed because of a recession, it was imposed because of political choices. By (implicitly) making the attacks of capital the "natural" consequence of a crisis you are accepting liberalism.
*Even if we do restrict the debate to the legal/regularly framework it's the EU opposition to anti-marketisation is clear. They might not strictly ban nationalisation but the laws/regulation/policies are specifically designed to restrict the running of public services as public services.
Last edited:
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Hmm... an island. With nationalised industries. And huge obstacles to trading with its largest natural trading partner. Sounds a bit like Cuba. Good luck selling that vision on the doorstep.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Oh no, nationalised industries!
Not that keen on Cuba personally but if it gives us the opportunity to send pricks like you to do hard labour, well that's a point in it's favour.
Not that keen on Cuba personally but if it gives us the opportunity to send pricks like you to do hard labour, well that's a point in it's favour.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Where's the British revolution preceding the imposition of the eu's blockade? Don't see may going "history will absolve me" after a failed raid on the cops' arsenal at kentish town. The cuba thing's nothing like our situation. Not least because fidel castro and ché guevara competent in comparison with our miserable government
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
South georgia will be the venice of the antarctic
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Give it time. Nothing would come as a surprise these days.
The 'socialist' lexit vision proposed by Redsquirrel and others certainly is - or at least a move in that direction.
Wherein I ask, why is Cuba so poor, with thousands of people risking death in rickety rafts each year to leave it?
They did everything right, according to Redsquirrel - nationalised all industries, banged the liberals up in jail, fucked off their main trading partner...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yeh right
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Network Rail.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
. Do you know the actual story behind the Railtrack collapse Wolveryeti? Y'know, the bit where it went into administration to dodge liabilities after years of (eventually fatal) monopoly piss-taking, followed by the government trying and failing to find another buyer before eventually founding Network Rail to fill the void? As in, every effort was made to keep it private with government intervention being the last possible option considered?Cos I'll be honest, it's not really a good example for the point you're trying to make, being less about "nationalisation" than "picking up after the rich scumbags who'd ripped everyone off then legged it".
Last edited:
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
It pretty much is. Unless there's a strategic threat to a nation-state. The passport printing office in Germany is the only real precedent where the eu have allowed re-nationalisation.
He didn't. The Italians are on board and private capital still runs STX.
Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130
Answer given by Ms Vestager on behalf of the CommissionSubject: Nationalisation of the Saint-Nazaire shipyard in France
President Emmanuel Macron’s government has recently decided to nationalise the STX France shipyard to avoid it being bought and controlled by the Italian company, Fincantieri. France has defended its actions, indicating that the nationalisation process is a temporary move designed to protect the strategic interests of France and to safeguard jobs.
Since the European single market is vital to the EU, it comes as a surprise that a protectionist and nationalist operation such as the one which has taken place in France has not been challenged by the Commission or ruled to be in breach of EU competition rules.
In this case, the Commission’s failure to react is in stark contrast with the decision it made a few years ago when it deemed certain tax measures to be unlawful state aid. This decision (later repealed by the CJEU) undoubtedly contributed to the failure of several Spanish shipyards and to the fact that they are still going under today.
In light of the above:
1. Is the nationalisation of the STX France shipyard in line with EU competition rules?
2. Does the Commission consider it appropriate for the government of a Member State to breach single market rules in this way?
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Afaik it "is" possible to nationalise an industry in the EU, under a loophole related to national security, but the idea that this would hold over time or apply to anything but a tiny percentage of industries in any circumstances other than emergencies is ludicrous. The evidence is entirely in the other direction.
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
There are still a couple of nationalised industries across Europes.. Re-nationalising is the tricky bit.Exactly. No-one can realistically argue that SNCF isn't state run. You have to jump through a hoop or two to nationalise your railway, but it isn't difficult.
You have a state owned "private" company, and then rig the bidding process such that only that company can realistically meet the contract requirements.
Though as someone pointed out yesterday, the state run railways were shit, and the private railways are shit. So maybe the problem isn't the railways. It's us.
The EU is opening up industries for the markets (capital). They don't like that door being closed again
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
JHE
.
Even Theresa May sometimes does something good.
It would have been better to have said this a long time ago, but better late than never.
I hope that Simon Manley, the Ambassador in Madrid, and British diplomats in other EU countries finally stop pretending there is no significant risk of a no-deal Brexit and make it their top priority to push EU govts to make similar commitments to resident Britons.
It would have been better to have said this a long time ago, but better late than never.
I hope that Simon Manley, the Ambassador in Madrid, and British diplomats in other EU countries finally stop pretending there is no significant risk of a no-deal Brexit and make it their top priority to push EU govts to make similar commitments to resident Britons.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
You've managed to miss the point quite spectacularly.
Cos I'll be honest, it's not really a good example for the point you're trying to make, being less about "nationalisation" than "picking up after the rich scumbags who'd ripped everyone off then legged it".
It was a private sector company.
It was nationalised.
It is now run on a not for profit basis - and indeed gets an indirect subsidy worth billions from the state in the form of subsidised fares.
All of which BA reckons we are banned from doing because of umm... the evil EU neoliberalism or something.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
No, you missed mine. It was a private company which collapsed and could not be replaced like for like. The idea that the government stepping can be some sort of pro-active power move endorsed by the EU is meaningless in this context.
The real question is what has happened over the course of the last few decades? How many industries have been nationalised by the many left-wing governments that have been in charge over that time? The movement of direction, as I said earlier, is all the other way. You can cant and squirm as much as you like. And I should note btw that I'm no cheerleader for nationalisation per se, it comes with myriad problems of its own, but pretending that nationalisation is hunky dory within the EU is total rubbish.
The real question is what has happened over the course of the last few decades? How many industries have been nationalised by the many left-wing governments that have been in charge over that time? The movement of direction, as I said earlier, is all the other way. You can cant and squirm as much as you like. And I should note btw that I'm no cheerleader for nationalisation per se, it comes with myriad problems of its own, but pretending that nationalisation is hunky dory within the EU is total rubbish.
Last edited:
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Parties do and do not do lots of things out of political expedience. My question is: What is the link to the EU? Where does it say in EU law that you can't nationalise?
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Naive sort of chap aren't you. Or possibly just deliberately obtuse, who knows.
As I understand it, EU law can be interpreted one of two ways. Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires that markets be liberalised (this essentially means privatisation) wherever possible. It is arguable that States technically can nationalise specific arenas on the grounds of national security etc so in theory nationalisation could happen if you draw on that possibility. But the reality is that this does not happen and has not for the last three decades. There is no example of a sustained policy of nationalisation happening, regardless of how left wing a particular government gets, anywhere in the EU and in fact the opposite is true, expanding privatisation has been a consistent norm regardless of nominal ruling parties for most of that time.
Now I imagine a dreary argumentative type could drone on for days about the ins and outs of the relevant legal documents and "prove" almost anything is possible within EU law if they went full into the details, but this does not change what actually happens. That is down to systemic issues of how the EU exists as a political and trading entity, which are in turn what drive the way in which the law gets implemented/enforced in practice.
As I understand it, EU law can be interpreted one of two ways. Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires that markets be liberalised (this essentially means privatisation) wherever possible. It is arguable that States technically can nationalise specific arenas on the grounds of national security etc so in theory nationalisation could happen if you draw on that possibility. But the reality is that this does not happen and has not for the last three decades. There is no example of a sustained policy of nationalisation happening, regardless of how left wing a particular government gets, anywhere in the EU and in fact the opposite is true, expanding privatisation has been a consistent norm regardless of nominal ruling parties for most of that time.
Now I imagine a dreary argumentative type could drone on for days about the ins and outs of the relevant legal documents and "prove" almost anything is possible within EU law if they went full into the details, but this does not change what actually happens. That is down to systemic issues of how the EU exists as a political and trading entity, which are in turn what drive the way in which the law gets implemented/enforced in practice.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You're presumably allowed to nationalise anything the private sector doesn't want, as in that situation there's nobody who is going to sue you.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows many people with EU nationalities who are shitting bricks about their future and wouldn't trust a word out of Theresa May's mouth. She could have taken steps to enshrine in law the rights of those currently resident in the UK, she hasn't done that. She was personally responsible for the hostile environment, the windrush deportations and numerous other crimes against UK residents based solely on their background or nationality.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Absolutely this. The idea that anybody on these boards would be siding with May in a 'we' or 'us' or 'our' sort of way is absurd and very depressing.
andysays
Love and solidarity
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Those people who agreed with her remain vote I think
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Do you actually think that or do you merely have an axe that's gone unground for a whole 45 seconds?
Similar threads
