Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[littlebabyjesus]

It's also quite ridiculous.

Who do you think is 'siding with May'?

All the posters, and if you track back through this thread you'll find plenty, who speak of 'we' and 'us' and 'our' when talking about the negotiations for brexit. I've pulled up one or two, but no point in pulling up all of them. On other subjects on here, such things are pulled up rather sharply. On this subject not so much.

 

[andysays]

All the posters, and if you track back through this thread you'll find plenty, who speak of 'we' and 'us' and 'our' when talking about the negotiations for brexit. I've pulled up one or two, but no point in pulling up all of them. On other subjects on here, such things are pulled up rather sharply. On this subject not so much.

Can you just cut to the chase and name some/any, because believe it or not I have better things to do with my evening than read through every post on the thread containing the words 'we', 'us' or 'our' in the hope that someone is actually using one of them in the sense you suggest?

 

[JHE]

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.

The policy announced by May (leaked some weeks ago, but now officially stated) should be put into law as soon as possible.

The other thing that must be done urgently is to get policies from EU27 govts about the situation of British people living in those countries if there is a no-deal Brexit.

For Britons in the EU27, statements like the one May has finally made would be a welcome step forward.

 

[Poi E]

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.

"Your rights will be protected." My fucking arse. Fuck her.

 

[Kaka Tim]

May being "perfectly clear" on EU citizen rights? Def time to get very worried.

 

[Pickman's model]

"Your rights will be protected." My fucking arse. Fuck her.

Yeh cos she's done so much for people's rights in the uk

 

[Poi E]

The EU issues threatening language about maintaining the integrity of the UK so she counters with this veiled threat.

 

[JHE]

What veiled threat?

 

[SpookyFrank]

"Your rights will be protected." My fucking arse. Fuck her.

This from the woman who wanted to scrap the human rights act because it made it too difficult to deport people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What veiled threat?

She's reminding everyone that she still has three million cards in her hand.

 

[Poi E]

Each side raises what they see to be the greatest leverage over the other. Ignore the guarantee talk; this is from a person not disposed to human rights protections.

 

[JHE]

She's reminding everyone that she still has three million cards in her hand.

Ah, I see. Promising that people will retain their rights is really a threat to remove those rights.

I wish the Spanish govt would 'threaten' the 250,000 Britons in Spain in the same way.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires that markets be liberalised (this essentially means privatisation)

Article 176 is about the European Regional Development Fund (link), so I don't see the relevance. I think you are talking about the state aid articles (107 and 108) but I disagree that liberalisation = privatisation or that these articles are about imposing privatisation. What I think they prevent is publicly owned companies distorting competition through their behaviour. So basically it is meant to prevent governments from abusing market power to impose their own monopolies where competition is otherwise possible rather than nationalising per se. This wouldn't really apply to most of the industries Labour wants to nationalise (like water and energy networks) - there is no competition to distort.

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

Perhaps because it isn't a very popular policy, or because the governments say they are left wing, but actually aren't? Can you at least point to a court case or something in which the EU has thwarted a planned nationalisation?

I have pointed to Railtrack / National Rail, which did not raise any issues from the EU over nationalisation, despite a very controversial (at the time) process in which Railtrack was put into special administration by the government acting over the head of the rail regulator at the time, and there being other interested private sector bidders apart from Network Rail.

 

[Poi E]

industries Labour wants to nationalise (like water and energy networks) - there is no competition to distort.

The wonders of coupon clipping financial capitalism create markets in production, distribution and retail. All a load of fucking shit, but "markets".

 

[pocketscience]

Where does it say in EU law that you can't nationalise?

Article 120

Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union, as defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article 121(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 119.

Article 119

1. For the purposes set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Treaties, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States’ economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2. Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3. These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Article 120

What's your point? Is there anything in that snippet which talks about banning nationalisation?

Or is it national monopolies which you're advocating for? And if so - can you explain why, which ones, and to what end (and why the EU would prevent them)?

 

[Rob Ray]

So basically it is meant to prevent governments from abusing market power to impose their own monopolies where competition is otherwise possible rather than nationalising per se. This wouldn't really apply to most of the industries Labour wants to nationalise (like water and energy networks) - there is no competition to distort.

Apologies, 106:

Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.

And yes, as I already noted, you can make a great deal of legal conjecture look very much like the go-ahead to nationalise away, if the thing you're most interested in is winning interminable legal arguments. But as I say, the fact is that in practice privatisation has been standardised and enforced as practice throughout the EU, even though it is deeply unpopular and there is overwhelming evidence that doing so "distorts" (significantly increases) the amounts we actually pay.

I have pointed to Railtrack / National Rail, which did not raise any issues over nationalisation, despite a very controversial (at the time) process in which Railtrack was put into special administration by the government acting over the head of the rail regulator at the time, and which also made it quite clear that no private bids for the company were welcome.

WTF are you talking about? Railtrack ran down its service to the point of causing a fatal accident, paid its shareholders hundreds of millions of quid, declared half a billion in losses, demanded £4bn to fill the funding gap they'd blown in their own company and fucked off when they didn't get it, the only "controversy" about going into administration (other than their own shareholders' self-serving whining) was how on Earth they were allowed to get away with that shit. As for "no bids being welcome", the only bid from Swiftrail having dropped out fund investors were quite clear that they wouldn't take on a dysfunctional company with massive debts. It wasn't a matter of welcomes, it was a matter of profit, as always.

Perhaps because it isn't a very popular policy, or because the governments say they are left wing, but actually aren't? Can you at least point to a court case or something in which the EU has thwarted a planned nationalisation?

I can go two better. Royal Mail, NHS and British Rail privatisations have all been initiated because of EU laws and regulations. Tbh I'm not sure why you even asked, it's not like there's a shortage of examples. As for whether it's a popular policy or not, nationalisation has consistently been the preferred public option for most of the last two decades. The question of whether governments say they are left but aren't meanwhile is a red herring - what governments always are is pragmatic. Tory governments will nationalise and Labour governments will privatise, it depends on the balance of forces. The EU is a force pushing a particular outcome, which is pro-privatisation (as European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has previously been very clear about for example).

 

[pocketscience]

What's your point? Is there anything in that snippet which talks about banning nationalisation?

Or is it national monopolies which you're advocating for? And if so - can you explain why, which ones, and to what end (and why the EU would prevent them)?

Maybe you should explain how a government can lawfully operate a nationalised industry in accordance with the principles of open markets & free competition without making themselves liable to lawsuits from privately owned industrial superpowers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apologies, 106:



And yes, as I already noted, you can make a great deal of legal conjecture look very much like the go-ahead to nationalise away, if the thing you're most interested in is winning interminable legal arguments. But as I say, the fact is that in practice privatisation has been standardised and enforced as practice throughout the EU, even though it is deeply unpopular and there is overwhelming evidence that doing so "distorts" (significantly increases) the amounts we actually pay.



WTF are you talking about? Railtrack ran down its service to the point of causing a fatal accident, paid its shareholders hundreds of millions of quid, declared half a billion in losses, demanded £4bn to fill the funding gap they'd blown in their own company and fucked off when they didn't get it, the only "controversy" about going into administration (other than their own shareholders' self-serving whining) was how on Earth they were allowed to get away with that shit. As for "no bids being welcome", the only bid from Swiftrail having dropped out fund investors were quite clear that they wouldn't take on a dysfunctional company with massive debts. It wasn't a matter of welcomes, it was a matter of profit, as always.



I can go two better. Royal Mail, NHS and British Rail privatisations have all been initiated because of EU laws and regulations. Tbh I'm not sure why you even asked, it's not like there's a shortage of examples. As for whether it's a popular policy or not, nationalisation has consistently been the preferred public option for most of the last two decades. The question of whether governments say they are left but aren't meanwhile is a red herring - what governments always are is pragmatic. Tory governments will nationalise and Labour governments will privatise, it depends on the balance of forces. The EU is a force pushing a particular outcome, which is pro-privatisation (as European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has previously been very clear about for example).

It's wicked to mock the afflicted

 

[Wolveryeti]

But as I say, the fact is that in practice privatisation has been standardised and enforced as practice throughout the EU.

You've totally failed to provide any evidence of this. Energy/Post in France - state owned. Rail in Germany - state owned. Water in Paris - remunicipalised in 2008. The real target of your ire should be the UK political parties of our country that enacted and accepted these privatisations - not the EU.

I can go two better. Royal Mail, NHS and British Rail privatisations have all been initiated because of EU laws and regulations.

The NHS is privatised? What are you smoking, bro?

And La Poste, Deutsche Bahn - both owned by the French and German governments. Same EU regulations. Different outcome.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've totally failed to provide any evidence of this. Energy/Post in France - state owned. Rail in Germany - state owned. Water in Paris - remunicipalised in 2008. The real target of your ire should be the UK political parties of our country that enacted and accepted these privatisations - not the EU.


The NHS is privatised? What are you smoking, bro?

And La Poste, Deutsche Bahn - both owned by the French and German governments. Same EU regulations. Different outcome.

Yeh. If something is initiated it may not yet be complete. Remunicipalisation is by definition not the same as nationalisation. State monopolies may not have to be privatised, but try doing things the other way round and obstacles start appearing.

 

[Rob Ray]

You've totally failed to provide any evidence of this.

LMGTFY

The NHS is privatised? What are you smoking, bro?

Jesus. You really don't know anything huh. I even provided you a direct link with an overview of the situation ffs.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Maybe you should explain how a government can lawfully operate a nationalised industry in accordance with the principles of open markets & free competition without making themselves liable to lawsuits from privately owned industrial superpowers.

Dunno - ask Network Rail. Or La Poste. Or Deutsche Bahn.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Jesus. You really don't know anything huh. I even provided you a direct link with an overview of the situation ffs.

Your shitty old TTIP NS story? TTIP is dead - keep up.

 

[Rob Ray]

Is it. More to the point though, I can't imagine being so behind the times as to think privatisation isn't an issue in the NHS. John Lister and Keep Our NHS Public have been banging on about this for years.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Remunicipalisation is by definition not the same as nationalisation.

To the most hair-splitting of pedants, maybe. The service is provided by the public sector.

State monopolies may not have to be privatised, but try doing things the other way round and obstacles start appearing.

What's the evidence?

 

[Wolveryeti]

Is it. More to the point though, I can't imagine being so behind the times as to think privatisation isn't an issue in the NHS. John Lister and Keep Our NHS Public have been banging on about this for years.

Not saying it isn't an issue. But you were arguing the NHS is privatised because of the EU. Your link did not substantiate tgat claim.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Ah, I see. Promising that people will retain their rights is really a threat to remove those rights.

A tory promise is worth less than the steam off my piss.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Article 120

Article 119

Part three of article 119 also encourages shit like PFI as a bookkeeping fudge.

 

[Rob Ray]

I was arguing that EU legal measures are initiating privatisations in the NHS (and Royal Mail, and British Rail, both of which you ignored presumably because they don't really fit your arguments that well). Which they were and still are. It was you who suggested that I meant the "NHS was privatised".