-:Undertaker:-
10-05-2014, 09:28 PM
I just watched this week's Question Time and I have to say, the last question had my blood boiling - especially with that Labour twit talking over Farage time and time again. The question asked was regarding the proposed takeover of the British drug company AstraZeneca by an American rival, prompting fears that the takeover bid is a hostile bid which will result in job losses.
Now, Nigel Farage near the end points out that for all the talk that the Labour, Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat panellists give on this topic, they are all ignoring the FACT that such a decision on whether to allow a takeover of AstraZeneca is no longer that of the British Government or British Parliament - it's with the EU.
The Labour twit tries making it out as though Farage blames everything on the EU and that it's all in the mind of Farage, but here's an article proving Farage correct (and anybody who knows anything about EU law knows this already) that the power to give the go ahead or deny the takeover of AstraZeneca is no longer that of the elected British parliament, it's in the hands of the unelected European Commission.... Here is the clip followed by the article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCSfSjM-moA
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/uk-astrazeneca-pfizer-public-interest-idUKKBN0DO14M20140508
EU likely to block any UK intervention in AstraZeneca bid - lawyers
http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140508&t=2&i=895235446&w=580&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=LYNXMPEA470FP
(Reuters) - The European Commission would probably block any attempt by the British government to intervene in Pfizer's (PFE.N) proposed takeover of AstraZeneca (AZN.L) as Brussels itself would rule on a deal of that size, competition lawyers say.
AstraZeneca has rejected the $106 billion (62.5 billion pounds) bid to create the world's largest pharmaceuticals business. However, Pfizer is still pursuing its British rival, and political pressure is growing on Prime Minister David Cameron to show he can protect jobs should the New York-based company prevail.
Cameron initially signalled he would not interfere in the bid. However, the Conservative leader - who faces a parliamentary election this time next year - now says he wants further commitments from Pfizer before giving his blessing to any takeover of Britain's second largest drugs group.
He has also not ruled out a suggestion from his Business Secretary Vince Cable that a takeover could be subjected to a "public interest test" - one of the few occasions when ministers can intervene in a country which prides itself on being open to foreign investment.
Any plan to invoke the public interest test on a pharmaceutical deal, however, would be likely to come up against the Commission, which allows intervention by European Union national governments only in exceptional cases.
"Politically this is big because there are lots of jobs involved and we're getting near an election," Anthony Woolich, a competition partner at international commerce law firm, Holman Fenwick Willan LLP, told Reuters.
"(But) I think it's going to be very hard for the government to intervene. The whole point about the European Commission is that where you have big mergers they should be regulated centrally and individual member states should not be able to intervene except on exceptional grounds."
TALK OF THE TOWN
Pfizer's offer has dominated British politics this week and poses a challenge to Cameron who is often accused by critics of favouring the interests of big business over workers.
The anti-EU UK Independence Party, which is forecast to win European parliamentary elections later this month, could also seize on any involvement by Brussels to back up its argument that Britain has yielded too many powers to Europe.
Britain has been open to foreign investment since prime minister Margaret Thatcher liberalised markets in the 1980s. This is in contrast to France which in 2005 named dairy group Danone as a company of strategic importance to shield it from a feared takeover by PepsiCo.
But Westminster politicians have become wary since U.S. group Kraft bought confectionary group Cadbury in 2010, winning support by promising to keep open a British factory only to announce its closure soon after the deal completed.
Pfizer, which would save billions of dollars in taxes by shifting its domicile to Britain, has already pledged to complete a new UK research centre, retain a factory and put a fifth of its research staff in the country if the deal goes ahead.
However, Pfizer also drew criticism three years ago when it shut most of its research work at a large R&D centre in Sandwich, southern England, with the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs.
The government’s position on the AstraZeneca deal cannot be ignored by Pfizer, given the highly regulated nature of the drugs sector and the need for pharmaceutical companies to work closely with the state-run National Health Service.
"All governments are important stakeholders," said one person familiar with Pfizer's thinking. However, Pfizer remains committed to getting the deal done, he added.
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Under EU law, takeovers are examined purely for the impact they would have on competition in the sector, and not on jobs.
Member states can intervene in takeovers of defence companies that affect national security as well as deals that reduce the number of media owners and those that could destabilise the financial system.
The British government would have to create a new category if it were to invoke the public interest test in any AstraZeneca takeover, aiming to impose legally binding terms on jobs and facilities. While this could be done easily in Westminster, the Commission would be unlikely to accept it.
"The EU merger regulation enables, for example, intervention in media cases but it's not a carte blanche to bring in any kind of public interest," Becket McGrath, a competition partner at Edwards Wildman Palmer, said.
One top 30 shareholder in AstraZeneca told Reuters they were unsurprised by the political involvement but did not expect the Conservative-led coalition to turn "French".
"Without being too pedantic, the making of a cancer drug versus the making of a chocolate bar is somewhat different," the shareholder said. "Everybody gets excited with science and think we (the UK) do pharmaceuticals quite well.
"This is why the politicians have got involved. (But) they can't do that much, unless they change the law and become very French about it, but under EU law they're not meant to."
WHY do people vote for these habitual liars? Why is it that the mainstream parties which support our membership of the EU cannot give the truthful answer which is that whatever they or the public may think on takeover bids like this proposed one, the power to block or approve of such takeover bids has been given to the EU from our elected parliament.
You know, on the SAME Question Time a question on immigration came up - which I can provide a video to if you wish - where the Labour MP Chukka Umma agreed that immigration should be controlled and that it had nothing to do with the EU. But the man is lying through his teeth again because one of the founding pillars of the EU treaties is the movement of people's.
If they support the EU making all these decisions for us then that's fine. But can they please stop pretending that it's not an EU competence?
In the video exchange, Farage references that John Redwood MP asked Vince Cable MP whether or not this decision was an EU decision and not in the hands of the UK Government. Chukka Umma MP claims this didn't happen and that he was in the debate. But here's what is on John Redwood MP's own site blog: (http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/05/07/mr-redwoods-intervention-during-the-statement-on-astrazeneca-pfizer-bid-6-may-2014/)
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the legal position, because it seems to me that, under the law the previous Government introduced, Ministers were going to stay out of all these decisions, which would be trusted to an independent body; and that, under the 2004 European Union merger regulation that they signed up to, this is clearly a concentration that falls to be determined by Brussels regulation, not by this elected House of Commons. I therefore find it very surprising that the Opposition are demanding the Secretary of State to intervene, when he might end up in an illegal position if he tried to do so.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): It is precisely because of the legal position that I have been studiously neutral on this matter. It is fair to say that there are elements of ambiguity—it is not absolutely clear—but the main position is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described it: under the legislation we inherited from the Labour party, Ministers do not engage with decisions except in three very specific areas of public interest.
Shirley Williams, Caroline Lucas, Chukka Umma and Grant Shapps are either all clueless or are bare-faced LIARS and the fact they all gang up on the only one telling the truth goes to show where the REAL political divide in politics is. They've given away control of our country and they haven't even got the balls to admit it. I loathe the lot of them. A disgrace.
Thoughts?
Now, Nigel Farage near the end points out that for all the talk that the Labour, Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat panellists give on this topic, they are all ignoring the FACT that such a decision on whether to allow a takeover of AstraZeneca is no longer that of the British Government or British Parliament - it's with the EU.
The Labour twit tries making it out as though Farage blames everything on the EU and that it's all in the mind of Farage, but here's an article proving Farage correct (and anybody who knows anything about EU law knows this already) that the power to give the go ahead or deny the takeover of AstraZeneca is no longer that of the elected British parliament, it's in the hands of the unelected European Commission.... Here is the clip followed by the article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCSfSjM-moA
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/uk-astrazeneca-pfizer-public-interest-idUKKBN0DO14M20140508
EU likely to block any UK intervention in AstraZeneca bid - lawyers
http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140508&t=2&i=895235446&w=580&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=LYNXMPEA470FP
(Reuters) - The European Commission would probably block any attempt by the British government to intervene in Pfizer's (PFE.N) proposed takeover of AstraZeneca (AZN.L) as Brussels itself would rule on a deal of that size, competition lawyers say.
AstraZeneca has rejected the $106 billion (62.5 billion pounds) bid to create the world's largest pharmaceuticals business. However, Pfizer is still pursuing its British rival, and political pressure is growing on Prime Minister David Cameron to show he can protect jobs should the New York-based company prevail.
Cameron initially signalled he would not interfere in the bid. However, the Conservative leader - who faces a parliamentary election this time next year - now says he wants further commitments from Pfizer before giving his blessing to any takeover of Britain's second largest drugs group.
He has also not ruled out a suggestion from his Business Secretary Vince Cable that a takeover could be subjected to a "public interest test" - one of the few occasions when ministers can intervene in a country which prides itself on being open to foreign investment.
Any plan to invoke the public interest test on a pharmaceutical deal, however, would be likely to come up against the Commission, which allows intervention by European Union national governments only in exceptional cases.
"Politically this is big because there are lots of jobs involved and we're getting near an election," Anthony Woolich, a competition partner at international commerce law firm, Holman Fenwick Willan LLP, told Reuters.
"(But) I think it's going to be very hard for the government to intervene. The whole point about the European Commission is that where you have big mergers they should be regulated centrally and individual member states should not be able to intervene except on exceptional grounds."
TALK OF THE TOWN
Pfizer's offer has dominated British politics this week and poses a challenge to Cameron who is often accused by critics of favouring the interests of big business over workers.
The anti-EU UK Independence Party, which is forecast to win European parliamentary elections later this month, could also seize on any involvement by Brussels to back up its argument that Britain has yielded too many powers to Europe.
Britain has been open to foreign investment since prime minister Margaret Thatcher liberalised markets in the 1980s. This is in contrast to France which in 2005 named dairy group Danone as a company of strategic importance to shield it from a feared takeover by PepsiCo.
But Westminster politicians have become wary since U.S. group Kraft bought confectionary group Cadbury in 2010, winning support by promising to keep open a British factory only to announce its closure soon after the deal completed.
Pfizer, which would save billions of dollars in taxes by shifting its domicile to Britain, has already pledged to complete a new UK research centre, retain a factory and put a fifth of its research staff in the country if the deal goes ahead.
However, Pfizer also drew criticism three years ago when it shut most of its research work at a large R&D centre in Sandwich, southern England, with the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs.
The government’s position on the AstraZeneca deal cannot be ignored by Pfizer, given the highly regulated nature of the drugs sector and the need for pharmaceutical companies to work closely with the state-run National Health Service.
"All governments are important stakeholders," said one person familiar with Pfizer's thinking. However, Pfizer remains committed to getting the deal done, he added.
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Under EU law, takeovers are examined purely for the impact they would have on competition in the sector, and not on jobs.
Member states can intervene in takeovers of defence companies that affect national security as well as deals that reduce the number of media owners and those that could destabilise the financial system.
The British government would have to create a new category if it were to invoke the public interest test in any AstraZeneca takeover, aiming to impose legally binding terms on jobs and facilities. While this could be done easily in Westminster, the Commission would be unlikely to accept it.
"The EU merger regulation enables, for example, intervention in media cases but it's not a carte blanche to bring in any kind of public interest," Becket McGrath, a competition partner at Edwards Wildman Palmer, said.
One top 30 shareholder in AstraZeneca told Reuters they were unsurprised by the political involvement but did not expect the Conservative-led coalition to turn "French".
"Without being too pedantic, the making of a cancer drug versus the making of a chocolate bar is somewhat different," the shareholder said. "Everybody gets excited with science and think we (the UK) do pharmaceuticals quite well.
"This is why the politicians have got involved. (But) they can't do that much, unless they change the law and become very French about it, but under EU law they're not meant to."
WHY do people vote for these habitual liars? Why is it that the mainstream parties which support our membership of the EU cannot give the truthful answer which is that whatever they or the public may think on takeover bids like this proposed one, the power to block or approve of such takeover bids has been given to the EU from our elected parliament.
You know, on the SAME Question Time a question on immigration came up - which I can provide a video to if you wish - where the Labour MP Chukka Umma agreed that immigration should be controlled and that it had nothing to do with the EU. But the man is lying through his teeth again because one of the founding pillars of the EU treaties is the movement of people's.
If they support the EU making all these decisions for us then that's fine. But can they please stop pretending that it's not an EU competence?
In the video exchange, Farage references that John Redwood MP asked Vince Cable MP whether or not this decision was an EU decision and not in the hands of the UK Government. Chukka Umma MP claims this didn't happen and that he was in the debate. But here's what is on John Redwood MP's own site blog: (http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/05/07/mr-redwoods-intervention-during-the-statement-on-astrazeneca-pfizer-bid-6-may-2014/)
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the legal position, because it seems to me that, under the law the previous Government introduced, Ministers were going to stay out of all these decisions, which would be trusted to an independent body; and that, under the 2004 European Union merger regulation that they signed up to, this is clearly a concentration that falls to be determined by Brussels regulation, not by this elected House of Commons. I therefore find it very surprising that the Opposition are demanding the Secretary of State to intervene, when he might end up in an illegal position if he tried to do so.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): It is precisely because of the legal position that I have been studiously neutral on this matter. It is fair to say that there are elements of ambiguity—it is not absolutely clear—but the main position is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described it: under the legislation we inherited from the Labour party, Ministers do not engage with decisions except in three very specific areas of public interest.
Shirley Williams, Caroline Lucas, Chukka Umma and Grant Shapps are either all clueless or are bare-faced LIARS and the fact they all gang up on the only one telling the truth goes to show where the REAL political divide in politics is. They've given away control of our country and they haven't even got the balls to admit it. I loathe the lot of them. A disgrace.
Thoughts?