Article 50 Discussion

[London1971]

Refusing to extend the extension means absolutely nothing at the moment.  He has the complete power to reverse this closer to the time by passing another law,which will simply be rubber stamped by his huge majority, closer to the time.

[tobyjugg2]

Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.”

 

Art. 106 TFEU 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.

 

 

So it seems to me that what corbyn seemed to be trying to avoid is art 106 preventing the use of any nationalised, taxpayer supported industries to damage non nationalised industries/businesses in an unfair way causing other businesses to artificially fail/fall into nationalisation.

- effectively weaponising the nationalised industry.

 

Possible overly simplified examples might perhaps be:

* refusing to allow others to use the required infrastructure without good cause (eg safety)

* using taxpayer money to artificially deflate prices in certain ways to the detriment of other businesses which are working at cost plus.

 

generally that the service/industry is not blatantly anti-competitive, although that is open to wide interpretation.

 

 

How might art 106 be used - apart from VERY rarely in extreme circumstances:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990CJ0041

Edited December 17, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

and an informed and detailed estimate of the NI customs issue

 

Imports from the rest of the world into the ports of Northern Ireland are well documented. About 75% of them are classified by the United Nations as intermediate goods and hence face EU tariffs, while of the remaining 25%, a little over a quarter are likely to face EU tariffs. Thus about 82% of Northern Ireland’s imports from the rest of the world are subject to EU tariffs, accounting for about 10% of the region’s total imports. to conclude that about 40% of this trade flow is of intermediate goods and that of the remaining 60% about 40% would face EU tariffs. Thus about 64% of imports from Great Britain would face EU tariffs and, recalling that the GB→NI flow accounts for about 63% of Northern Ireland’s total imports, this implies that 40% of total imports face EU tariffs through this route.

Summing the contributions to Northern Ireland’s imports from the EU, the rest of the world and Great Britain suggests that around 75% of all Northern Irish imports will pay the EU tariff on entering the province.

Following this conclusion, I also document the fact that imports of all goods subject to EU trade defence instruments have to pay those duties on entry to Northern Ireland and my view that over time the share of the EU in Northern Ireland’s imports is likely to increase. Finally, I note that while goods that are proved to have been sold to final buyers in Northern Ireland can have any EU tariff they have paid rebated, claiming those rebates is likely to be difficult for the private sector and hence rebates are unlikely to refund much tariff revenue.

The calculations described in this evidence are based on very approximate data and a series of, generally, untested assumptions.  However, the assumptions have been made explicit and I believe that they are perfectly reasonable. I cannot put formal confidence intervals around my estimates, but at an informal level it would be surprising on the basis of this work if the true proportion of Northern Irish imports that paid the EU tariff fell outside the range 65%-85%.

 

 

 

Background (case is moot as Johnson can probable change the law however he likes)

https://goodlawproject.org/claim-establish-withdrawal-agreement-will-continue/

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/proposed-withdrawal-agreement/

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[cjcregg]

7 hours ago, London1971 said:

Refusing to extend the extension means absolutely nothing at the moment.  He has the complete power to reverse this closer to the time by passing another law,which will simply be rubber stamped by his huge majority, closer to the time.

 

An EU commissioner said that the extension would have had to have been requested by the UK government in the first instance in any event, so quite why Boris needs a law to bind himself from doing something he doesn't want to is anyone's guess. Oh, I know! It's populism!

[honeybee13]

It beats me too, CJ.

[Jase1982]

I would imagine it's more for the EU's benefit, so that we go back to where we were - in forcing 'no deal' back on to the table and basically telling the EU to give us what we want.  Which of course won't happen, whatever we do get at the end of year will be championed as a success but any negatives can be put down to the EU not playing ball, and not willing to negotiate 

[honeybee13]

These Europeans just don't seem to get that we're superior and that they should be doing what we tell, them, do they?

[fletch70]

19 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

These Europeans just don't seem to get that we're superior and that they should be doing what we tell, them, do they?

If they had done what we told them in the first place we would be running the show and not these pesky continentals

And don’t forget they need us more than we need them ! 

[Maharg1]

Very few of the former MPs, almost all from opposition parties, say they will miss the opportunity to see Boris Johnson and his new majority government gloating from the green benches

[tobyjugg2]

Apparently Corbyn has been put forward for a peerage due to a firm belief that an asset like him should be maintained

.. He's apparently already pencilled in on the Tories list and if he holds out as leader until the next election, they'll make him a Baron.

[honeybee13]

The wizard wheeze of making and extension to the transition period illegal hasn't made the City happy. The £ is down about 3 cents against the € since the day after the election and against the dollar.

[Maharg1]

That's good, it makes UK goods cheaper 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Maharg1

[honeybee13]

... and imported goods including food more expensive.

[cjcregg]

58 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

... and imported goods including food more expensive.

….and given that we import significantly more than we export (around £47b per anum more) any reduction in the value of sterling represents a net loss to the UK.

 

But try telling that to a populist.

[tobyjugg2]

and as we already know from the last 3 years, a fall in the pound did NOT increase exports except for a brief period when existing stock was used,

... Then the UK businesses had to buy replenishment stock at the inflating prices - driving up their costs and reducing their competitiveness.

 

Just a 1% fall in the pound  increases costs to the UK consumer imports (food etc) and international trade by half a billion pounds per year or more

(far more given much international trade and the British debt mountain is traded in dollars - which Johnson plans to increase)

 

So the 20% fall in the GBP in relation to other currencies actual cost the UK consumer and businesses 10 billion pounds PLUS a year. With Brexit overall costing the UK economy around 880 million pounds a week on average every week.

 

 

So STILL waiting for you to come up with some real benefit, and some real significant trade deals that are at least as good as what we have @maharg1

or anything other than Johnson Jingoistic jingle balls.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by tobyjugg2
need to check one figure so removed it.

[tobyjugg2]

All ready for a Christmas singalong

 

 

Jingo balls jingo balls
Jingo all the way
Johnson sack holds nowt but crap
on his Brexit jingo sleigh

 

Oh
jingo bells Corbyn smells
Wish he'd go away
or at least stop giving a boost
to Johnsons jingo sleigh

 

[determindator]

M1 five posts and already in the Bear Garden Article 50 discussion, interesting.

 

Going Underground by The Jam 

 

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jam/goingunderground.html

[tobyjugg2]

I see the corbynistas are continuing their hard work blaming anyone but themselves

 

 

A former Labour MP and close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that Tony Blair was to blame for Labour’s crushing electoral defeat.

 

Laura Pidcock, who was tipped as a successor to Mr Corbyn before losing her seat at the election, said the former prime minister’s legacy “hangs around this party like a millstone”.

 

She missed out 2 words after legacy there ... 'of winning'

 

 

Ms Pidcock was defending a majority of 8,792 in the North East Durham constituency, which had held by Labour since 1950, but lost out after a major swing to the Conservatives. 

The lowest majority held by a Labour MP in the constituency during Mr Blair’s time as leader was 13,443.

 

 

Looks like Johnsons expectation of being in power throughout the 2020's is looking more and more likely by the day,

I don't think anyone other than the corbyn crew could have enabled that ...

 

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-election-defeat-result-corbyn-tony-blair-pidcock-a9256971.html

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Problem for Socialists is that there are not enough voters who would vote for a Socialist manifesto.  Labour/momentum increased Labour membership by several hundred thousand and those recruited very passionately believed in a Socialist way forward for the UK. 

 

To win a general election a party has to win approx 14 million votes and take seats across Britain.  Labour became concentrated in big inner city seats, where it was probably easier to organise those recruited to campaign for votes. Outside of the inner city seats, it is far more difficult to engage with voters and Labour probably did not apply the resources to persuade people that they were making a mistake to vote Tory because of Brexit.

 

Labour under Corbyns leadership lost touch with the previously loyal Labour voters, who live outside of the major inner city constituencies.  Corbyn was a Socialist campaigner and not a leader.  

[brassnecked]

Other issue UB is that Corbyn was left of Socialism, being a Marxist, and there are tensions within Socialists, McDonnell is a Trotskyist, and the two don't gell too well, think Stalin v Trotsky, and an icepick. 

[fletch70]

4 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Other issue UB is that Corbyn was left of Socialism, being a Marxist, and there are tensions within Socialists, McDonnell is a Trotskyist, and the two don't gell too well, think Stalin v Trotsky, and an icepick. 

Can you explain to use the difference between socialism , Marxism, trotsky etc . Stalin was non of the above, nor was he a communist, well not by the end. When you talk about socialism do you mean democratic socialism ?

[honeybee13]

Not meaning to be flippant but Stalin was a Stalinist, wasn't he?

[tobyjugg2]

Differences?

Depends what day it is and who's asking.

 

 

 

I see Corbynista crew have brought in the original loser to address their losing ... albeit surrounded b y Corbynites

They must want to get back to the heady heights of simply losing elections rather than being entirely unelectable.

 

 

 

problems

1. Corbyn. Soap box kid. Slumped looking sideways at interviewers and avoiding answers despite claiming he had, indeed was all the answers.

Just like a poor liar. - looked and acted like gollum on a good day.

 

2. Wholesale trot policies rather than step at a time. If he'd sold just water, trains and power renationalisation and made a success of it - he would have been made.

 

3. Corbyns sycophants - We are right - everyone else just doesn't understand and is wrong so shut up.

 

4. Brexit - the market was crowded with brexiters and he wasn't even a good one.

 

5. Why is no-one mentioning it? Open door immigration, benefits straight away  policy probably lost a million votes all on its own. Its what drove the referendum result and Corbyn slapped it back on the table on steroids.

 

6. Claimed to be able to bring people together but couldn't even bring his party together other than by back door attempts at deselecetion

 

 

Theres just 6 of the many issues that make Corbiites entirely unelectable.

If they spout anything different - everyone will think they are just lying as they have sold it as their foundations.

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I don't think we've mentioned Leninism yet, or Maoism.   Most or all of them seem to track back to Marxism.

 

Learned link here.

https://paradoxoftheday.com/differences-between-marxism-leninism-trotskyism-stalinism-and-maoism/

[fletch70]

The problem is, many of them ended up being totalitarian and diverged from the evolution discussed by Marx. The closest to Marx may well have been Trotsky while Lenin was pragmatic. Stalin decided he would have one nation communism. 
 

As by it’s definition, capitalism must at some point fail, you can not keep increasing profits for ever the question is, are we in late capitalism as many think. 
 

Ny the way Toby, can you tell me where (apart from in the right wing press) Corbin ever offered open door immigration and full benefits (not that they are worth much) as soon as you arrive?