British Politics

[Dazey]

So Boris is pushing a no deal Brexit in order to escape from EU rules on state aid to UK companies. I'm sure he knows that he already agreed to be bound by these rules in the withdrawal agreement he signed in January. I mean I'm sure he's read the whole thing in detail right? Right?

Oh well, at least we'll have the fish eh?  

Quote

No-Deal Brexit Over State Aid Would Be a UK Own Goal

If the Brexit negotiations end with no trade deal and a cliff-edge for businesses at the end of this year, it will be because of disagreements over a seemingly niche but vitally important issue: state aid.

When David Frost, UK chief negotiator, last time met with his EU counterpart, Michel Barnier, in Brussels, he indicated to his colleague that he will recommend that Britain leaves without a trade deal unless the EU drops demands the UK continue to align with EU state aid rules. Yet, for all the bravado on display in the Berlaymont, the UK government should think twice before it decides to take this irreversible step. Not only would this risk a trade deal with the EU, but it would also come back to bite Britain back twice as hard – because last year’s Northern Ireland deal provides backdoor for EU state aid rules into the UK.

A free-for-all on state aid is not possible because of Northern Ireland

The UK prime minister has said to the EU that he wants to avoid any curbs by future EU rules on Britain’s ability to subsidise domestic businesses. Nor does he want Britain to be under any international obligation that would limit what Britain can do to support businesses as a sovereign nation. Downing Street says that it is a matter of principle, not something for discussion.

Yet, however much the UK government wants to avoid curbs on its ability to subside businesses in the trade deal with the EU, it is a mistake to think that Britain can have complete freedom from EU state aid rules in future. The legal reality is that the withdrawal treaty that took the UK out of the EU in January makes that impossible.

When Boris Johnson made his grand bargain with the EU last autumn, he secured Northern Ireland’s special status in the EU single market for goods, allowing Northern Ireland to maintain frictionless trade with the bloc of the 27 countries in the future while avoiding a new border on the island of Ireland. The quid-pro-quo was that Northern Ireland would continue to abide by a suite of EU laws even though the UK will have no influence over them. Buried in the text is also the commitment that binds the UK as a whole to EU state aid rules where any future subsidies “affect trade” in goods between Northern Ireland and the EU.

However, this commitment is so broad that the EU’s state aid rules will apply not just to Northern Irish firms, but also to the rest of the UK. The withdrawal treaty sets only one condition on what subsidies fall under these rules – they must have “effect on trade” between NI and the EU. This is a very low bar, meaning a wide range of state aid will likely be caught by the rules. In practice, for example, if the government awarded a subsidy to Nissan, a GB-based car manufacturer, this would very likely fall under the rules, just as would a UK-wide furlough scheme of recent months.

More generally, there are at least four different ways in which this might happen:

1. If the UK government gives subsidy to a company based in Great Britain with a subsidiary in Northern Ireland (because extra funds could give a NI subsidiary an advantage over EU companies competing in NI);
2. Subsidy to a company in GB producing goods which are exported to NI (such as cars assembled in GB, because cheaper goods could unfairly displace EU imports into NI);
3. Subsidy for a service provided by a company in GB which leads to a lower price of a good in NI (such as government subsidy to a GB bank with a NI client);
4. UK-wide subsidy benefiting to NI companies and/or consumers (such as a tax benefit for energy consumers).

Furthermore, if future subsidies were deemed to distort trade with the EU, Brussels could launch investigations, ask the government to recover the subsidy from its beneficiary, and even take the UK to the European Court of Justice. And, if the ministers felt compelled to ignore the rules, the withdrawal treaty states that the EU could retaliate against Britain in any area of the withdrawal settlement, or indeed any future treaties between the UK and the EU. If this reads like speculative dystopia, read Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol – one of the small number of provisions which the Johnson government renegotiated last autumn.

A UK-wide state-aid regime can save the government from its own trap

If this is the backdrop for the current negotiation, threatening to walk away with no trade deal over state aid is both naive and irresponsible. It is naive because Downing Street dismisses the legal reality of the withdrawal treaty in the hope of securing an unattainable goal of full control of the post-Brexit state-aid policy. It is downright irresponsible because the government, aware of the risk that would impose both a significant economic cost of no-deal and an extraterritorial limit on its ability to subsidise its businesses, actively chooses to consider this option.

The prime minister’s advisers might hope to convince Brussels to amend the withdrawal treaty in order to mitigate these risks. But expecting Brussels to drop the stick over state aid while the UK is threatening to walk away from the trade talks over the same issue is bound to fail.

The UK’s best hope – if it wants to avoid the damaging consequences of its own choices from last year – is to establish a robust subsidy control regime at home. There is a strong case for this from a domestic perspective anyway, not least to protect taxpayers’ money from being wasted on ministerial pet projects and to prevent a race to the bottom on subsidies among UK regions. Such a regime, if independently regulated, would give the EU assurance that the post-Brexit state-aid policy will not damage the bloc’s single market from the outside.

If this is a hard reality to accept, it is because it is hard to understand how Mr Johnson agreed to such a constraint on the UK’s sovereignty in the withdrawal treaty whilst boasting about having ended the years of “vassalage” by Brussels. Yet the prime minister needs to acknowledge this reality. There won’t be a deal until the UK engages with the EU’s concerns more constructively and shows that the government will develop credible state aid rules at home. Nor can the UK walk away with no-deal without risking that the EU will, in future, use every opportunity it has – including through the Northern Ireland protocol – to fine the UK over harmful subsidies and even to take the government to the European Court of Justice.

A failure to acknowledge this reality would lead the UK prime minister to his biggest own goal on Brexit yet: a disruptive and irresponsible no-deal and an immense extraterritorial constraint on the UK’s post-Brexit state-aid policy. This would be not just a failure of statecraft, but amateurism on the part of the prime minister and his advisers. Yet it is a glimpse into Boris Johnson’s future outside the single market – and with no trade deal with the EU.

https://institute.global/policy/no-deal-brexit-over-state-aid-would-be-uk-own-goal

Edited September 4, 2020 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

Why has remainism suddenly bubbled-up again? My only theory is you all momentarily got sidetracked by supporting BLM, but now you're back to your default setting? Rather like a gizmo that has been reset I suppose.

[SoulMonster]

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why has remainism suddenly bubbled-up again? My only theory is you all momentarily got sidetracked by supporting BLM, but now you're back to your default setting? Rather like a gizmo that has been reset I suppose.

Who are you talking to? Are you confusing twitter with mygnrforum again? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Who are you talking to? Are you confusing twitter with mygnrforum again? 

Oh. I thought you already had your morning does of argument today? Seems you have expended it? 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Who are you talking to? Are you confusing twitter with mygnrforum again? 

Perhaps he’s just making a socio-cultural observation?  I wish we’d’ve all gone to school together, I’d shit-stirred a fight between yous two double quick  

Edited September 4, 2020 by Len Cnut

[EvanG]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps he’s just making a socio-cultural observation?  I wish we’d’ve all gone to school together, I’d shit-stirred a fight between yous two double quick  

Every time there was a fight at my school everyone would go... JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!, which was so fucking stupid... keep in mind, this was the 90's when The Jerry Springer Show was popular.

[SoulMonster]

56 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps he’s just making a socio-cultural observation? 

Except that he was saying "you all" indicating he was talking to someone here, or again were just confused as to what social media he was actually on.

[Len Cnut]

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Except that he was saying "you all" indicating he was talking to someone here, or again were just confused as to what social media he was actually on.

Surely that makes it even clearer who he’s talking to, remainers.  Or talking about.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

46 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Surely that makes it even clearer who he’s talking to, remainers.  Or talking about.

But who here is he talking to? My theory is that he was drunk, read something on twitter that offended him, and replied here.

[Len Cnut]

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But who here is he talking to? My theory is that he was drunk, read something on twitter that offended him, and replied here.

Well, it refers to a group, doesn’t it?  Like me, in a review of Appetite going, ‘all yous who rate Chi Dem over this want your heads lookin’ at’.  And yeah, I’ve come across a few round here.

[DieselDaisy]

He is obsessed with me haha.

Also, there is another linguistic game of his. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[action]

 

17 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Except that he was saying "you all" indicating he was talking to someone here, or again were just confused as to what social media he was actually on.

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by action

[DieselDaisy]

25 minutes ago, action said:

 

 

''I'll carve me some fagot (sic) wings'' haha. What a great line.

Edited September 5, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

A particularly disturbing example of Brexit Derangement Syndrome,

In fairness, even many remainers find it creepy.

[Gracii Guns]

Being honestly curious here. Almost every vocal, party-member socialist I've known (over 30) has been a private landlord. 

Is there a way to justify this, or is it plain hipocrisy? 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Being honestly curious here. Almost every vocal, party-member socialist I've known (over 30) has been a private landlord. 

Is there a way to justify this, or is it plain hipocrisy? 

We dont live in socialist countries, so its not hypocrisy to live within the current system.  (And there are even free market type activities in todays Socialist nations, such as Cuba)*

Being a landlord is no different that every other socialist working in the current economy. Academia, hollywood, cutting grass for the local government, or delivering for Amazon.

I know a few socialist landlords myself and I know that they are actively resisting gentrification/property tax increases (which would raise rents for not only their tenants, but also the local mom and pop shops). They serve as a wedge against the worst machinations of housing in a capitalist system. Much like how socialists are well represented as lawyers - they are in the system as way of protecting the people from it. And a few of them are committed to extending mercy to tenants in need, as well.

Also, housing is a more ethical engagement with the market then, say, a socialist buying rights to all the wells and selling bottle water in single use plastic. And it submits to no bosses. Its a more ethical engagement then a lot of ways of earning an income. Hopefully they are all going green energy and energy efficient on their properties.

* Vivek Chibber has some interesting things to say about modern socialism.

He's not convinced that a planned economy will be how socialism would look in NA. In short, he highlights the difference between Marxism and Socialism. Basically Marxism critiques Capitalism in a manner that kind of points us down the road on how to achieve Socialism. But Chibber says that one doesn't necessarily need to take those leads, inferred in classical marxist thought. So in Chibbers view, its possible to conceive of private property in a socialist nation (!). The manner in which the property could be exploited for profit would be very different though, of course.

Im not sure where I fall on Chibbers framing of it. But I am more comfortable saying that in general I find value in 'Cosmopolitan Socialist' thought that is rather prominent these days.

[Gracii Guns]

Thanks @soon. One of the British Labour Party's founding aims was to end landlordism, and it has gotten far worse. Mostly due to Conservative policy, but frankly Labour saw it coming in the 90s and did nothing. 

You can be a hypocrite if you say you believe in one thing, then engage in an activity or behaviour which contradicts it. Even if it's perfectly legal to do so. 

Being a landlord is different than participating in other areas of the economy, as they are making a profit simply by getting there first. They don't add value (a builder or plumber does). They just make housing more scarce and increases the prices for those who don't have the money to own a house for themselves to live in. Another way being a landlord is different from other aspects of the economy is that people need housing for survival. You can't choose to not live somewhere. They're putting in minimal effort for a very high turnover. Most tenants don't like to bother landlords out of fear of eviction, so do the maintenance themselves. This month my landlord earned £700 for literally 0 minutes work, and it's the same every month for years. I used to have to work for 80 hours to earn the same amount. It's a huge creator of inequality. 

I used to be a Labour party member, and want to see them succeed, but am becoming increasingly disillusioned and disengaged. 

[soon]

27 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Thanks @soon. One of the British Labour Party's founding aims was to end landlordism, and it has gotten far worse. Mostly due to Conservative policy, but frankly Labour saw it coming in the 90s and did nothing. 

You can be a hypocrite if you say you believe in one thing, then engage in an activity or behaviour which contradicts it. Even if it's perfectly legal to do so. 

Being a landlord is different than participating in other areas of the economy, as they are making a profit simply by getting there first. They don't add value (a builder or plumber does). They just make housing more scarce and increases the prices for those who don't have the money to own a house for themselves to live in. Another way being a landlord is different from other aspects of the economy is that people need housing for survival. You can't choose to not live somewhere. They're putting in minimal effort for a very high turnover. Most tenants don't like to bother landlords out of fear of eviction, so do the maintenance themselves. This month my landlord earned £700 for literally 0 minutes work, and it's the same every month for years. I used to have to work for 80 hours to earn the same amount. It's a huge creator of inequality. 

I used to be a Labour party member, and want to see them succeed, but am becoming increasingly disillusioned and disengaged. 

Various experiments in socialist thought dont necessarily directly shed light on other experiments in socialism. So labours efforts might not compare to other experiments in housing models in the capitalist context.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you spoke of contradictions! Accusations of "Hypocrisy" has been weaponized by the right of late - just see all DDs posts, lol. Not saying thats where you are coming from of course. But marxism already talks about the contradictions of capitalism that we all have to contend with. In this case capitalism offers "freedom" but contradicts that claim by requiring a person to work against their beliefs in order to survive. So, you can see that long before people levelled the accusation of 'hypocrisy' Socialist thought had already identified the contradictions that mediates all of our relations in the capitalist system. The capitalist contradictions that meditate our interactions with others are what produce the appearance of hypocrisy. This is all well accounted for in Marxist thought. Hypocrisy is the wrong question, one needs to look at the structures we are forced to navigate, imo.

Everyones got to eat. And there is no such thing as ethical consumption or ethical exploitation in capitalism. So purity testing the degree of authenticity is a non-useful use of time and energy imho. Because all forms of income and market engagement are unethical.

Sounds like I know better socialist landlords then you do, which sucks. I dont know enough Labout Party history to comment on your specific scenario.

Unless you are suggesting that the socialist landlords are charging more than other landlords? But if they are simply charging what the property taxes and market place calls for, than again, its simply participating in the economy that exists. Im not sure why one wouldn't participate in the economy that is? Here the housing and mortgage commission pretty much dictates the range of rent in a given area, based on market pressures. If a landlord chooses to set prices way higher than market rates, we are all free to look elsewhere. So while housing affordability can be a major issue, theres no superpowers that allow individual landlords to move mountains to make system changes on their own. But like I say, all the socialist landlords I know have all those very goals and act to achieve better outcomes for their tenants and communities.

As you say housing is necessary for survival. That is a great argument for why it should be controlled by socialists! 

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, Gracii Guns said:

Thanks @soon. One of the British Labour Party's founding aims was to end landlordism, and it has gotten far worse. Mostly due to Conservative policy, but frankly Labour saw it coming in the 90s and did nothing. 

You can be a hypocrite if you say you believe in one thing, then engage in an activity or behaviour which contradicts it. Even if it's perfectly legal to do so. 

Being a landlord is different than participating in other areas of the economy, as they are making a profit simply by getting there first. They don't add value (a builder or plumber does). They just make housing more scarce and increases the prices for those who don't have the money to own a house for themselves to live in. Another way being a landlord is different from other aspects of the economy is that people need housing for survival. You can't choose to not live somewhere. They're putting in minimal effort for a very high turnover. Most tenants don't like to bother landlords out of fear of eviction, so do the maintenance themselves. This month my landlord earned £700 for literally 0 minutes work, and it's the same every month for years. I used to have to work for 80 hours to earn the same amount. It's a huge creator of inequality. 

I used to be a Labour party member, and want to see them succeed, but am becoming increasingly disillusioned and disengaged. 

Because Blair repealed clause IV in 1995.

[bucketfoot]

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

A particularly disturbing example of Brexit Derangement Syndrome,

In fairness, even many remainers find it creepy.

It seems to be something akin to Stockholm Syndrome. These people are completely in thrall to the EU.

Absolute weirdos.

[DieselDaisy]

10 hours ago, bucketfoot said:

It seems to be something akin to Stockholm Syndrome. These people are completely in thrall to the EU.

Absolute weirdos.

They love to heap on future trials and tribulations of the United Kingdom to the extent that it becomes like a sort of weird sadomasochistic porn. If I don't see zombies outside my door January 1st I will be actually disappointed.

In reality nothing will happen except the price of quinoa will go up 7 pence.

[Dazey]

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They love to heap on future trials and tribulations of the United Kingdom to the extent that it becomes like a sort of weird sadomasochistic porn. If I don't see zombies outside my door January 1st I will be actually disappointed.

In reality nothing will happen except the price of quinoa will go up 7 pence.

Remember Boris' oven ready deal? Well turns out that he's currently in the process of trying wriggle his way out of it.  

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Remember Boris' oven ready deal? Well turns out that he's currently in the process of trying wriggle his way out of it.  

Well, the EU do not seem to realise that sovereignty, achieved when Britain decided to democratically remove itself from EU supranationalism, implies just that: sovereignty. Sovereignty will entail freedom to dictate state aid to businesses, and yes, for although you and Soul find it amusing for some apparent reason (class disdain?), control of territorial waters/maritime industry. I do not remember the EU stipulating control over the Sea of Japan whilst negotiating with the Japanese in 2018!

I have always been perfectly happy with no deal - it was never a sine qua non for me. 

I see your lot are ''losing your shit'' (as the American would say) over Boris's decision to rip-up the withdrawal agreement. Go on Bojo my son haha. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

39 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

for although you and Soul find it amusing for some apparent reason (class disdain?), control of territorial waters/maritime industry. 

Class disdain? Like disdain for the fishing class? I love to fish myself so I think not. More likely just a distain for backwards people, socially regressive people, who insist on hurting their own people, especially the poor, to get back at the EU for an entirely imagined grievance that occurred a generation ago. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Class disdain? Like disdain for the fishing class? I love to fish myself so I think not. More likely just a distain for backwards people, socially regressive people, who insist on hurting their own people, especially the poor, to get back at the EU for an entirely imagined grievance that occurred a generation ago. 

I was merely postulating hence the question mark. I probably shouldn't really dare to ponder on why the two of you enjoy sneering at the hard working and honest.