Questiontime from Sheffield

Err...... French Nationalised...1878... Spanish ....Nationalised....1941 Long befoire the EU existed!!

Nationalised services etc has never been illegal in the EU Orsen (I am sure you know that). It is RE nationalising that is the issue.

Unlike you Making mischief

 

WRONG!!! WRONG!!......

European law which bites is not EU law but the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR contains a “right to property” that expressly extends to legal persons, such as corporations, as well as natural persons. The right can be rarely relied on absolutely, but it provides the basis for obtaining fair compensation when property is acquired by the state. This goes for compulsory purchase orders (for, say, properties on a proposed railway line) as for the renationalisation of a private company. Even if a UK government uses primary legislation, compensation is due; there cannot be confiscations. And no Labour government is likely to propose the UK ceases to be bound by the ECHR. There is also the issue of the legal form of such re-nationalisations. Presumably a mere acquisition of 51 per cent of the shares would not be enough. Such a company would still have to serve its shareholders more than the wider public interest, where there is a difference. Public ownership suggests something more than majority shareholdings and, for a fundamental shift in the business away from shareholder returns, a radical shift in legal form would also be needed.

 

If nationalisation is illegal under EU rules how do you explain the recent re-nationalisation of the East Coast Main Line?

 

Sorry but it was genuine ignorance on my part. Logical - I suppose. You couldn't really ask somebody to 'un-nationalise' something that had been that way for years. And Donny makes the distinction between state ownership and state support. Thanks guys, I'll go to the back of the class!

 

Thank you so much for posting this, I was beginning to think that it was just me. And tiring if being branded a snowflake or a nazi for objecting to the vitriol directed at me by some for daring to point out labour and corbyns faults.

 

The ECHR wasn’t written to protect corporations, and that’s a legal stretch that’d need testing in court.

Frankly I’m calling BS.

 

"Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

Bits in bold might become interesting! (And fertile ground for lawyers!)

 

Protocol One refers to: "Every natural or legal person".

 

Quite something to be branded both a snowflake and a Nazi!

 

It is complex and requires more reading time than I am prepared to spend. UK situation is complex with part private part public (Railtrack being publicly owned) It was the failing company running the trains that was taken back into public ownership not the whole system. It is NOT against EU law (see my reply to Donnyred) but ECHR that would be the fly in the ointment complicating any plans to renationalise the whole system.

 

Try doing some research before calling something you simply don't want to believe BS.

EDIT: Corporations include shareholders both in institutions (e.g. Pension funds) and millions of individual private shareholders. They are the ones that would be involved in ECHR dealings. It would drag on for years.

 

I know,

 

I’ve read quite a lot about the ECHR over the years (happens when defending things a lot of people object to out of ignorance).

and I’ve never come across it as in the context you’ve used. It’s stretching the simple right of ownership to extrapolate against nationalisation. Like I said it’d need testing in court and your lack of research on the matter mirrors my own.

So my calling of BS appears a fair response to you shouting I’m WRONG.

 

Maybe he wasn’t actually called a Nazi and it’s just another example of him being a snowflake?

makes sense?

 

corbyns policies are the issue! When will you actually realise that. They are scared of him! Blair was on their side, hence the scums headline of “we are backing Blair”

 

Think we know them all now! Do you want to choose another leader for a change?

 

Thats my point ..It would drag on for years and the class actions would make lawyers and barristers a fortune, all at the expense of the British taxpayers. This is complicated by the fact that there are a lot of foreign companies who own part own UK utilitie snd transport infrastructure.
They would have a field day... all of which McDonnell conveniently glosses over. Issuing bonds at market value plus any additional compensation I believe far exceeds the price tag Labour have mentioned although in fairness that has only been stated by a handful of mainly Centre/Centre right commentators.
Probably a moot point, since regardless of the optimism of some on here a Labour Government at this time is extremely remote. One could argue that if BJ was a man of his word and actually carried out all his promises made recently then the Conservatives would actually be a better bet for the country. Sadly that is an even more remote possibility than a Labour Government: We can all dream!

 

must amazing what happens when people actually listen to what he says. Not what the daily heil tell everyone he says

 

Tee hee!! Should we call you Red '2 hats' Helen? One for Football threads- as a Barnsley Fan and one for Political posts ' as a Socialist/Labour supporter (keep the Red flag flying and all that!) Do they still sing that at Conference time?

 

Vote Green.