[the truth]

IF the euro sceptic is not pro euro
BUT if he also wants to nationalise many industries including steel

What does he now make of the FACT the EU has basically outlawed the nationalisation or even government support of any industry across all of Europe? (Except massive bank bailouts) Yet no one seemed to know or understand this until now. even though the welsh assembly has put £60 million on the table.

Mr Corbyn are you for the EU corporate takeover and eternal outlawing of all nationalisation and government support? or are you on the other side fighting for industries and government support and some cases of nationalisation?

It is one or the other, its time to get off that fence mr corbyn

you are a natural born rebel but are you afraid to win>?

do you not realise that if you woke up and saw the corporate takeover of the world enhanced by the EU, all you have to do is change your mind and get labour rebels to wake the hell up and help us win the brexit referendum

you do realise mr corbyn if that happens, Cameron and osbourne are dead.
Britain will have its sovereignty back and will have control over its own laws

Pls all labour people can you get corbyn and corbyn-ites to address this one fundamental question, before its too late.

losing the referendum and staying in would be the end of the UK imo

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by the truth

IF the euro sceptic is not pro euro
BUT if he also wants to nationalise many industries including steel

What does he now make of the FACT the EU has basically outlawed the nationalisation or even government support of any industry across all of Europe? (Except massive bank bailouts) Yet no one seemed to know or understand this until now. even though the welsh assembly has put £60 million on the table.

Mr Corbyn are you for the EU corporate takeover and eternal outlawing of all nationalisation and government support? or are you on the other side fighting for industries and government support and some cases of nationalisation?

It is one or the other, its time to get off that fence mr corbyn

you are a natural born rebel but are you afraid to win>?

do you not realise that if you woke up and saw the corporate takeover of the world enhanced by the EU, all you have to do is change your mind and get labour rebels to wake the hell up and help us win the brexit referendum

you do realise mr corbyn if that happens, Cameron and osbourne are dead.
Britain will have its sovereignty back and will have control over its own laws

Pls all labour people can you get corbyn and corbyn-ites to address this one fundamental question, before its too late.

losing the referendum and staying in would be the end of the UK imo

[Cherie]

I never knew this, that's crazy surely every country should set its own policies on this

[Kizzy]

Is there a link to this please?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is there a link to this please?

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/e...tionalisation/

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-while-were-eu

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35933904

Note in the BBC article how many times in the subtext that the point is made that THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAVE TO SEEK THE EU's PERMISSION on these matters Kizzy.

[joeysteele]

He can do other things to support the Steel industry as is being suggested across the board from all parties and not just as to nationalisation.
Look, even Anna Soubry and Sajid Javid have in fact said, they do not see Nationalisation as the answer but 'nothing' and that is ruled out'.
So some form of support nationalisation can be done if this govt wished to for a time.

Has there suddenly been some new dawn as to the merits of nationalisation now on here after all the cries against it last year and during the election campaign.

Corbyn is one person who happens to be leader of a party,before he can do anything he needs the support of his party as to policy and then the support of the electorate to enact same.
He is calling for this govt, who are the ones in power, to nationalise Steel even for a period to support it until a lucrative buyer is found.

So never mind the EU, clearly since he is calling for that now,as a growing number in the Labour party are too, and also this govt has not ruled some form of nationalisation out as a last resort, nothing is off the table at present.

Then clearly we can nationalise if circumstances warrant same otherwise the govt would also be saying we cannot because of the EU as its main get out clause too as to never considering any form of nationalisation..
They haven't and don't.

[Kizzy]

Then how are several of our rail services owned by the German and Dutch government?
Is nationalisation only allowed in someone elses nation?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

So never mind the EU, clearly since he is calling for that now,as a growing number in the Labour party are too, and also this govt has not ruled some form of nationalisation out as a last resort, nothing is off the table at present.

Then clearly we can nationalise if circumstances warrant same otherwise the govt would also be saying we cannot because of the EU as its main get out clause too as to never considering any form of nationalisation..
They haven't and don't.

"EU membership means no renationalisation"

Public ownership of gas and electricity is destined to become a cherished aim of the Labour Party. For years under privatisation, the swindling of the consumer has gone hand-in-hand with outrageous profit-taking by the corporate giants, to the loss of the public purse. Far from helping customers through keen competition, the main effect of energy privatisation has been – like austerity – a redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the well-to-do.

What a pity, therefore, that Labour cannot renationalise it! Britain is a member of the European Union (EU) and as such bound by the EU Treaties. Indeed, every British court is duty-bound to enforce every EU law in preference to any conflicting British statute.

Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership.

The fact that EU law has this effect may seem astonishing. Many on the Left seem unaware of it. Those fond of the EU tend to go into denial over it. Despite Greece, there is a tendency to displace the EU’s neoliberalism onto the nascent Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: “EU good, TTIP bad”, so the chorus goes.

Yet the consensus that EU law really does preclude renationalisation is pretty overwhelming. Legal scholars regard the jurisprudence surrounding Article 106 as “revolutionary”, since it reverses “the decades-old presumption…that Member States are free in principle to determine their preferred system of property ownership”. Even Polly Toynbee endlessly reiterated that EU competition law would make NHS privatisation irreversible, though curiously this didn’t dampen her pro-EU ardour in the long term.

Furthermore there is scant prospect of Article 106 ever being repealed. To do so would require the common accord of all the governments of the EU Member States. You’d only need a single neoliberal government to veto such a Treaty change.

For good measure, from the 1990s onwards there was a surge of EU liberalisation directives opening up gas, electricity, transport, telecommunications etc to private sector involvement. Fat chance of a Labour Britain getting these repealed either: to do so would require a “qualified majority” of Member States.

Labour therefore faces a choice: dump the EU or dump renationalisation. Whatever choice it makes, the fact that EU membership outlaws renationalisation needs to be fully understood throughout the Party and labour movement.

Danny Nicol is Professor of Public Law at the University of Westminster and author of The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"EU membership means no renationalisation"

Public ownership of gas and electricity is destined to become a cherished aim of the Labour Party. For years under privatisation, the swindling of the consumer has gone hand-in-hand with outrageous profit-taking by the corporate giants, to the loss of the public purse. Far from helping customers through keen competition, the main effect of energy privatisation has been – like austerity – a redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the well-to-do.

What a pity, therefore, that Labour cannot renationalise it! Britain is a member of the European Union (EU) and as such bound by the EU Treaties. Indeed, every British court is duty-bound to enforce every EU law in preference to any conflicting British statute.

Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership.

The fact that EU law has this effect may seem astonishing. Many on the Left seem unaware of it. Those fond of the EU tend to go into denial over it. Despite Greece, there is a tendency to displace the EU’s neoliberalism onto the nascent Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: “EU good, TTIP bad”, so the chorus goes.

Yet the consensus that EU law really does preclude renationalisation is pretty overwhelming. Legal scholars regard the jurisprudence surrounding Article 106 as “revolutionary”, since it reverses “the decades-old presumption…that Member States are free in principle to determine their preferred system of property ownership”. Even Polly Toynbee endlessly reiterated that EU competition law would make NHS privatisation irreversible, though curiously this didn’t dampen her pro-EU ardour in the long term.

Furthermore there is scant prospect of Article 106 ever being repealed. To do so would require the common accord of all the governments of the EU Member States. You’d only need a single neoliberal government to veto such a Treaty change.

For good measure, from the 1990s onwards there was a surge of EU liberalisation directives opening up gas, electricity, transport, telecommunications etc to private sector involvement. Fat chance of a Labour Britain getting these repealed either: to do so would require a “qualified majority” of Member States.

Labour therefore faces a choice: dump the EU or dump renationalisation. Whatever choice it makes, the fact that EU membership outlaws renationalisation needs to be fully understood throughout the Party and labour movement.

Danny Nicol is Professor of Public Law at the University of Westminster and author of The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism

Kirk that doesn't stand up on this issue.
How can even this present govt who are strongly against nationalisation anyway not be able to 'not' rule it out if in effect the EU say it cannot be done.

This govt does not want to do or agree with nationalising steel, but it has said repeatedly, nothing is off the table and nothing ruled out at this time.
So clearly if it wished to it can.

It simply couldn't out of plain common sense not be 'not' ruling it out if it is impossible to do anyway as this thread tries to indicate above.

If it was right,how can you 'not' rule out something you cannot do.
That's the easiest get out clause on anything there could ever be.

[Kizzy]

“European rules do not dictate that railways must be fully privatised” – note the interesting use of the word “fully”. It’s true that UK law has gone further than the EU law currently requires, but it is also true that the EU would prevent a nationalisation agenda from going as far as many would like.'

So we are standing in our own way....yep sounds about right, thanks dave .
Essentially we could nationalise a lot more and still be within EU rules, but not our own.

[bots]

The rules exist to discourage/prevent governments subsidising industries that are competing with other similar organisations within Europe. It makes a lot of sense from that perspective as we want all to be on a level playing field as that leads to the best product for the consumer.

However, look what happened to the airline industry. Countries were left without their own airline when these rules were enforced and the French always either ignore it, or come up with some method to bypass it.

The rules work great in a buoyant market, but not in tough times. They need to be more flexible

[the truth]

iTS ALL PART OF THE TTIP
This is taking over Europe and will sue any government who dares interfere in the corporate takeover, that includes government aid or part or full nationalisation

of course gas water electrics should be nationalised and now the steel industry is all in the hands of just 1 man who admits his plans are sribbbled on the back of a match box and he doesn't even want to produce steel but just recycle it....the entire industry in the hands of just 1 man with such low ambitions too , pathetic

steel should always be part nationalised. otherwise we will never produce or build anything ever again


http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-an...-privatisation

Contrary to expectations, European investors are actually more prone to litigation than their US counterparts. That being said, US firms are likely to use the mechanism to lower EU safety standards, particularly on food. They will push for continental consumer standards to be 'standardised' down to put them in line with the US.

The damage done by these measures has been staggering. They are a weapon against progressive politics.

Quebec has been hit by a $250-million (£134 million) damage suit after it introduced a moratorium on fracking.

Swedish energy firm Vattenfall has filed a request for arbitration at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, after Germany turned its back on nuclear power. It wants €3.7 billion (£3.04 billion).

But the juiciest targets are in the developing world, where corporations use investor legal rights to pose an existential threat to any nation state which interferes with the private sector.

Ecuador would face bankruptcy if it complied with investor judgements against it, not least a World Bank arbitration tribunal award to the Occidental Petroleum Corporation which granted it damages of $1.77 billion (£1.06 billion) because its operating contract was cancelled.

Argentina has faced even worse bullying and intimidation for trying to protect its citizens.

In July 2006, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes awarded Azurix, the water division of the disgraced Enron Corporation, $165.2 million (£99 million).

The company had gained exclusive rights to provide water and sanitation services to the province of Buenos Aires for 30 years. They behaved in a way typical of private firms delivering public services: They tried to ratchet up the price. The decline in water quality was so severe customer had to boil it before drinking.

Their response was to sue the government, citing a US-Argentina bilateral investment treaty. The treaty mentioned investors' right to "full protection and security" – a description which the court decided related not just to physical security but also a requirement that the government ensure the "stability afforded by a secure investment environment". In other words: You can do what you like, as long as you never mess with capital.

Argentina's attempt to freeze energy and water prices following the devastating 2001-2002 economic crisis saw it punished by corporations. The country has been sued more than any other country in the World Bank's arbitration court. This was the price it paid for trying to help its citizens.

That World Bank arbitration court will probably be used to enforce the US-EU treaty too. Or an investor panel will be created out of scratch. Or it will rely on a series of ad hoc arbitration tribunals. Whichever avenue they pursue, the final result will be the same.

There is a list of legal practitioners who have already been asked to take part. They come mostly from commercial law, which provides a hint as to their sympathies.

The corporations will have their representatives there, but where will the representatives of the European and American public be? Who will speak up for consumers benefitting from frozen energy prices? Who will speak up for those who have been treated decently by publicly-owned health or education services, who have enjoyed better food hygiene standards, who desired the environmental safeguards of conscientious governments?

They will be nowhere to be seen. Only the money gets a voice.

The mechanism this trade deal creates will bring many more cases into arbitration. It will have even greater weight and scope than existing investor agreements. It will set up a parallel legal structure making judgements not on precedent but on an almost mystical approach to contract law.

The arbitration service is supposed to deal with investors who feel they have lost money due to a government decision. But they can argue their case on the basis of omission as well. They can say they invested because of the absence of a certain law which was later imposed and then sue for foregone profit. That development –expected by many observers – would effectively amount to the outlawing of nationalisation.

Even where the government wins a case, it will provide a legislative freezing effect, strongly discouraging any state from interfering in the market.

It is a thuggish financial threat against any and all left-wing policy-making. It is an affront to national sovereignty. And it is being established with barely a squeak of protest.

[DemolitionRed]

Great post The Truth...thanks!

[the truth]

yep I just wish corbyn would change back to the anti EU maverick he used to be

[DemolitionRed]

Nigel Farage thinks EU law prevents nationalisation. Ironically he seems to have got this from a recent post http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/e...tionalisation/ on Left Futures by Westminster University’s Danny Nicol. Professor Nicol argues that the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and EU liberalisation directives prohibit renationalisation of energy utilities, as proposed by Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a lot of respect for Professor Nicol and recommend his excellent book. But I can’t help but feel that, in this instance, he has reduced a complex area of law to a zero sum conclusion. There are many forms of “nationalisation” that would never be touched by the TFEU (such as taking utilities into municipal control, as has happened in Germany). Furthermore, EU law wouldn’t prohibit the sort of nationalisation proposed by Mr Corbyn.

Let’s be clear, the Corbyn plan isn’t for complete nationalisation. Mr Corbyn wants to nationalise the grid (the infrastructure that transports gas and electricity from generator to supplier), the “Big Six” energy companies and the railways.

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.” In his book Professor Nicol argues that this provision has recently been ignored by the ECJ. This is largely correct but it does not justify the conclusion that it will always be ignored. read more: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/02...gainst-eu-law/

[the truth]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Nigel Farage thinks EU law prevents nationalisation. Ironically he seems to have got this from a recent post http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/e...tionalisation/ on Left Futures by Westminster University’s Danny Nicol. Professor Nicol argues that the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and EU liberalisation directives prohibit renationalisation of energy utilities, as proposed by Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a lot of respect for Professor Nicol and recommend his excellent book. But I can’t help but feel that, in this instance, he has reduced a complex area of law to a zero sum conclusion. There are many forms of “nationalisation” that would never be touched by the TFEU (such as taking utilities into municipal control, as has happened in Germany). Furthermore, EU law wouldn’t prohibit the sort of nationalisation proposed by Mr Corbyn.

Let’s be clear, the Corbyn plan isn’t for complete nationalisation. Mr Corbyn wants to nationalise the grid (the infrastructure that transports gas and electricity from generator to supplier), the “Big Six” energy companies and the railways.

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.” In his book Professor Nicol argues that this provision has recently been ignored by the ECJ. This is largely correct but it does not justify the conclusion that it will always be ignored. read more: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/02...gainst-eu-law/

"Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU... competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership."

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by the truth

"Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU... competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership."

Yes but the reason for deep analysis is to ensure that national company is none profitable. A none profitable company is neither in competition or expected to go into competition with anyone, as was seen in the 'Ambulanz Gloeckner' case. All it does is regulate how a national enterprise can run compared to a private enterprise.

What the EU has done is make it far easier to privatize and the opportunities given have been embraced by every British government since Thatcher but not so much by some other EU member states.