This (by a list of authors including @cjbickerton @JamesHeartfield @thephilippics) contains an extraordinarily poor section on subsidy control under the TCA. thefullbrexit.com/uk-eu-deal
The authors appear to have read my analysis of it eurelationslaw.com/blog/the-subsi… (because they link to it). But they don’t seem to have understood it at all - and the quote attributed to me is simply incorrect.
The authors don’t appear to have any understanding of what EU State aid rules actually are. This, they seem to think that this is all new. 
(Note to authors: look up “services of general economic interest” in a good State aid law text book. You might be surprised.)
This is also apparently all new. (Note to authors: look up the definition of “undertaking” in an EU competition law text book.)
Again, note to authors: read a good State aid law text book if you think any of this is new.
As for this peculiar passage, the authors note the fact that UK courts have power to police and enforce the subsidy rules (I’ll blog on the very peculiar way that that has been done later) but conclude in can be done in a “permissive” way.
The authority for that claim is supposed to be me (though I am sneeringly referred to as an “arch remained” - no doubt a precise academic term in some circles).
But the quote attributed to me is a *howling* misquote. What I actually said was this.
What I said was “the recently-made statutory instrument removing the State aid rules from retained EU law could simply and quietly be revoked.”
That is turned - by a classic of selective and misleading quotation, by leaving out all the words up to and including “removing” - into “the State aid rules from retained EU law could simply and quietly be revoked.”
Some of the apparent authors of this shoddy piece of work have academic tenure at respected universities. I expect that passage (at least) to be corrected, in accordance with normal academic standards.
“arch remainer”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
