Tory UK EU Exit Referendum

[stethoscope]

I love the way that anyone considering 'out' is expected to have a fully detailed plan for fighting back on pro-socialist, pro-working class grounds, yet I'm not seeing many of the 'in' talking about fighting pro-socialist, pro-working class positions at all within the EU, let alone being expected to have a detailed plan.

Besides, it would be nice if those jumping in could actually read the thread.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

We're all too familiar with the modus operandi of goldenarse.

 

[andysays]

...Taking one example: rail renationalisation - so many EU countries still have nationalised rail systems that they'd be in a very weak position to oppose it happening in the UK even if it were against the rules. The argument would be a simple and powerful one - we have a democratic mandate to do it, and we're only trying to get what you already have.

The important distinction which you seem unaware of is that these countries already had nationalised rail systems when the rules (which prohibit further nationalisation) were brought in, so they didn't/don't apply to them, but they certainly would apply to any EU government wishing to nationalise or renationalise something which was currently in private ownership, as railways are in Britain.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

from tweeter

 

[brogdale]

ICYMI...I thought that some people in and around this discussion might be interested in this NS piece by Brendan Simms and Timothy Less from last November. Interesting to note what of their 'signals' have come/are coming to pass already...

A crisis without end

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The important distinction which you seem unaware of is that these countries already had nationalised rail systems when the rules (which prohibit further nationalisation) were brought in, so they didn't/don't apply to them, but they certainly would apply to any EU government wishing to nationalise or renationalise something which was currently in private ownership, as railways are in Britain.

I'm not unaware of that.

 

[gosub]

ICYMI...I thought that some people in and around this discussion might be interested in this NS piece by Brendan Simms and Timothy Less from last November. Interesting to note what of their 'signals' have come/are coming to pass already...

A crisis without end

It certainly explains why Mr Cameron's attempt at reform of EU in the end returned with little if anything. Its an argument for treading carefully certainly.

 

[andysays]

I'm not unaware of that.

So if you are aware of it, I wonder why you have effectively misrepresented the situation by claiming that Britain would be able to ignore/break the rules on new nationalisation by making out that other countries have already done so when they clearly haven't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So if you are aware of it, I wonder why you have effectively misrepresented the situation by claiming that Britain would be able to ignore/break the rules on new nationalisation by making out that other countries have already done so when they clearly haven't.

I didn't.

 

[andysays]

I didn't.

So you've decided to adopt disingenuous bullshit as an approach again. I'm sure that will be as effective as usual at persuading others to adopt your position

 

[killer b]

I'm sure you look very clever in your own head.

 

[Teaboy]

ICYMI...I thought that some people in and around this discussion might be interested in this NS piece by Brendan Simms and Timothy Less from last November. Interesting to note what of their 'signals' have come/are coming to pass already...

A crisis without end

Very interesting reading indeed. Whilst it paints a pretty bleak picture it is also pretty easy to accept it as a realistic outcome.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So you've decided to adopt disingenuous bullshit as an approach again. I'm sure that will be as effective as usual at persuading others to adopt your position

No. You just haven't understood what I was saying.

 

[2hats]

ignore/break the rules on new nationalisation

Can you point me to these rules? Thanks.

 

[teqniq]

I'm wondering how they equate leave with protecting the NHS, I found this:

EU judges have too much control over our NHS

The only other think that springs to mind is TTIP, but even if we actually left I could foresee a bunch of neoliberlaralist chancers that are in charge at the time negotiating a UK entry into the deal.

Anyone else?

 

[teqniq]

David Cameron accused of releasing 'dodgy dossier' in support of EU membership

...Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, criticised the report’s approach – arguing that it was misleading....

Oh the irony.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm wondering how they equate leave with protecting the NHS, I found this:

EU judges have too much control over our NHS

The only other think that springs to mind is TTIP, but even if we actually left I could foresee a bunch of neoliberlaralist chancers that are in charge at the time negotiating a UK entry into the deal.

Anyone else?

Well that's simply rubbish, isn't it. On a par with banning the British Banger.

 

[paolo]

Can you point me to these rules? Thanks.

andysays

I'd like to read more about these rules too. Am curious to know why they've not applied to our own state run franchises, or the UK franchises run by other state companies.

 

[andysays]

Can you point me to these rules? Thanks.

andysays

I'd like to read more about these rules too. Am curious to know why they've not applied to our own state run franchises, or the UK franchises run by other state companies.

Links have been provided on this and other threads many times, most recently by butchersapron. I suggest you both have a look through the previous few pages.

And to reiterate, they don't apply to existing nationalised industries or private franchises run by other state companies, they apply specifically to new nationalisation of industries currently in private hands, like railways in Britain.

 

[marty21]

The 'Project Fear' stuff is interesting - UKIP are banging on about 'presenting the facts' and how Cameron is just scaremongering about what could happen in a post Brexit Britain. And yet The Farage has said that if we stay - we'll get loads of terrorists killing us and sex pests raping us (he didn't exactly say that but sort of ) which is scaremongering as well.

The truth is no one really knows - We may be able to sign decent trade agreements with the EU, America, China, we may not be able to. We may have to accept open borders as part of a EU trade agreement, we may not. We may lose 3 m jobs if we leave, we may not. Immigration might become more of an issue, it might not. We might get more terrorists killing us, we might not, we might get sex pest immigrants raping us, we might not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not correct to state this as a black/white thing. There are EU rules in place, but there is wriggle-room built into them.
For instance:

EU law explicitly protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.”

...

Art. 345 remains in the treaty. 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.

From here. Lots of subjective judgements in there, and scope for rules to be interpreted according to the political realities of the day. Layers of rules and laws that can take precedence or not depending on the conclusion the judges want to arrive at.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The 'Project Fear' stuff is interesting - UKIP are banging on about 'presenting the facts' and how Cameron is just scaremongering about what could happen in a post Brexit Britain. And yet The Farage has said that if we stay - we'll get loads of terrorists killing us and sex pests raping us (he didn't exactly say that but sort of ) which is scaremongering as well.

The truth is no one really knows - We may be able to sign decent trade agreements with the EU, America, China, we may not be able to. We may have to accept open borders as part of a EU trade agreement, we may not. We may lose 3 m jobs if we leave, we may not. Immigration might become more of an issue, it might not. We might get more terrorists killing us, we might not, we might get sex pest immigrants raping us, we might not.

Depressingly reminiscent of the bullshit from both sides in the Scottish Ref debates.

 

[andysays]

2hats paolo

Apologies, the quote/links I was thinking of were in another thread.

Try this Article 126 and this

Key text here is The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism by Danny Nichol (not Dandy Nichols - how i wish it were) - where he argues article 106 effectively does this.

Shakes fist at people starting multiple threads on the same subject...

 

[gosub]

Depressingly reminiscent of the bullshit from both sides in the Scottish Ref debates.

I'm finding the criticisms both sides are making of their opponents case, more honest than either sides actual case.

 

[2hats]

2hats paolo
Try this Article 126 and this

Rather full of conditionals and hypotheticals.

disingenuous bullshit

There certainly seems to be plenty of that around surrounding this debate.

Clearly the RBS and the east coast mainline re-nationalisations must have been some bizarre dream I once had.

EU legislation acts to curb some monopolies (it can't prevent all; there are inevitably 'natural' monopolies in some fields, such as those imposed by the economics/practicalities of geography). It doesn't ban (re-)nationalisation as pointed out by the reference to Article 345 above. Member states can create and operate nationalised infrastructure if they so wish (and have done so, do so). It is also perfectly possible to create nationalised infrastructures with options for private concerns to offer services over such in parallel to nationalised offerings (as many member states have done).

So to claim EU membership necessarily precludes (re-)nationalisation smacks of "bullshit" to me.

e2a: an expert in EU state aid law has just informed me that the principle is that nationalised entities 'behave in the market like private stakeholders'. The creation/operation of nationalised entities is not forbidden.

 

[paolo]

andysays littlebabyjesus Thanks for the info.

With regards to rail specifically, I've done a bit of research. From what I can tell, the key thing is the 'Fourth Railway Package' - which will be the basis for some new EU legislation.

Amongst other things, it requires that by 2020 all public service contracts for rail operation are open to tender. It doesn't mention or exclude the possibility of a state rail operator tendering to run a public service contract. It does however say that the direct granting (i.e. no tendering) of a contract to a state operator would only be allowed "in exceptional circumstances" - so a blanket renationalisation of rail operators would fall foul of that.

(I wonder if Corbyn was aware of that when he set out his rail renationalisation stall, and if so, perhaps why he was non committal on EU membership).

Ministers agree on political pillar of Fourth Railway Package

 

[littlebabyjesus]

andysays littlebabyjesus Thanks for the info.

With regards to rail specifically, I've done a bit of research. From what I can tell, the key thing is the 'Fourth Railway Package' - which will be the basis for some new EU legislation.

Amongst other things, it requires that by 2020 all public service contracts are open to tender. It doesn't mention or exclude the possibility of state rail operator tendering to run a public service contract. It does however say that the direct granting of a contract to a state operator would only be allowed "in exceptional circumstances" - so a blanket renationalisation of rail operators would fall foul of that.

(I wonder if Corbyn was aware of that when he set out his rail renationalisation stall, and if so, perhaps why he was non committal on EU membership).

Ministers agree on political pillar of Fourth Railway Package

I wonder which countries within the EU have been pushing most energetically for this new legislation? I'll be very very surprised if the UK isn't prominent among them.

And even here, there is wriggle-room.

The Council has agreed that competitive tendering should be the main way of awarding public service contracts. However, direct awards without tendering would be possible ‘if justified by the structure and geographical characteristics of the market and network and if it would improve the quality of services and/or cost-efficiency.’

In other words, the national govt says it's the only way to improve quality, and so overrides the requirement. Lots of EU rules are like this - they have various get-out clauses.

My judgement on this is that it's a red herring. The EU would not block a UK govt renationalising its railways if the UK govt declared it was in the national interest.

 

[paolo]

I wonder which countries within the EU have been pushing most energetically for this new legislation? I'll be very very surprised if the UK isn't prominent among them.

Not sure which of the countries has been pushing most, but this letter (from Clare Perry MP, to the relevant House of Lords committee) seems to confirm your expectation.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/...960-13-5985-13-4th-Railway-Package-021015.pdf

 

[paolo]

In other words, the national govt says it's the only way to improve quality, and so overrides the requirement. Lots of EU rules are like this - they have various get-out clauses.

I'd imagine they'd expect the quality claim to be substantiated. Let's say the commercial operator bidding for a contract has a poor record (reliability, customer satisfaction), and the state operator has a significantly better record, then the contract could be awarded directly to the state operator, with the commercial operator disregarded no matter what financial deal they were offering.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd imagine they'd expect the quality claim to be substantiated. Let's say the commercial operator bidding for a contract has a poor record (reliability, customer satisfaction), and the state operator has a significantly better record, then the contract could be awarded directly to the state operator, with the commercial operator disregarded no matter what financial deal they were offering.

Sure, but we're into the realm of subjectivity as well - something's wrong, whether it's quality or costs (whatever you think you can make work), so you use that as your excuse. It would require political dealings, in other words.

Bit like Tony Blair asking if the war is legal. He isn't really asking if it's legal - he's asking for a legal argument he can use to do it anyway.