General Election 2017

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, PauloBarnesi said:

You might say the same about SF. But most people on the British mainland don’t realise what is going on in NI.

You are right no one really does, we hear more about Scotland. I must admit I don't follow what is going on NI. the more I hear about the DUP the more I don't like. I think there will be another election between next 6-12 months. 

Imagine May starts negotiating brexit then is forced out and we have another election, corbyn wins and has to take over for brexit negotiations. What a complete mess that will be and a very likely scenario I would say. 

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

How do you the DUP have so many seats over there if they are this bad? 

Division, mostly.

Northern Ireland politics is complex. It's all the problems Britain has (and more specifically the problems that everywhere North of Watford has), and Brexit, but in a tiny area, with added pressures of toxic religion and divided nationalism. The DUP offer hardcore Protestantism with hardcore Unionism, and the picnic take on Brexit the Tories love. Sinn Fein the opposite. As things get worse, people go further to the extremes, hence the collapse of the 'milder' parties, and so Northern Ireland is split. The entire border now is Sinn Fein. The rest (bar 1 seat) is DUP, with it's voters presumably feeling a little besieged.

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

It's obviously untrue as most European countries have nationalised railways, indeed most of the world does. Even power, in France at least is mainly nationalised

Whether this is some bizarre re-nationalisation law, who knows but as you say, the only person I've seen claim it is Herr Farago

We also have nationalised state run railways and power production.

It's just not our nation, it's France, Germany, China...

[Chindie]

About the only plus side of this whole situation is Northern Ireland can't be ignored anymore in Brexit talks.

It's been the elephant in the room for a year, and nobody with the power to do anything about it seemed to want to approach it. That is no longer an option.

The border is going to be a flashpoint, and it has to be resolved in such a way that changes as little as possible. 

[PauloBarnesi]

The past is another country as they say, bar in Northern Ireland, where its constantly being relived.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant.

 

 

 is this like a code red in A Few Good men , where it's not a policy written anywhere but everyone knows it's a policy or something ?

[bickster]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

 

 

 is this like a code red in A Few Good men , where it's not a policy written anywhere but everyone knows it's a policy or something ?

Have a look how close Bewdley is to West Midlands Safari Park (hence post below yours)

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Have a look how close Bewdley is to West Midlands Safari Park (hence post below yours)

it was more about the shooting of them tbf

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

8 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

Is it totally Impossible that Sin Fein will take their seats in parliament? They could really upset the apple cart.

Can't see that ever happening but I said that about Trump and Brexit...

[ml1dch]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

 

 is this like a code red in A Few Good men , where it's not a policy written anywhere but everyone knows it's a policy or something ?

limpid runs his forum how he runs his forum. You want to investigate him, roll the dice and take your chances.

()

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Can't see that ever happening but I said that about Trump and Brexit...

I think it more likely now that at any time in the past, doesn't mean it'll happen though

I do think it's something their own supporters may force them to revise however and that's the only way it can happen

[sharkyvilla]

Would the Tories actually have to give up much to the DUP to get them to vote along with them in parliament?  Surely they'd be more afraid of Corbyn as PM and have a history of just voting along with the Conservatives anyway.  A lot of the devolved stuff they wouldn't even need their support anyway, it's more to just get a Queen's Speech and budget through.  

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

I think it more likely now that at any time in the past, doesn't mean it'll happen though

I do think it's something their own supporters may force them to revise however and that's the only way it can happen

Agreed and no matter how hard I try,  can you really imagine Gerry sitting in there ? 

 

[Demitri_C]

Thanks for that @Chindie

I think the snp missed a trick here. They probably could have got their referendum if they were not so anti Tory. DUP have such power now. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, villaglint said:

there are several mechanisms by which Labour could nationalise and remain within single market.

Absolutely. I posted about this before, but here it is again

Quote

Sorry Nigel but EU law will not prohibit a properly handled nationalisation of energy utilities.

Nigel Farage thinks EU law prevents nationalisation. Ironically he seems to have got this from a recent post 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.

Professor Nicol raises an important point. The EU probably encroaches on the sovereignty of member states to its most egregious degree when it comes to market liberalisation. Art. 176 TFEU commits member states to the expansion of markets.

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.

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.

But even without Art. 345 EU law would not prohibit the Corbyn plan. Professor Nicol relies heavily on Art. 106 TFEU. But this provision doesn’t ban nationalised industries. It simply regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises. In essence, enterprises with a dominant position in the market due to state action cannot use that position to behave unreasonably. The ECJ will only intervene if Art. 106 is breached.

Professor Nicol argues in his book that the ECJ now presumes that a government supported enterprise will always breach Art. 106. But this is based on a case in which the enterprise in question acted truly outrageously. It’s not clear that the decisions in this case would apply across the board. It almost certainly wouldn’t apply to the railways as these are already operated by government subsidisedmonopolies. If there’s only one player in the game it doesn’t make the market any more or less competitive if his name is Corbyn or Branson.

Even the court decides Art. 106 has been breached, the treaty includes exceptionsallowing a state supported entity to operate without or with limited competition if it is necessary in the national interest.

This gives the Corbyn plan two defences. It could ensure that its nationalised enterprises cohere with Art. 106 ab initio (for example by writing a duty to respect it into the Act of Parliament). Or it could argue that it qualifies for an exemption.

The latter argument would be stronger if the new enterprise was to focus on green energy. Energy suppliers themselves have argued that taking the necessary steps to respond to climate change is too difficult in the existing energy market. Yet EU law purports to take climate change very seriously. The Corbyn government could argue that nationalisation represents an essential (and legally mandated) response to climate change.

Professor Nicol also argues that EU directives on electricity and gas will prevent nationalisation. It’s true that both directives require that third parties have access to the national grid. This seems to prohibit a monopoly. But it wouldn’t prohibit nationalisation of the grid. The grid is inevitably operated by natural monopolies (it would be absurd to have competing grids) and this reality is accepted in the directives long as third parties can access the grid. Nationalising the grid would make no difference to the current dynamics of the market.

There are over a hundred energy generators and suppliers in the UK. The Corbyn plan only involves nationalising the “Big Six”. Clearly this wouldn’t prevent “third party” access to the grid. In France over 90% of the market is dominated by state owned or backed entities. Allowing third parties access to just 20% of the market was sufficient for France to discharge its obligations.

We should also remember that the directives must be applied in the spirit of the treaties. This brings Art. 345 back into the mix. It would be difficult for the ECJ to overturn a proportionately conducted, partial nationalisation considering that the fundamental law of the EU recognises the rights of member states to do just that.

Finally it’s worth noting that the energy industry already receives significant state aid. It would be difficult for opponents of nationalisation to sue based on an unfair competition argument when it’s by no means clear that the previous situation was any better.

In summary, the Corbyn plan may well face a challenge in the ECJ. But so might almost any piece of legislation. EU law would by no means, immediately prohibit a properly handled nationalisation. This is important. Debate about progressive ideas can too often be choked off by assertions of illegality. Those of us who care about the environment (or just about our energy bill) should fervently hope that doesn’t happen here.

 

[zak]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

About the only plus side of this whole situation is Northern Ireland can't be ignored anymore in Brexit talks.

It's been the elephant in the room for a year, and nobody with the power to do anything about it seemed to want to approach it. That is no longer an option.

The border is going to be a flashpoint, and it has to be resolved in such a way that changes as little as possible. 

My GF and i were arguing about the Irish boarder over the weekend.

I was saying that post Brexit you would have to have a boarder between ROI and NI with security checks etc, she was saying i was wrong. From briefly looking at this, is it unknown? I just dont see in anyway brexit can happen without having a boarder there? you cant have free movement within the EU and thus to ROI and also free movement between ROI and NI

Am i missing something?

[Brumstopdogs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/theresa-may-just-400-votes-short-majority/

Quote

Ending the election on 318 seats, Theresa May needed just eight more MPs to secure a Parliamentary majority.

In the eight constituencies with the tightest margin over second-placed Tories, the combined majority was 786.

This means that, had the Conservatives convinced 401 people across these eight constituencies, Theresa May would still have her majority in Parliament.

This assumes that the Conservatives swung half of the majority from the winning party of each of these seats, plus one extra vote to take the seat.

 

 

[mjmooney]

4 minutes ago, zak said:

My GF and i were arguing about the Irish boarder over the weekend.

I was saying that post Brexit you would have to have a boarder between ROI and NI with security checks etc, she was saying i was wrong. From briefly looking at this, is it unknown? I just dont see in anyway brexit can happen without having a boarder there? you cant have free movement within the EU and thus to ROI and also free movement between ROI and NI

Am i missing something?

Yes. The correct spelling of "border".

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/theresa-may-just-400-votes-short-majority/

had the Conservatives convinced 401 people across these eight constituencies, Theresa May would still have her

The problem being, had she broken cover and actually spoken in these constituencies, then they'd have lost by more.

They lost every marginal she visited and spoke.

But yeah, they're keeping her on 'cos she's great and they have confidence in her.

 

Can't wait for the first PMQ's - see how Arlene Foster or Amber Rudd shapes up against Corbyn.

[zak]

Just now, mjmooney said:

Yes. The correct spelling of "border".

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I couldn't help myself. 

No i was referring to a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. Theres one between the 2 countries.

I actually looked at the spelling and was pretty sure it was wrong but spellcheck didnt give me a red squiggle and im dyslexic so deal with it!