TLDR (though do read). The subsidy control provisions commit the UK to a robust subsidy control regime that is enforceable in court and has an independent authority.
The key concepts of the regime (eg what counts as a subsidy, application to tax measures, principles for clearing or prohibiting subsidies) are very familiar to State aid lawyers, though the State aid terminology is deliberately avoided.
Though the UK has a free hand in deciding what role the independent authority will play, in practice it will be asked to rule on any major subsidy before it goes ahead in order to remove commercial uncertainty.
In practice, therefore, the UK may well end up with a regime that works in a similar way to the EU’s: block exemptions governing most subsidies and authority rulings on non-standard cases, with the courts handing non-notified cases and appeals from authority decisions.
The immediate issue is that there is no domestic law in place on 1 January (when it is required to be in place). The current position is that EU State aid law will cease to have effect in the UK on that day, with no replacement.
There won’t be time to devise - let alone consult on or scrutinise - a replacement in 3 working days. So I think the government will have to keep the EU State aid rules - or, rather, a simulacrum of them - going until a new regime can sensibly be worked out.
Fortunately, that work has already been done and a statutory instrument drafted - though by the May government.
Whatever happens, though, the government will need to explain what it is going to do rather fast. Anyone with projects in January requiring public funding is really going to want to know.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The point of my short letter was simply that all significant trade agreements are about trade-offs: accepting limits on what you can do in return for limiting others’ ability to do things that harm your economy or limit your people’s opportunities.
Talk about “sovereignty” (or, in Lee’s case, erecting the “ever closer union” straw man) is usually designed to hide these trade-offs.
I don’t think that it’s sustainable for the EU to say (if that’s what it is saying) that COVID subsidies *granted by the EU* don’t fall under the subsidy control provisions of the UK FTA while equivalent UK subsidies do.
I don’t follow the “it would require a change in the Treaties” line: the EU is competent to enter into trade agreements that impose international obligations on it not to exercise Treaty powers in certain ways. Eg GATT.
Nor do I understand the “we can’t allow the UK to block us” line. All that is being proposed is that the UK could impose tariffs (subject to any arbitration/conciliation) mechanism if it objects to what the EU is doing.
About 100 years ago, Attorneys General frequently appeared in big criminal trials - and was obliged to prosecute all poisoning cases personally. He (always he, of course) would also represent the government in important civil cases.
Brit Farm is an organic family farm. Family members hold all the shares in Brit Farm Ltd (BFL) which holds the farm as a secure tenancy from EuroCollective Ltd (EC). EC is jointly owned by a collective of 28 organic farms, all of which are tenants with EC as the freeholder.
Like all the farms, BFL has the right to buy the freehold and leave the EC collective.
Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.
@SBarrettBar appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.
The first concealed rational answer is that, in a negotiation, you may want to try to force your counterparty to offer better terms by saying that you will walk if you don’t get them.
And you may say that even if, faced with the choice between currently offered terms and walking away, you’d be mad to walk away.