SF policy in support of cartels and abusive monolopies

[woodie]

The European Commission has published a position paper on the abuse of dominant positions in the market by cartels and monolopies (e.g. excluding competitors, charging excessive prices to consumers). Such practices are outlawed in Article 82 of the EC Treaty. Details are at
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRelease ... anguage=en

On another section of Politics.ie, http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8110
SF posters outlined their opposition to provisions of the European Consitution which carry over Article 82 verbatim. In other words, SF's policy is to support such action by multinationals and monolopies.

In view of the fact that the Commission is now considering ways of improving the enforcement of EC pro-consumer rules against such firms, SF might consider making a submission in support of the abusive multinationals and cartels? I appreciate that you're all quite busy at the moment, but the deadline is March 2006 and further details are available via the staff working paper on the Commission's site.

[DOD]

Go and get a life, you absessive little man. I am not well up on this, but I am assuming if SF had a problem with that article, that it was that it would prevent governments from holding any type of industry in the reserve of the state. I know the Labour party were pathetic, but I didn't know ye were SDLP pathetic.

[woodie]

DOD, your "justification" makes absolutely no sense.

[eurocrat]

Go and get a life, you absessive little man. .

Great way to start a post.

I am not well up on this

Then why comment on it?

I am assuming if SF had a problem with that article, that it was that it would prevent governments from holding any type of industry in the reserve of the state.

Needs revising.

I know the Labour party were pathetic, but I didn't know ye were SDLP pathetic

The tense you are looking for is 'are'. In what way are the SDLP pathetic?

He seems to raise a valid question here, DOD. Calling him (and LAB and the SDLP) names won't win the arguement.

[factual]

The European Commission has published a position paper on the abuse of dominant positions in the market by cartels and monolopies (e.g. excluding competitors, charging excessive prices to consumers). Such practices are outlawed in Article 82 of the EC Treaty. Details are at
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRelease ... anguage=en

On another section of Politics.ie, http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8110
SF posters outlined their opposition to provisions of the European Consitution which carry over Article 82 verbatim. In other words, SF's policy is to support such action by multinationals and monolopies.

In view of the fact that the Commission is now considering ways of improving the enforcement of EC pro-consumer rules against such firms, SF might consider making a submission in support of the abusive multinationals and cartels? I appreciate that you're all quite busy at the moment, but the deadline is March 2006 and further details are available via the staff working paper on the Commission's site.

I think its important to recognise thatit is possible to be in favour of strong antitrust regulation while also preferring to maximize the extent to whih those powers are retained at national level.

I can't speak for Sinn Fein on competition policy but its clear Sinn Fein would not be in favour of letting companies abuse their market power against the insterests of consumers. For one thing its regressive--higher prices will help the shareholders and hurt consumers and the former tend to be richer than the latter. In addition to this, a more vibrant economy is one based on fair competition rather than one that permits abuse of dominant positions.

Therefore Sinn Fein are philosophically not the against the ideas in atricles 81 and 82 -- i.e. Sinn Fein believes in prohibiting (anti-competitive cartel-type) agreements between firms and the abuse of dominant position (e.g. high prices to exploit monopoly position or below cost selling to knock out competition).

Now, the question becomes whether the powers of enforcement for these idea should be at national or supranational level. Sinn Fein generally believe when it comes to EU issues that its important to have democrtatic accountability and tend to believe therefore that powers should be kept where they are most accountable and that is at national level.

Certainly there are areas of competition policy where it makes sense to coordinate at EU level and I am sure that the national governments should coordinate to ensure that there not 25 totally different competition policy regimes in 25 jurisdictions -- something that could fristrate EU level investments.

But when it comes to many many competition policy questions, e.g. the mundane question of whether Tesco is predating the local Irish independent small-town grocer, it makes a lot of sense for Irish competition authorities to be looking at that, since they are most accountable to the people affected by the decision - the Irish people.

As I say I have not studied Sinn Fein's policies on compeition policy but I believe that Sinn Fein's overall values would approximately suggest the above answer.

[woodie]

Factual, EC anti-trust policy only concerns actions that affect trade between Member State. An action by a firm can exploit consumers but if it only affects one country, there's no EC role and it would be for national authorities to sort out. The type of issue you mention can only be dealt with by national competition authorities, accountable to varying degrees to national authorities. That's the subsidiarity principle. It makes no sense for the EC to decide on such matters and it doesn't do so. Your own stated preferences therefore coincide with the actual situation.

However, you say that SF believes in prohibiting anti-competitive cartel-type agreements and the abuse of dominant position but the simple fact is that that is not SF policy. The draft European Constitution carries over verbatim the texts of Article 82 which provide for such prohibitions and the relevant provisions of the Constitution have been singled out and criticised in SF policy statements and by other SF posters on politics.ie.

I appreciate you don't speak for SF but your comments are at variance with SF policy.

[factual]

Factual, EC anti-trust policy only concerns actions that affect trade between Member State. An action by a firm can exploit consumers but if it only affects one country, there's no EC role and it would be for national authorities to sort out. The type of issue you mention can only be dealt with by national competition authorities, accountable to varying degrees to national authorities. That's the subsidiarity principle. It makes no sense for the EC to decide on such matters and it doesn't do so. Your own stated preferences therefore coincide with the actual situation.

However, you say that SF believes in prohibiting anti-competitive cartel-type agreements and the abuse of dominant position but the simple fact is that that is not SF policy. The draft European Constitution carries over verbatim the texts of Article 82 which provide for such prohibitions and the relevant provisions of the Constitution have been singled out and criticised in SF policy statements and by other SF posters on politics.ie.

I appreciate you don't speak for SF but your comments are at variance with SF policy.

Thanks for this well expressed post. Are you saying that SF/SF posters have opposed carrying over specifically articles 81 and 82 - have they specified that 81 and 82 (dealing with agreements between firms and abuse of a dominant position by large firms with monopoly power) as being articles of concern?

[woodie]

Yes. For example, in outlining his opposition to various articles of the draft European Constitution, at http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic. ... c&start=25 on 15 September, Cain1798 highlighted his opposition to Articles III-161 & III-162 which are exactly the same as the current Articles 81 & 82 of the EC Treaty.

[DOD]

He seems to raise a valid question here, DOD. Calling him (and LAB and the SDLP) names won't win the arguement.

I am not looking to win the argument, I was unaware he was making an argument. I thought he was just repeating the same straw-clutching ************************e he keeps trying to rise shinners with. The argument that SF are supporting cartels is fallacious, as anyone who knows SF politics would testify. When someone makes an actual point, I will argue it with them, when they are just making fallacious statements, I will just point out my disdain for their nonsensical gibberish.

[woodie]

DOD, I have not made a misleading claim and have backed up what I've said with relevant links to statements by SF posters.