Nope. I say that because the ECJ does not interpret it that way. As it considers a private service, completely differently to a public one. To understand that means having to understand how EU & UK treats them & this isn't it.

#renationalisation #Thread

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @bea_johanssen view original on Twitter

A106 (competition)
A18 (discrimination)
A101 (anti-collusion)
A109 (scope)
A108 (state aid - eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…)

Both EU, the UK, as well as the USA to a lesser degree, have very strict rules about non-collusion, anti-corruption & fraud. All the above TfEU articles are about protecting the public & public money, from politicians granting 20 years or permanent contracts, to their mate/wife

Who then siphons billions of pounds of public, taxpayers money into their own bank accounts, without having a way to force legal justification of it, stop contracts (you can't just stop it, because everything stops) or get another supplier. These rules also encompass monopolies.

As monopolies are bad! REALLY bad! Their customers are captive audiences & the price goes through the roof! Forever! Into the pockets of the partners of the statespeople. The world has precedence for that everywhere. Not least Italy & Burlusconi (these articles protected Italy)

Note, a monopoly (driven by capitalism) is totally different from a nationalised service (darling of socialism). There are a tonne of things which create what are called 'natural monopolies' because there is only the capacity for one of them in a region.

For example, Water pipes, Rail Lines, Gas Distribution pipelines, Electricity Pylon networks etc. The energy distribution isn't owned by the top 6. The top 6 only provide services from the meter of your house, into your home. Before that, it's the distribution network...

...& there can be only 1. That does 3 things:

1. Create a natural monopoly - A106 etc give judiciary & gov mechanisms to RECLAIM a privatised monopoly at any time.

2. Mandate governments to regulate natural monopolies (its why Ofgem exists)

3. Create free & open competition

& it is number 3 that author has totally misunderstood as public sector competing with private sector. It isn't.

As well as regulating these natural monopolies run by private sector orgs, the articles also force non-discriminatory competition between member states (SM & CU)

Public & private sectors are not subject to the same rules. Since public is a sovereign position. The people decide. But private isn't accountable to the people. So need hemming in to protect public funds. That's what these article exist for. Same as every other non-corrupt state

It's MPs jobs to hold public services accountable & justify their existence. After all, public services are run by the civil service & use public funds. This includes any position of public sector money being used for private sector bailouts as state aid/state sponsored activity

So a government SHOULDN'T use public money to 'bail out' a company that isn't in trouble & doesn't provide public services. However, this sort of happens all the time in the UK, including to international companies & charities

Airplanes at BAE
Bombardier
Oxfam
SME grants
...

As much as I despise Trump & his regime, the judgement on Bombardier is technically correct in terms of state aid. They do receive what is classed as state aid. As did Nissan...

... Where's that thread?

Here we go:

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @AngryNorthernUK view original on Twitter

What's clear though, is @jeremycorbyn seems complete oblivious to all this detail. Indeed, if I didn't have to interact with the [totally incompetent] UK public sector procurement process, I wouldn't have had an idea either.

It's also clear that the Tories, seasoned [corrupt] professionals in debate & exploitation, are letting the not-long-off-the-back-bench Corbyn argue the case, because... Well...

As Corbyn is giving the Conservatives EXACTLY what they want! But Socialists are now blind to the fact that:

a) they are voting themselves out of the rules they need

b) they aren't in government. So have no power to put replacement rules in to compensate...

c) which means they are enabling the Tories to take on a 'supermarket sweep' of power. Including on workers & human rights & now, enabling corruption & collusion on infrastructure. Well done!

It doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks is doing. In truth, he's being exploited!

unroll