,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
An interesting piece in which @OwenJones84 expresses hesitant support for “Norway plus” (he regards it as possibly the least bad option). A couple of comments on his take on State aid. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
He rightly notes that EEA/EFTA involves full acceptance of State aid rules (though the enforcers are different - the EFTA Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court).
What I think he also should have noted, however, is the point I made here (to which no one has offered any counter-argument) that Labour’s *existing* customs union policy *also* involves accepting those rules. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Once that point is accepted (as it has to be), it’s impossible to see how the existence of State aid rules is of any relevance to the question of whether Labour should support “Norway plus”.
Indeed, the piece by Macfarlane - to which Owen says he defers - makes this broader point (which is right - though IMO he understates the constraint that WTO subsidy rules would impose, given the scale of EU/U.K. trade & UK vulnerability to EU tariffs if it infringes those rules) 
A second comment is that it’s disappointing that State aid rules are painted, by an influential commentator from the left, as only being a problem.
That ignores another important point I made in my article, that State aid rules are a form of inter-governmental cooperation to prevent large companies from seeking tax breaks and (effectively) bribes to locate in one country and not another.
The former FM of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has made that point very strongly: such auctions make it hard for Wales, as it doesn’t have the resources to win such auctions between governments competing for multinationals’ favours. /ends
A third comment is about a possibly significant thing that @OwenJones84 does *not* say: unlike some other Labour figures, he doesn’t suggest that the U.K. should seek to negotiate some form of “guarantee” as to the effect of the rules on the industrial policy of a Labour Govt.
IMO he’s quite right not to suggest it: all that could be got would be anodyne summaries of the rules or meaningless waffle. (If there was concern about a specific policy, some more specific assurance could potentially be got: but that’s not what’s usually proposed).
Instead, he takes a “let’s give it a go and deal with any problem politically if and when it comes up” approach.
That seems to me to be pragmatic and sensible, not least because the rules do allow the State aid authorities (here, the EFTA Surveillance Authority) a lot of policy room to approve aid, and politics does count at that stage. /ends.
