Brexit negotiations thread

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I watched it and think that Corbyn changed his style slightly, which went in his favour making May look more awkward and uncomfortable than she normally does.

I'd read that May swerved every single question today but having watched it that is unfair.....she answered the Yorkshire Tory MP who asked if she will go to watch the Tour de Yorkshire next year and she also agreed with each of the 3 Tory MPs who used a question in Parliament to merely point out that the Tories retained some councils last week. What a disgusting waste of democracy - just providing breathing space for the PM in between actual questions. Makes a mockery of our Parliament.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'd read that May swerved every single question today but having watched it that is unfair.....she answered the Yorkshire Tory MP who asked if she will go to watch the Tour de Yorkshire next year and she also agreed with each of the 3 Tory MPs who used a question in Parliament to merely point out that the Tories retained some councils last week. What a disgusting waste of democracy - just providing breathing space for the PM in between actual questions. Makes a mockery of our Parliament.

The "friendly" questions from obsequious Tory MP's were,as you rightly say, a complete joke.She did swerve all 6 questions from Jeremy Corbyn though.

 

[Lord Football]

You don't seem to understand how the EU works. The real workers are all in the North, they have had to work more hours so that the workers around the Med can spend more time on the beach.

In fact here in Britain you can no longer have an 'ordinary' job or even a career in the public sector if you want some basic human rights like a roof over your head. Now here's where it gets really silly....There are some people in high places who believe that rather than pay a fair wage or taxes on their colossal profits to fund the public sector its much easier to drain the East of the EU of all their young workers. That only makes them angry in the East so watch this space. They will even encourage mass illegal migration from places like Africa to have as many workers as possible fighting over less and less jobs.

The problem is that sends wages down and house prices/rent up. Which as you know are the main financial things that greatly effect the working class. Not to mention all pressure on the other services like health, education and the huge increase in infrastructure that requires.

Now here is the real daft bit. There are some people in Britain called remainers and they think if you have a leak in your roof the best thing to do is buy more and more buckets. The majority are called Brexitiers they know the solution is to fix the roof in the first place, then clear up the mess because that way we can all live in the house happily ever after.

And so, there you have it, we voted Brexit because we didn't like Johnny Foreigner.

Took you a while to get there, but you must be relieved you got that off your chest.


Interesting, isn't it, that we don't really hear much about immigration and sovereignty these days? It's all about trade. The very thing those of us who know our onions said it was about all along.

 

[rigsby]

As I understand it,this has already been rejected,albeit unofficially by the EU and also Ireland (which could of course block any deal presented to the EU for ratification).



I see you're moving the goalposts again.
Just to keep it simple,are you talking about "the North " of the UK in particular or Europe in general ? If it's the former then,as I'm sure you're aware, post-Thatcher, a lot fewer people work in the North in manufacturing jobs than before.If it's the latter, then (unless you're talking exclusively about the Scandinavian countries +Germany etc) then even Southern countries like Spain or Italy have a Northern region.In Spain that comprises Catalonia and the Basque Country,which comprise 2 out of 3 of the greatest wealth producing regions in the country.The other, of course, is Madrid,which happens to be in the geographical centre of the country, rather than in the south,as such.

Your comments about the difference between remainers and leavers are,of course,merely childish.Interestingly, the analogy comes from George Osborne when he was Tory chancellor.Not suprisingly perhaps,as 2 out of 3 former UKIP voters apparently returned to the Tories last week.Good riddance.

I suppose you would have to be highly educated to think the North of the EU was only the North of the UK. Or was it an excuse to move your own goal post to have a traditional left wing misogynistic rant about Thatcher....Its been at least a week now.

Interestingly she was more popular in Scotland than JC. And as you would say History has proved her to be absolutely right. I'm sure in years time there will be some who continually whinge about Brexit whilst reaping all the rewards.

You may hate Thatherism but your one of the few who has benefited from Fascism......And you seem cool with that:winking:

Back to the original point you avoided...Do you think its fair that you pay less per head in Spain to the EU than we do Britain.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I suppose you would have to be highly educated to think the North of the EU was only the North of the UK. Or was it an excuse to move your own goal post to have a traditional left wing misogynistic rant about Thatcher....Its been at least a week now.

Interestingly she was more popular in Scotland than JC. And as you would say History has proved her to be absolutely right. I'm sure in years time there will be some who continually whinge about Brexit whilst reaping all the rewards.

You may hate Thatherism but your one of the few who has benefited from Fascism......And you seem cool with that:winking:

Back to the original point you avoided...Do you think its fair that you pay less per head in Spain to the EU than we do Britain.

Please explain how I can possible have benefited from Fascism, when I first came to work in Spain in 1978, (ie 3 years after Franco had died).

In answer to your question-yes.You have heard of subsidies I suppose?

BTW,I have/had nothing against Thatcher as a woman,per se.It was her politics I detested ( just like so many on the left).

 

[rigsby]

Please explain how I can possible have benefited from Fascism, when I first came to work in Spain in 1978, (ie 3 years after Franco had died).

In answer to your question-yes.You have heard of subsidies I suppose?

BTW,I have/had nothing against Thatcher as a woman,per se.It was her politics I detested ( just like so many on the left).

1) In the same way we benefitted from Thatcherism in the 90's. If its already ingrained throughout society you can take all the advantages. There were of course many things wrong with it but Labour were unable to provide a reasonable alternative. The screaming Lefty was born in the early 80's. Like Japanese knotweed they have returned vengeance under JC and just like the drowned out Tony Benn they have forced him to u turn on his life long believes over the EU. Which is why he loses all credibility in my book....Not because of crumpled suits or asking for truth over Salisbury.

2) Why should British children be saddled with more debt than Spanish children because its the Spanish parents who have enjoyed the luxury of running up the debt.

3) Talking of dancing on her grave and celebrating her death have nothing to do with politics.

People have criticised DA on here for her politics and her racism, yet the left are always the first to deal the racism and misogyny cards. I have a personal issue with her as for many emergency workers is was dangerous in certain estates on her own patch . She never once stood up for us and like all you lefties would deny there has ever ben a problem. Now I wonder how she would have reacted if any of us had said a racist word Guns have been thrust into Firefighter faces etc. Emergency workers are increasingly being targeted (note on an Ambulance this weekend in Leigh) As we have seen with the Muslim gang rape national disgrace, sweeping it under the PC carpet only turns a problem into a disaster. This has re lead to the rise through out Europe of Right wing politics and the beginning of the end for the EU......Who's fault is that.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Is the real problem with advancing and eventually getting some kind of an agreement with the EU down to the schitzophrenic state of our two main political parties? May is in a straightjacket. If she moves to a softer Brexit she loses her majority as Tory Brexiters will oppose her. Whereas, if she adopts a harder Brexit there is enough opposition in the Tory party to bring her down. Two years of fudge and one failed election, in an effort to keep the whole thing together, surely can't go on much longer?.....................or can it??? I've been reading this morning, talk of extending the transition period (that is, of course, if we get one!).............forever fudge? So, next March, we could be out of the door but still tied up to the EU for an indefinite period (how long would Brexiters accept that for?.............until the next General Election???)
Across the political spectrum one would hope to find some sanity ..............far from it! Corbyn's position (rather like the old Liberal Party when it was accused of offering something for everyone), is as difficult, for different reasons, as May. So far he has, with some success, appealed to both 'leavers' and 'remainers' and the reason his position hasn't come under more scrutiny is basically because.........he's not in government. Yet fudge time must, eventually, come to an end for him as well. Calls for a second referendum are beginning to be heard from some northern members, those starting to perceive the realities of what Brexit (outside the single market and customs union) is likely to mean for their area. Of course, here is the rub. Corbyn isn't in favour of remaining in the single market but this appears less to do with economic reasoning and more to do with doctrinaire thought. Remaining in the single market could hamper future plans for re-nationalisation and intervention.
Both parties hamstrung with their own divisions and incapable of providing a clear vision for the UK's future. What a mess!..............thank goodness there's the Royal Wedding. :smile:

 

[Lord Football]

Remaining in the single market could hamper future plans for re-nationalisation and intervention.

Can we scotch this nationalisation argument once and for all? It was something that came from the "mind" of Nigel Farage and was latched onto by the left of the Labour Party, SWP etc etc. It has no basis in EU legislation. ECJ does not have the power to turn over a Government action that was covered in their manifesto.

I think somewhere earlier in this thread I provided the legal vires.

 

[callan]

Can we scotch this nationalisation argument once and for all? It was something that came from the "mind" of Nigel Farage and was latched onto by the left of the Labour Party, SWP etc etc. It has no basis in EU legislation. ECJ does not have the power to turn over a Government action that was covered in their manifesto.

I think somewhere earlier in this thread I provided the legal vires.

Where we can agree is that nationalisation is certainly legal under EU rules.

However if you delve deeper into the subject matter, you could not have a monopoly such as British Rail under EU rules.

Whilst there is no EU edict requiring privatisation... the rules make it more conducive for exactly that to happen, as the state would need to compete with private companies in order to win franchises.

 

[Lord Football]

Where we can agree is that nationalisation is certainly legal under EU rules.

However if you delve deeper into the subject matter, you could not have a monopoly such as British Rail under EU rules.

Whilst there is no EU edict requiring privatisation... the rules make it more conducive for exactly that to happen, as the state would need to compete with private companies in order to win franchises.

Rather than try and type it all up....

I'm not sure where Huff sits on the Brexit debate, but it's neither the Guardian or the Express so I'll use it as an unbiased source. This is quite a decent stab at explaining it, and its written by a Law Professor

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-fowles/nationalisation-is-not-ag_b_8231336.html

The ultimate thing is, until someone attempts to nationalise something AND it is blocked by an EU institution AND is then challened at the ECJ, the whole argument remains one untested by the courts.

It should be noted that the French re-nationalised a shipyward earlier this year, and the matter did not progress to any legal system BUT the Greeks were unable to implement a nationalisation plan to assist in their debt payments - though the Central Bank and IMF had a greater hand in that than the EU. (I don't think ECJ has any jurisitiction over IMF or Central Bank)

 

[callan]

Rather than try and type it all up....

I'm not sure where Huff sits on the Brexit debate, but it's neither the Guardian or the Express so I'll use it as an unbiased source. This is quite a decent stab at explaining it, and its written by a Law Professor

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-fowles/nationalisation-is-not-ag_b_8231336.html

The ultimate thing is, until someone attempts to nationalise something AND it is blocked by an EU institution AND is then challened at the ECJ, the whole argument remains one untested by the courts.

It should be noted that the French re-nationalised a shipyward earlier this year, and the matter did not progress to any legal system BUT the Greeks were unable to implement a nationalisation plan to assist in their debt payments - though the Central Bank and IMF had a greater hand in that than the EU. (I don't think ECJ has any jurisitiction over IMF or Central Bank)

The legislation was more aimed at Railways rather than other industries such as shipyards, and electricity grids which the Huff article refers too.

As you point out legally this lies in untested waters, however any attempt to navigate and implement a nationalisation program would need to take into account state aid restrictions, in addition to the justification for doing so.

Rather than try and find an unbiased source I though it easier to use the EU site itself for an explanation.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html

Why control State aid?

A company which receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore, the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules.

I'm not sure how many foreign owned rail operators there are in the UK, or indeed UK operations abroad but it is these that this legislation is actually designed to protect.

The EU goes on to define what constitutes State Aid, and one of the key criteria includes:

"there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.)"

 

[Lord Football]

The EU goes on to define what constitutes State Aid, and one of the key criteria includes:

"there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.)"

My understanding of state aid is that is only applies if a government held organisation was in competition with a privately owned organsiation, and the aid would give the government held organisation and advantage.

So, if UKPLC nationalised the rail network, then it wouldn't apply as there would be no competition.

 

[callan]

My understanding of state aid is that is only applies if a government held organisation was in competition with a privately owned organsiation, and the aid would give the government held organisation and advantage.

So, if UKPLC nationalised the rail network, then it wouldn't apply as there would be no competition.

In which case competition is eliminated, which cannot happen under article 107 which states;

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

 

[Lord Football]

In which case competition is eliminated, which cannot happen under article 107 which states;

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

Which surely couldn't apply as Art 345 TFEU states "The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership"

And in a nutshell, you see why lawyers dealing with EU law make so much money.

 

[callan]

Which surely couldn't apply as Art 345 TFEU states "The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership"

And in a nutshell, you see why lawyers dealing with EU law make so much money.

Article 345 is ambiguous that's for sure, but is considered by the EU 'to only concern the private or public ownership of undertakings, with which the Community shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves'.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Lord Football]

Article 345 is ambiguous that's for sure, but is considered by the EU 'to only concern the private or public ownership of undertakings, with which the Community shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves'.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

It would be though, wouldn't it? EU law is interpretive and within the spriti, unlike UK law which is by the letter.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Boris Johnson calls Mrs May's current Brexit schemes crazy, Gove says they are unworkable, Nicky Morgan teams up with the absent Miliband and Nick Clegg to campaign against a hard Brexit, Daniel Hannan admits its not going to plan and today Jeremy Hunt publicly attacks Johnson for his public attacks.
Oh and Mrs May issues a statement saying we should trust her to get the best deal.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

It would be though, wouldn't it? EU law is interpretive and within the spriti, unlike UK law which is by the letter.

Fair point, but in my experience much of North Europe is " by the letter" and the Med/south of the EU go along with what suits them, when it suits them.
It may be off the topic discussed but isn't there some poor interpretations on straight forward stuff like drink/driving which, I use as an example, is enforced strongly and directly in northern parts of EU but is interpreted as a guide or " fall back on" law to use in emergency in the south sections.
The EU also has a host of rules on agriculture, for crops and animals yet in lots of rural areas, again they are interpreted similarly as a guide to aspire to or only applying to big farmers/corporations.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

In a lighter vein and surely the whole Brexit business is hilarious (or should be, if it wasn't so deadly serious)? My two quotes of the week...........and I'm sure there will be more to follow.

"The path I am setting out is the path to deliver the Brexit people voted for. I will not let you down." (Theresa May, who else!)


"The short version: Brexit’s still a steaming mess going nowhere fast." (The Guardian, in its Brexit weekly briefing)

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Which surely couldn't apply as Art 345 TFEU states "The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership"

And in a nutshell, you see why lawyers dealing with EU law make so much money.

Like any divorce, as I am finding, to my own personal cost! :smile::cry: