Thread by @EmporersNewC

This is all true, apart from the fact the campaign was supposed to have ended in 1982, and it was the least extraordinary thing ever.

They took Ireland to court because Ireland told them to.

(Thread)

https://twitter.com/richardmarcj/status/1427931654207705089

In 1975 the problems with a “Buy British” campaign were clear. How do you establish what is British? What proportion is British? Is it branded British and foreign? Is it even available from a British company?

When Ireland started a three-year campaign on the 18th January 1978, they had thought about all of these problems and came up with intelligent practical solutions.

They announced “A carefully thought out set of initiatives that add up to an integrated programme for promoting Irish goods, with specific proposals to involve the producer, distributor and consumer”.

The measures included the creation of a free information service to ensure that consumers could find and buy the Irish made product that they were looking for.

There was a large exhibition centre in Dublin that displayed goods that were Irish.

The introduction of a “Guaranteed Irish” symbol which included a special service to investigate complaints about misuse of that symbol.

Finally, there is a big advertising campaign.

Obviously, the Irish government did not provide these services directly, because it would have amounted to a national practice to distort the market.

The exhibition itself amounted to a government using public money to provide free advertising.

This is a clear-cut example of distortion.

Which is why on 25th August 1978, the “Goods Council” was registered as a private company, and it was this corporation that provided those services.

A private operation rather than a government initiative, so that’s all fine.

It is completely permissible for the government to provide aid under Article 92 and Article 93 of the Treaty of Rome to this company.

As long as they declare it.

Which they didn’t.

And if a company starts up with non declared aid from the government amounting to IRL 1,005,000 and private investment amounts to IRL 175,000, then questions are going to be asked about independence.

And they were.

Especially when the rules of the company stated that the management are appointed by the Minister for Industry, Commerce, and Energy.

Which they did.

Added to the fact this private company just happens to be the sole implementer of a government "Buy Irish" policy announced a few months before.

I can’t stress enough, it was not remotely extraordinary that the Irish government ended up before the court.

The Commission did not take the Irish government to court immediately. There was dialog resulting in the free service to find goods and the exhibition centre being stopped.

The government tried to bring it in line with the treaty, and went to court believing they had done enough

But this wasn’t a difficult case for the court.

The Irish government argued it was a separate company AND they had dropped the exhibition centre and the service to find goods.

It was contradictory defence.

While the judge was working out how they were independent while changing the services, the Commission were getting out the finance records and the articles of association showing how management is selected by the government.

The Irish government’s second defence, that they were allowed to subsidise this totally independent company under Articles 92 and 93 didn’t hold up when it is revealed they didn’t declare it as per Article 93 (3).

I have complete respect for the Irish government to try and create a “Buy Irish” campaign that worked, but to do so involved bending the rules until they broke.

It's what they did and it was not difficult to prove.

So, while Ireland being taken to court is not extraordinary, but knowing the details of how Ireland lost, this statement definitely is remarkable.

https://twitter.com/richardmarcj/status/1427933818854514691

Ireland didn’t need to be told what it could and couldn’t do.

It had negotiated and signed a document saying what it could and couldn’t do and everything it did to implement its "Buy Irish" policy proved it fully understood what it could and couldn't do.

It is not the job of the Commission to tell countries what to do or what they can’t do, it’s up to the countries to decide that, and then it’s up to the Commission to do what they are told to do and make sure countries do what they said they would, and would not, do.

I don’t know why so many Eurosceptics feel the need to pervert the facts like that.

I don't know if it’s racism and the irrational sense that it's foreigners telling us what to do, or just a general deep-seated sense of victimhood.

The Irish government’s defence was more than just poor, there was clear sign of intent, and they hadn’t even correctly followed the article that their case was relying on.

And yet in the face of an open and shut case, Alf Lomas could not help himself and make an open and shut case all about the UK being pushed around.

This is dangerous thinking, and it’s one step away from saying the police are telling the British people or the government what we can and can’t do, or the courts are telling us or the government what we can and can’t do.

This is really negative, and while I don't know why they do it, I do believe there is a link with how our democratic institutions have been subjected to so many attacks recently.

/End