The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Looks pretty certain:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets

 

Well done apelikeski

Bolshoe spasibo....

Stange thing is some of the alleged accounts were actually pro remain.

Another Cyclone fact free post.

There was 1 question and 1 statement, which is my opinion.

I'm sure we can rely on the brexiteers to supply some 'facts'.

The EU's involvement is that the Royal Mail charter obliges the RM to operate a full delivery service, but this is done at a loss, so the government provides a subsidy to RM, preventing fair competition under EU competition rules. This is illegal under the Amsterdam Treaty state aid rules so complaints were raised to the EU Commission by RM competitors which ultimately forced the privatisation of the RM and so enabled the delivery of a key policy of the EU centric LibDems.

I see.

Well, since we are into fact-full, rather than fact-free, posts () please do not forget to mention the pivotal role of the WTO in the de-regularisation of monopolistic services (including nationalised services, such as postal services), both EU-wide and elsewhere, which preceded the EU legislation that brought the above situation about.

The reference you are looking for is the Doha Development Round started in November 2001 (notwithstanding its eventual winding up in 2015). Before that, fair enough, we're looking at EU Directive 97/67/CE (which maintained RM's monopoly on letters/parcels up to 350 grs or up to 5x the RM stamp cost, intact).

After that, and of course, the issue falls to be considered -more subjectively this time- from an economic worldview: is it better that monopolistic contexts, be they public (e.g. Royal Mail prior to privatisation) or private (e.g. US oil industry, before the first US antitrust laws), be forcibly cancelled out and that free competition for the delivery of (e.g. postal) services be promoted; or is it better that some state monopolistic/oligopolistic services and their subsidising by taxpayers should still be allowed?

[personally, I'll admit to favour a balance of both, guided solely by the national self-interest: for instance, power generation (at least) should always be ring-fenced from the private sector]

EU legislation has no awareness of the notion of a public service.

It only acknowledges ‘services for the general economic interest’.

NO to EU policies that privatise our transport and postal services!

Bolshoe spasibo....

 

Stange thing is some of the alleged accounts were actually pro remain.

Of course some are pro-remain

The EU imposes the harshest form of taxation upon a nation - privatisation - which is the theft of the assets of a nation that belong to its people. Collective ownership is hated by the bankers and corporations which really control the EU, for their benefit.

 

All the EU has done is privatise profit and nationalise debt.

Because I could swear that the list of litanies against the EU which you can come up with, is as long as the Don

Incidentally, for Royal Mail, see above, and do your homework if needed. It's the WTO which you really want to blame (well, its member states, really -and collectively, because 'the WTO' doesn't really exist as a single entity in and of itself: it only does so through its membership...just like the EU).

The WTO, that well-publicised spare wheel (or wilful destination?) of the Brexiters.

Are you ready to get what you're asking for? Really-really ready?

Ah, so the EU "involvement" is that it was UK legislation -which the UK was plenty sovereign enough to amend- that was preventing the UK from complying with the EU regs implementing the EU's WTO obligations?

 

I see.

 

Well, since we are into fact-full, rather than fact-free, posts () please do not forget to mention the pivotal role of the WTO in the de-regularisation of monopolistic services (including nationalised services, such as postal services), both EU-wide and elsewhere, which preceded the EU legislation that brought the above situation about.

 

The reference you are looking for is the Doha Development Round started in November 2001 (notwithstanding its eventual winding up in 2015). Before that, fair enough, we're looking at EU Directive 97/67/CE (which maintained RM's monopoly on letters/parcels up to 350 grs or up to 5x the RM stamp cost, intact).

 

After that, and of course, the issue falls to be considered -more subjectively this time- from an economic worldview: is it better that monopolistic contexts, be they public (e.g. Royal Mail prior to privatisation) or private (e.g. US oil industry, before the first US antitrust laws), be forcibly cancelled out and that free competition for the delivery of (e.g. postal) services be promoted; or is it better that some state monopolistic/oligopolistic services and their subsidising by taxpayers should still be allowed?

Don't be under the misapprehension that I think the RM should either be protected or thrown to the wolves. Cyclone's fact free post blamed the Conservatives and exonerated the EU from the RM privatisation, which is a fact free opinion.

For the record I am generally (but not always) against state subsidy except in certain circumstances which usually around unique industries and unique local economic circumstances. So I'm cool with Camembert from Camembert but not so hot on Chinese steel dumping. The trouble is that the EU isn't agile enough to cope with anything much beyond protectionism on behalf of the businesses which racketeer lobby to their own advantage to carve out additional market share at the expense of competitors.

Also for the record I would rather the UK be in the EU, just not this EU.

Don't be under the misapprehension that I think the RM should either be protected or thrown to the wolves. Cyclone's fact free post blamed the Conservatives and exonerated the EU from the RM privatisation, which is a fact free opinion.

 

For the record I am generally (but not always) against state subsidy except in certain circumstances which usually around unique industries and unique local economic circumstances. So I'm cool with Camembert from Camembert but not so hot on Chinese steel dumping. The trouble is that the EU isn't agile enough to cope with anything much beyond protectionism on behalf of the businesses which racketeer lobby to their own advantage to carve out additional market share at the expense of competitors.

The EU is an ongoing project, always has been, and always with the same ultimate aim of fully harmonising the respective national markets of its member states, wherein state monopolies (of founding members, and then new/joining members) are -by definition- anomalies; and so, necessarily to be eradicated (eventually) because they distort inter-members trade, to a greater or lesser extent.

The prevention of anti-monopolistic practices has always laid at the constitutional core of the EU, written in black and white in its most fundamental statutes, refer Article 81 & 82 of the ages-old EC Treaty (maintained as Articles 101, 102 in the current TEU). The gradual de-regularisation of airline travel, telecoms, etc. within the Single Market follows the exact same pattern as that which eventually 'caught' Royal Mail, and inscribes itself fully in that context. I daresay the lambda EU customer benefits substantially in the end - which is the whole point of incentivising borderless competition.

Of course some are pro-remain

Why "of course"?

Also for the record I would rather the UK be in the EU, just not this EU.

We can have another referendum in 5 years, can you wait that long

Why "of course"?

Controlled pro and anti accounts fighting each other. Anti accounts posting outrageous messages that harden opinion on the pro side, and vice versa. It’s a standard technique - to maximise the impact accounts on both sides of the debate can be controlled.

On the rather tired topic of privatisation - the EU does not like state monopolies (whereby the EU single market is considered the state).

That bit in brackets is highly relevant to the RM situation. What the EU wanted was that other postal operations in the EU could provide service to all of the single market. RM and the UK agreed and opened the market to others. They also agreed that as part of the remit to deliver post in far flung places (don't forget that the UK isn't the only EU nation with far flung places) entitled RM to a form of state aid (that it is still entitled to).

The EU also wanted to ensure control of the companies was not directly with the state. In other words, it wanted part (PART) of these companies to be listed on the stock-market to provide a diverse ownership.

No where ever did the EU say to the UK: Sell the Royal Mail shares.

It most certainly didn't tell the UK to create the twelveheaded (or however many) monster that is the rail system in this country. Nor did it tell the UK to sell of local bus companies.

In case you want any evidence of this - who owns the NHS?

If the EU wanted to force privatisation, surely it would have targeted the NHS?

Case closed.