Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Axholme Lion on May 22, 2019, 09:49:33 am
-
Well done to everyone who stopped us leaving the EU in March enabling the EU to kick British Steel in the teeth with a massive emissions fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48356186
I'll bet the people of Scunthorpe are really impressed with how the EU looks after deprived areas of Britain as you lot keep telling us. :mad:
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
Who agreed to it?
When was the debate?
Was there a vote? And if so who voted and how?
We didn't agree to it, but its shafted us.
It's a national travesty that we are still in that corrupt club, and damn right abhorrent that we have to vote in it.
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
May is and always has been a remainer. If we had left the EU as we had voted for it we would have been ok. But don't worry yourself your friends in Germany are still producing steel.
-
"British Steel's troubles have been linked to a slump in orders from European customers due to uncertainty over the Brexit process.
The firm has also been struggling with the weakness of the pound since the EU referendum in June 2016 and the escalating trade US-China trade war."
Did you actually read the link you posted?
-
"British Steel's troubles have been linked to a slump in orders from European customers due to uncertainty over the Brexit process.
The firm has also been struggling with the weakness of the pound since the EU referendum in June 2016 and the escalating trade US-China trade war."
Did you actually read the link you posted?
A slump in orders from Europe. They don't want to buy our steel but they're happy to fine us.
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
Who agreed to it?
When was the debate?
Was there a vote? And if so who voted and how?
We didn't agree to it, but its shafted us.
It's a national travesty that we are still in that corrupt club, and damn right abhorrent that we have to vote in it.
Read up on how the EU manages carbon credits, and how this company has mismanaged it, before you make a fool of yourself.
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
Who agreed to it?
When was the debate?
Was there a vote? And if so who voted and how?
We didn't agree to it, but its shafted us.
It's a national travesty that we are still in that corrupt club, and damn right abhorrent that we have to vote in it.
Read up on how the EU manages carbon credits, and how this company has mismanaged it, before you make a fool of yourself.
I'd suggest you dont trust the comments in the media before you make a fool of yourself.....
-
Asduming that you won't, cos you rarely do, I'll explain.
The EU gives companies carbon credits. They are fined if they produce more CO2 than they have credits to cover. If you have excess credits, you can sell them to other companies.
British Steel has consistently polluted at a lower level than its credits covered. So they acclimated a stack of credits.
A few months ago, they sold this glut for £138m. That's money. In the bank. Given to them by the EU for being a low polluter.
The reason for the current crisis is that, because we were supposed to be leaving the EU, British Steel wasn't allocated any credits for this year. But now we are still in, there's a temporary mismatch between BS's CO2 output and their credit position. So the Govt has given them a loan to cover the shortfall.
Grow up. The f**king lot of you. Have some pride in yourselves as adults and look into these issues yourselves, instead of recycling this shite, served up to you by devious, lying Kitsons with a political story to push. Your willingness to lap this up and regurgitate it is pitiful.
-
"British Steel's troubles have been linked to a slump in orders from European customers due to uncertainty over the Brexit process.
The firm has also been struggling with the weakness of the pound since the EU referendum in June 2016 and the escalating trade US-China trade war."
Did you actually read the link you posted?
Travesty that we are still in the EU, causing the uncertainty that the article blames for the slump in orders.
Should have left along time ago.
-
Asduming that you won't, cos you rarely do, I'll explain.
The EU gives companies carbon credits. They are fined if they produce more CO2 than they have credits to cover. If you have excess credits, you can sell them to other companies.
British Steel has consistently polluted at a lower level than its credits covered. So they acclimated a stack of credits.
A few months ago, they sold this glut for £138m. That's money. In the bank. Given to them by the EU for being a low polluter.
The reason for the current crisis is that, because we were supposed to be leaving the EU, British Steel wasn't allocated any credits for this year. But now we are still in, there's a temporary mismatch between BS's CO2 output and their credit position. So the Govt has given them a loan to cover the shortfall.
Grow up. The f**king lot of you. Have some pride in yourselves as adults and look into these issues yourselves, instead of recycling this shite, served up to you by devious, lying Kitsons with a political story to push. Your willingness to lap this up and regurgitate it is pitiful.
Well, the EU have still crippled that company, which ever way you spin it.
Would our own government do the same? f**k no.
Let's get the f**k out of that corrupt club.
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
-
If you think that's bad, just wait till No Deal WTO terms lets in cheap Chinese steel and completely finishes them off.
So the EU emissions fine is ok by you then?
The EU are only applying the rules that we agreed to. If May had been competent enough to get Brexit through on the date she promised it wouldn't have been an issue. Besides which, if you actually read the article properly you'd know that no fine has been imposed at all.
The decimation of British Steel is OK by you then?
Who agreed to it?
When was the debate?
Was there a vote? And if so who voted and how?
We didn't agree to it, but its shafted us.
It's a national travesty that we are still in that corrupt club, and damn right abhorrent that we have to vote in it.
Read up on how the EU manages carbon credits, and how this company has mismanaged it, before you make a fool of yourself.
I'd suggest you dont trust the comments in the media before you make a fool of yourself.....
Fair point. I withdraw the "mis-managed" comment. That is unfair and unjustified and I shouldn't have said it.
The wider point still stands though. It is not EU carbon pricing policy that has resulted in this awful situation.
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
FFS Carbon credits! What a load of shite.
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
😂 I'm fully aware of the climate crisis, however do you think its worthwhile thousands of people losing their jobs by issuing a fine over some carbon credits, and destroying the British steel industry.
Effectively making us poorer and weaker?
Only the EU would think that's a good idea, but hey at least Germany is doing well for itself.
-
Is the EU really responsible for that, or is this government responsible for that because they pissed 3 years of negotiations up the wall meaning we couldn't leave when we said we'd leave?
I know what the counter-point would be: leave means leave, should've left ages ago, just leave, blah blah blah. Which begs the question of why you think ano-deal cliff-edge would be so much better for a company known to be in dire straits, when you yourself have admitted there will be an economic hit from any form of Brexit.
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
😂 I'm fully aware of the climate crisis, however do you think its worthwhile thousands of people losing their jobs by issuing a fine over some carbon credits, and destroying the British steel industry.
Effectively making us poorer and weaker?
Only the EU would think that's a good idea, but hey at least Germany is doing well for itself.
''What went wrong at British Steel?
Why the UK’s second-largest steelmaker has entered insolvency''
Not a fine a bill, BST is correct you should do your homework before spouting misinformation.
''For a start, propping up failing businesses goes against the Conservative party’s free market ethos unless absolutely unavoidable. Also, the government has already loaned the company £120m to help it pay an EU bill for its carbon emissions''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/22/what-went-wrong-at-british-steel
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
😂 I'm fully aware of the climate crisis, however do you think its worthwhile thousands of people losing their jobs by issuing a fine over some carbon credits, and destroying the British steel industry.
Effectively making us poorer and weaker?
Only the EU would think that's a good idea, but hey at least Germany is doing well for itself.
''What went wrong at British Steel?
Why the UK’s second-largest steelmaker has entered insolvency''
Not a fine a bill, BST is correct you should do your homework before spouting misinformation.
''For a start, propping up failing businesses goes against the Conservative party’s free market ethos unless absolutely unavoidable. Also, the government has already loaned the company £120m to help it pay an EU bill for its carbon emissions''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/22/what-went-wrong-at-british-steel
What the hell you on about?
Youve just inadvertently proved my point 😂
Whether you call it a fine or a bill, it changes nothing. The outcome is the same!
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
😂 I'm fully aware of the climate crisis, however do you think its worthwhile thousands of people losing their jobs by issuing a fine over some carbon credits, and destroying the British steel industry.
Effectively making us poorer and weaker?
Only the EU would think that's a good idea, but hey at least Germany is doing well for itself.
''What went wrong at British Steel?
Why the UK’s second-largest steelmaker has entered insolvency''
Not a fine a bill, BST is correct you should do your homework before spouting misinformation.
''For a start, propping up failing businesses goes against the Conservative party’s free market ethos unless absolutely unavoidable. Also, the government has already loaned the company £120m to help it pay an EU bill for its carbon emissions''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/22/what-went-wrong-at-british-steel
What the hell you on about?
Youve just inadvertently proved my point 😂
sigh
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
Carbon credits are there to reduce pollution and avert a climate crisis, did you sleep through all the demos or just don't believe the science BS
😂 I'm fully aware of the climate crisis, however do you think its worthwhile thousands of people losing their jobs by issuing a fine over some carbon credits, and destroying the British steel industry.
Effectively making us poorer and weaker?
Only the EU would think that's a good idea, but hey at least Germany is doing well for itself.
There is no climate crisis.
https://real-agenda.com/piers-corbyn-man-made-climate-change-is-a-con/
-
It will be interesting if a couple of thousand steelworkers go and sit on a few bridges in London and have a couple of weeks having a leaving party.
I bet that would be interpreted as a picket.
-
It will be interesting if a couple of thousand steelworkers go and sit on a few bridges in London and have a couple of weeks having a leaving party.
I bet that would be interpreted as a picket.
The OB would be down quick as you like with batons drawn. As far as the powers that be are concerned Frank from Scunthorpe can go and f off but it's dancing and skateboarding with Tarquin and Jemima and there climate chums.
-
Our Tory government wouldn't cripple British heavy industry?
f**k me, we really ARE through the looking glass here aren't we?
But here we go again anyway. Brexiters scream out about a specific policy of the unfair and vindictive EU.
Specific policy is shown not to be unfair and vindictive.
Brexiters scream, "Don't care. The EU is still unfair and vindictive."
Over and over and over again.
No they wouldn't cripple it for some bullshit carbon policy. There not that stupid.
The autocratic and undemocratic EU has done so though.
How many German companies has it done this to?
And the EU hasn't crippled the company because of carbon policy! That's the bloody point!
-
If only we had a leader like Farage who would protect and promote the British steel industry. Whats that you say, he voted AGAINST protecting the British steel industry...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-vote-against-eu-law-that-could-have-helped-british-steel-a6964476.html
-
As EU members, the U.K. government are severely restricted on any financial bail out that they can offer British Steel. Not that this government necessarily would bail them out; we all know the Tories have no real appetite for supporting heavy industry in the U.K.
Equally, renationalising is not simple either. EU rules dictate that a national government can’t take over the running, or put into public ownership, a loss making organisation, except in special circumstances.
So, while it’s easy to say supporters of the EU may indirectly have culpability, it could be argued that anyone who’s voted Tory bears most responsibility.
-
Greybull Capital bought British Steel for £1 in 2016 from Tata Steel. tick
All the EU regulations regarding carbon credits were agreed to by UK and all countries within the EU abide by them, tick
Greybull would have been acutely aware of all these regulations and conditions when it purchased the company, tick
Greybull sold it's surplus CCs and it considered that even the most stupid of governments would be capable of dealing with Brexit in time for Greybull to receive it's next allocation before it had to buy more CCs, tick
The government is the most stupid of governments, tick
Trading conditions worsened around the world the pound has suffered and uncertainty surrounds brexit therefore Greybull found difficulty in gaining long term contracts, tick
Advice, avoid eating bread rolls with poppy seeds when attempting to join the dots it can play havoc with your logic simples, tick
-
Greybull Capital bought British Steel for £1 in 2016 from Tata Steel. tick
All the EU regulations regarding carbon credits were agreed to by UK and all countries within the EU abide by them, tick
Greybull would have been acutely aware of all these regulations and conditions when it purchased the company, tick
Greybull sold it's surplus CCs and it considered that even the most stupid of governments would be capable of dealing with Brexit in time for Greybull to receive it's next allocation before it had to buy more CCs, tick
The government is the most stupid of governments, tick
Trading conditions worsened around the world the pound has suffered and uncertainty surrounds brexit therefore Greybull found difficulty in gaining long term contracts, tick
Advice, avoid eating bread rolls with poppy seeds when attempting to join the dots it can play havoc with your logic simples, tick
The Labour party can't even get more votes than the most stupid of governments, tick
-
Greybull Capital bought British Steel for £1 in 2016 from Tata Steel. tick
All the EU regulations regarding carbon credits were agreed to by UK and all countries within the EU abide by them, tick
Greybull would have been acutely aware of all these regulations and conditions when it purchased the company, tick
Greybull sold it's surplus CCs and it considered that even the most stupid of governments would be capable of dealing with Brexit in time for Greybull to receive it's next allocation before it had to buy more CCs, tick
The government is the most stupid of governments, tick
Trading conditions worsened around the world the pound has suffered and uncertainty surrounds brexit therefore Greybull found difficulty in gaining long term contracts, tick
Advice, avoid eating bread rolls with poppy seeds when attempting to join the dots it can play havoc with your logic simples, tick
The Labour party can't even get more votes than the most stupid of governments, tick
BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
-
Didn't the EU want to slap tariffs on Chinese steel a couple of years ago, the Tory government voted against it, therefore scuppering the deal?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
-
Didn't the EU want to slap tariffs on Chinese steel a couple of years ago, the Tory government voted against it, therefore scuppering the deal?
Yes they did. In my view the U.K. governments culpability in this is second only to the shyster investment firm who’ve ransacked British Steels assets and are now destroying it.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
The recent owners of British Steel were doing OK by all accounts, it was the wrexit & fuxit delay by the government a loan would not have been required if there was a prompt decision on wrexit, the decision to block tariffs was made before Thursday 31 March 2016. Before the venture capitalists took it on therefore knowing it, therefore this latest crisis has nothing to do with the EU.
''British steel: UK Government blocked EU plans to allow tougher tariffs on 'aggressive' Chinese imports''
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tata-steel-uk-government-accused-of-failing-to-protect-british-workers-by-blocking-eu-plans-to-allow-a6962446.html
In fact I will go further and say that due to the EU and member countries and the development of a carbon trading system which enabled the venture capitalists to trade better by producing steel with lower emissions and selling this credit and helping themselves and the climate crisis.
Over to you HA.
(The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?)
Tell me about it?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
The recent owners of British Steel were doing OK by all accounts, it was the wrexit & fuxit delay by the government a loan would not have been required if there was a prompt decision on wrexit, the decision to block tariffs was made before Thursday 31 March 2016. Before the venture capitalists took it on therefore knowing it, therefore this latest crisis has nothing to do with the EU.
''British steel: UK Government blocked EU plans to allow tougher tariffs on 'aggressive' Chinese imports''
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tata-steel-uk-government-accused-of-failing-to-protect-british-workers-by-blocking-eu-plans-to-allow-a6962446.html
Sydney
Do you read my comments before commenting yourself? Let me clarify:
I’m not saying the EU is responsible for this (though they’ve long said that the EU makes too much steel so any reduction is generally welcomed)
I am saying that the government is significantly responsible
If Brexit is having an impact, then it’s the uncertainty created by our shambolic government and not Brexit directly
Now, for the fourth time of asking. Can you comment on the financial bail out and nationalisation restrictions that EU membership imposed on the U.K.?
-
See my mods to my post above yours HA
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
-
NNK I would disagree. Any funds they give would I think breach a number of those criteria, sad but true.
-
NNK I would disagree. Any funds they give would I think breach a number of those criteria, sad but true.
Sorry BFYP, it's perfectly true. Go on the EU website, it's all there in black and white. Follow the link I posted and do a search on just how much State Aid the UK, (or indeed any other EU country), has provided completely within the EU rules we agreed to. Our government even sets aside an amount of money specifically for State Aid within its budgetary process.
-
NNK I would disagree. Any funds they give would I think breach a number of those criteria, sad but true.
With all due respect ((mod) due to the detailed info from Kato) bfyp you should at least say why and not just do a BB
-
In 2008 the UK government acquired shares in: Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2010 it acquired the whole of (nationalised) Northern Rock.
Now tell me that EU rules prevent a government assisting a private company if that government deams it to be 'in the public interest'.
-
In 2008 the UK government acquired shares in: Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2010 it acquired the whole of (nationalised) Northern Rock.
Now tell me that EU rules prevent a government assisting a private company if that government deams it to be 'in the public interest'.
There are, as ever, get out clauses for exceptional circumstances. In fairness, wherever you are on the political spectrum, the imminent collapse of the world banking system, and the prospect of the cash machines no longer working did amount to exceptional circumstances.
I suspect that, given the right political will in Whitehall, the loss of 25,000 jobs at British Steel and the associated businesses could easily be classed as exceptional circumstances.
Still, much easier for folk to blame them Kitsons in Brussels, eh?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.
As I said, That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
You don't seem to have answered that question.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.
As I said, That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
You don't seem to have answered that question.
I don't understand what you're asking. The government can't choose not to help directly because they can't help directly! Their policy is effectively overruled by the EU. Whether the government choose to or not is a different matter.
-
The reason it's gone bust hasn't been help by lazy staff. My mate works there and says if he hasn't had 6 hours kip on nights it's been a bad shift. I wouldn't employ any.
-
The reason it's gone bust hasn't been help by lazy staff. My mate works there and says if he hasn't had 6 hours kip on nights it's been a bad shift. I wouldn't employ any.
Aye how to generalise over 4000 people particularly at this moment in time...
Let's disregard those who work all hours 7 days a week..
-
I have a mate works there, he reckons there are 80 interested parties looking to buy it
-
I was coming back on to say not all staff will be lazy. I'm also sorry to see anyone lose there job as well.
-
I was coming back on to say not all staff will be lazy. I'm also sorry to see anyone lose there job as well.
Equally I would imagine a place like that will have some of them too.
I have a mate works there, he reckons there are 80 interested parties looking to buy it
For the local area we should all hope so it has a huge effect not just on Scunthorpe but Doncaster too.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.
As I said, That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
You don't seem to have answered that question.
I don't understand what you're asking. The government can't choose not to help directly because they can't help directly! Their policy is effectively overruled by the EU. Whether the government choose to or not is a different matter.
Yes it can. But the last part of your statement is most telling of our current government.
-
Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney
Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!
Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.
I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?
HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.
if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.
Sydney,
I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.
The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?
I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?
I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?
Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?
I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much. You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
(https://i.imgur.com/sLGks5j.jpg)
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel. It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it. Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!
NNK,
I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.
So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel. That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.
As I said, That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
You don't seem to have answered that question.
I don't understand what you're asking. The government can't choose not to help directly because they can't help directly! Their policy is effectively overruled by the EU. Whether the government choose to or not is a different matter.
Yes it can. But the last part of your statement is most telling of our current government.
NNK
I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.
Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point
-
This thread is painful to view with the quotes stacking up
-
I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.
Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point
Thanks Herbert that's interesting. Can you point me to what the EU resolution was to the nationalisation of Northern Rock in 2008 as I can't find anything?
I have found the ECHR judgement upholding the legality of the nationalisation taken by the UK government and UK courts and refusal of compensation to shareholders in 2012 but noting prior to the nationalisation of this bankrupt and failed company.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/echr-leaves-northern-rock-shareholders-out-in-the-cold/
-
I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.
Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point
Thanks Herbert that's interesting. Can you point me to what the EU resolution was to the nationalisation of Northern Rock in 2008 as I can't find anything?
I have found the ECHR judgement upholding the legality of the nationalisation taken by the UK government and UK courts and refusal of compensation to shareholders in 2012 but noting prior to the nationalisation of this bankrupt and failed company.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/echr-leaves-northern-rock-shareholders-out-in-the-cold/
Wilts,
No, I can't point you to any specific resolution. However, during the financial crisis the EU adapted its rules to allow governments across Europe to bail out banks. From January 2016, the EU tightened these rules again due to concerns about levels of government debt. The 'newer' rules mean that governments can contribute to a bail out, however other stakeholders such as investors also have to cover some of the cost. I'm guessing that as the Northern Rock were bailed out in 2012 these tighter rules didn't apply.
To be fair, I applaud this move by the EU but there's a risk that smaller investors could be badly affected.
The brutal truth is is that banks are much, much more important than steel. An economy can still grow successfully without steel, but much less so with failing banks. Consequently rules around state aid support for banks were (I'm assuming) much more flexible.
-
''Could the government step in to save stricken British Steel?'' (25/5)
''Nor should it necessarily be the case that EU membership crimps state aid: in 2015, France spent 0.65% of its gross domestic product on state aid schemes, while Germany spent 1.2% of GDP. The equivalent proportion of spending in the UK was just 0.35%.
And some feel that the UK could be doing more within the existing framework of rules. Just 43% of steel bought by the government comes from the UK. Not all the grades required are made domestically, but UK Steel has said there is headroom for more''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/25/british-steel-stricken-could-government-step-in
-
So in effect what you are saying Herbert is that if a national government decides it is in the national interest to bail out/nationalise a particular industry that has failed/is not commercially viable, the EU will allow that either under the exisiting rules or by adapting those rules. Because that is what happened with Northern Rock (and to a lesser extent RBS).
Making a judgement on which industry is more important is a totally separate question as to whether or not EU rules prevent the British government nationalising British Steel. I think we have answered to second question and I guess the answer to the first depends on your view of the importance of protecting and promoting global financial capitalism as opposed to doing the same for local, high skilled manufacturing jobs.
-
That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.
-
That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.
This is a simpler explanation HA:
''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.
''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.
A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.
So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.
That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469
-
That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.
This is a simpler explanation HA:
''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.
''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.
A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.
So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.
That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469
Yes Sydney, yes I agree completely! I'm not here to defend the government at all. But, the whole point here is that the final, absolute decision on whether a sovereign government is able to bail out an organisation lies with the EU and NOT that government. That's what I fundamentally oppose about political EU membership.
-
I guess also on the topic would we all as taxpayers be happy to subsidise a largely loss making business?
-
It's a moot point anyway whilst ever there is a Tory government in power.
-
That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.
This is a simpler explanation HA:
''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.
''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.
A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.
So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.
That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469
Yes Sydney, yes I agree completely! I'm not here to defend the government at all. But, the whole point here is that the final, absolute decision on whether a sovereign government is able to bail out an organisation lies with the EU and NOT that government. That's what I fundamentally oppose about political EU membership.
OK, say the government gave BT the loan it requested, there is still a glut of steel in the world and there will always be countries that can produce it cheaper by lower wages costs and reduced safety within production, what happens next if we are not part of the EU? there will be tariffs to sell steel into the EU, does the company reduce the price to make the steel cheaper due to the tariffs? How will it manage this by reducing wages, safety or will be knocking on the door of government for more money?
Remember we haven't signed a single trade deal with anyone yet.
-
Well that's a different argument. I don't know too much about it but I'd guess that's why negotiations on a deal with the EU are so important? It's a catch 22 because we could increase tariffs on imported steel to protect the steel industry here, but then you're simply passing on the cost to businesses who buy these imports. This is the problem with the U.S. Policy. However, this doesn't affect the point that state aid\nationalisation decisions are made by the EU and not our government.
-
Right,i've been avoiding commenting on these posts simply because no matter what opinion people have it wont be changed by peoples different opinions on here.However British Steel is something I have more knowledge off than anybody on here so I'm going to have my penny's worth on this...
Many years ago British Steel was the envy of the world,our steel was the best out there and was exported all over the world,China was one of our biggest customers.China made steel but it was pig iron and very low quality and mainly used for ballast.Then a decision was made that destroyed that market for short term gain and long term disaster.When the pits shut we had a massive shortage of coke needed for the furnaces and the price of importing coke rose massively reducing profit margins.British Steel (at the time) decided to do a deal with China.They agreed that in return for a low fixed price on importing coke for a set period in return British Steel would send people out to China and show them how to make a grade of steel good enough for there own internal use.China started producing much better quality steel and then refined the process so that as we are today they can now produce steel at a equivalent quality to us.Chinas production costs are miniscule compaired to ours (low labour,no emmisions,no workers rights etc etc)which means they can import it to us and still be cheaper than us...
For example I put a enquiry into British steel a month ago for about £290k worth of rolled sections.I'm 10 miles from Scunthorpe yet I could still buy it from Bejing import it over and still be £40k cheaper than buying it from down the road...
There have been many different owners of British Steel since but none bought the business for the business itself.Tata bought it because the government gave them massive tax breaks and concessions which helped there Jaguar car plant.When these expired they ran it down and jettisoned it..
Now of course Greybull own it after buying it for a £1,they are a hedge fund.As we know hedge funds are group of investors who join together under a anonymous name.They do this because they are merciless,it's all about extracting the maximum amount of short term profit before closing or selling on.Which is why they sold the carbon credits..You only have to look at Greybulls record with buying large corporations and then creaming profit and closing them..ie Comet...
Only last week Greybull bought a French steel company for £40 million while at the same time asking our Government for funding using the employee's as a bargaining chip,EU rules dictated that wasn't possible but it wouldn't have happened anyway because Greybull wouldn't have provided the collateral to make sure any loan was paid back.They were looking for a gift..
While all these companies have taken ownership of our steel industry,none have actually invested in it,which means we are now using old methods and plants which make us uncompetitive to the rest of the world.Scunthorpe had looked at plans to build a new mill to rectify this but of course that needs investment and that wasn't the name of the game for the owners over the last 20 years...
The reality is that British Steel doesn't have a market.It costs to much for standard steel grades to be imported into the EU.They have there own steel plants that can do that,and our overseas market has vanished.it's too expensive to even use much of it in our own country these days...
People can use the argument on Brexit either way but it's rubbish.Carbon credits is just the last nail in a coffin that has been nailed shut with hundreds of nails over the last twenty years...
I've no doubt British Steel will be sold again,but only to another company using it as a weapon to secure other financial incentives.It will continually to be run down and jobs lost...
-
Thanks WC, here is a bit of background about Greybull
https://www.ft.com/content/cead5936-7caa-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560
Can you or anyone say if Greybull invested the 400m they said they would put in and whether the fact that they were producing steel with lower carbon footprint than other EU plants which is why they were receiving credits made them more efficient, I presume it's a yes.
Here's some more but back in 2016 when they first took over from TATA
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tata-steel-Scunthorpe-plant-who-are-greybull-capital-buyer-everything-you-need-to-know-explained-a6980316.html
-
That is a impossible question to answer Sydney and one in true political style can be argued both ways..
Firstly it depends what you call investment,since they took over there have been job losses from when they bought them meaning they have saved money,however Scunthorpe is a old plant and costs a lot to maintain and service which means they can class some spending as investment when in reality its maintenance..There has been very little in the actual investment of the infrastructure of the place..I have been going there for many years on a regular basis and the difference in the place from then and now is remarkable..I was there 2 weeks ago and it's falling apart in places..You wouldn't believe the state of some of it..
As for the emission's and low carbon footprint,that has very little to do with efficiency I'm afraid but more to do with the type of steel they make,there are many different grades of steel.They make high grade sectional steel that has a naturally low carbon content as opposed to standard s275,s355 which is your standard higher carbon steel ..So they are always going to have relatively low emmisions on the product of steel they make..
-
I also think it's highly subjective in some ways. However, much like we would say in football there has to be a return on investment should it be accepted that the owners just push money in with little or no return?
It shouldn't be underestimated financially how much a steelworks costs to run, maintain etc as WC states.
I suspect WC there are people on here who know the company even more detailed than you but you make some.valid points.
-
Greybull have form for asset stripping businesses...look at their previous.
An interesting aside is that I'm told the Brexit Party candidate in Peterborough by-election is Mike Greene,
....of Greybull!
-
That is a impossible question to answer Sydney and one in true political style can be argued both ways..
Firstly it depends what you call investment,since they took over there have been job losses from when they bought them meaning they have saved money,however Scunthorpe is a old plant and costs a lot to maintain and service which means they can class some spending as investment when in reality its maintenance..There has been very little in the actual investment of the infrastructure of the place..I have been going there for many years on a regular basis and the difference in the place from then and now is remarkable..I was there 2 weeks ago and it's falling apart in places..You wouldn't believe the state of some of it..
As for the emission's and low carbon footprint,that has very little to do with efficiency I'm afraid but more to do with the type of steel they make,there are many different grades of steel.They make high grade sectional steel that has a naturally low carbon content as opposed to standard s275,s355 which is your standard higher carbon steel ..So they are always going to have relatively low emmisions on the product of steel they make..
I was going to reply back to that and say that the works are not all that old and I remember them being built (as the Anchor Site) until I realised that was about 1975!
On the cost of saving the works, not specifically your post WC just in general, I don't believe enough is being made of the economic and social costs to the wider area of loosing 25000 jobs.
-
Meant to be the deadline for potential buyers on the 30th June. Think we’ll be seeing what happens with British Steel very soon
-
Am I the only one who opened this thread hoping to read about classic Judas Priest? :laugh:
-
Meant to be the deadline for potential buyers on the 30th June. Think we’ll be seeing what happens with British Steel very soon
You'd hope so, but these things are never quick!
-
So these deadlines pass etc, press report they exist but not a word on the outcome. Wonder then if the place has a future?
-
Bids closed last week. According to local press there are 10 interested parties and the administrators hope to chose a preferred buyer by the end of this month - with a deal being completed by the end of August.
However they are also working on an alternate plan to decommission the site should none of the bids be successful.
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/british-steel-deadline-contingency-Scunthorpe-3092126
-
Rumours going round that a Chinese company have got it.
I’ve just left a job on the site just incase it all goes pear shaped.
-
Looks like the next steps aren't far away. Good news for a lot of people.
-
What a difference an election makes? though I would have thought buyers would have been lining up to grab this bargain to have stockpiles ready for the brexit bonanza with tariff free trade to India, China, Mexico, etc.
''UK government agrees £300m rescue package for British Steel''
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/09/mystery-bidder-joins-race-to-buy-british-steel
edit: ''Insiders told Sky News the funding would satisfy EU state aid rules, which Theresa May’s administration claimed prevented ministers from providing support to British Steel before it collapsed into insolvency in May''
-
is that the state aid as APPROVED by the EU then ?
Just proving the point that every single anti EU claim is nothing but an outright lie.
17.5 million people completely played by multi millionaire criminals .
-
Different terms to what was needed pre liquidation which would have fallen foul of laws on state aid sp you're wrong foxbat. Certainly interesting how technical those rulings are.
-
I think the notion that Brexit was based on nothing but a pack of lies ,will
indeed, be shown to be correct.
-
Looks like the Chinese are buying then. Has to be preferable to the Turks but somewhat ironic given the effect of Chinese steel dumping.....
Brilliant news for the workers and the area though, investment is the key.
-
My Dad worked all his life in the steel industry, first at what was then British steel, and later Firth Rixsons in Rotherham. I'm sure the prospect of seeing what's left of British steel sold off to the Chinese means he's spinning in his grave now.
As Wing Commander has described though, the plight of steel making in this country is really a consequence of globalisation. This Chinese outfit is a genuine big industrial business, not some hedge fund and it seems too that there is hope they will keep the blast furnace functional. At least there is a glimmer of hope.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/french-minister-in-threat-to-veto-british-steel-deal-11922448
And then there's another twist, worrying times I'm sure for the workers there and a fair test for the government dealing with external governments.
-
Just take any moneys required off the EU donation and thank them for the rescue.
-
But, but, but a trade deal with the EU will be the easiest ever; weren't we promised?
-
https://news.sky.com/story/french-minister-in-threat-to-veto-british-steel-deal-11922448
And then there's another twist, worrying times I'm sure for the workers there and a fair test for the government dealing with external governments.
I hope Javaid told him that he should be more worried about the 40,000 jobs in the French fishing industry which are in jeopardy.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/french-minister-in-threat-to-veto-british-steel-deal-11922448
And then there's another twist, worrying times I'm sure for the workers there and a fair test for the government dealing with external governments.
I hope Javaid told him that he should be more worried about the 40,000 jobs in the French fishing industry which are in jeopardy.
I would hope Javid would be much more concerned about British fisherman not being able to sell the vast majority of their catch - that they currently sell into EU ports - because of Customs Tariffs and CAP Countervailing Duty being slapped on them. To protect their own fishermen the French might even just stop permission to land them at all.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/french-minister-in-threat-to-veto-british-steel-deal-11922448
And then there's another twist, worrying times I'm sure for the workers there and a fair test for the government dealing with external governments.
I hope Javaid told him that he should be more worried about the 40,000 jobs in the French fishing industry which are in jeopardy.
The French will not be landing any fish,65,000 people work in frances fishing industry and 60% of the fish comes from uk waters,hence 40,000 redundant. Our fish is a commodity which they will and shall pay big bucks for,you have also got to take into account,Dutch,Belgian, and German fishing fleets banned from our waters. That is why Fishing rights are the first thing which were recently mentioned by Eu politicians.
I would hope Javid would be much more concerned about British fisherman not being able to sell the vast majority of their catch - that they currently sell into EU ports - because of Customs Tariffs and CAP Countervailing Duty being slapped on them. To protect their own fishermen the French might even just stop permission to land them at all.
-
Somebody is going to be very disappointed here.
The EU have said that Fishing Rights have to be sorted at the same time as Financial Services.
Fishing makes up 0.1% of UK GDP whilst Financial Services are 7%. 43% of FS exports are to the EU with 34% of imports from the EU. 1.1 million UK jobs are directly connected with FS.
Back onto the topic of the sale of British Steel. The French are blocking the sale of their BS plant to a Chinese firm because they believe having a key national industry in foreign ownership is detrimental to their national interest.
The UK government appear to have no such qualms - Johnson and Javid appear to be willing to sell anything to anybody to get some money in.
-
Wilts look at the French ,Spanish,Dutch fishing industries they employ vast numbers 65,000 in France Alone 60% of their fish is pirated from U.K. and Irish waters, our fishing industry is pathetically small thanks to the Eu Quota system. Oh by the way The River Class OPV ‘ we’re going to be sold off and replaced with 5 new ones, guess what? we have retained 3 of the Batch 1 ships for Fishery protection.
-
"Vast numbers" equating to "about 0.2% of the workforce" then, eh Sproty?
-
Yes Billy as a proportion of the French fishing industry work force it's vast number,in comparison to the 11,000 people who work in our fishing industry it's vast numbers, in proportion to the 4,500 jobs at Zbritish Steel it's vast numbers....vast numbers of fish eating French people will also be affected.
By the way where's the accompanying evidential graphs you produce to try and prove a point?
-
Sproty.
It's a fact that 65,000 people is equivalent to about 0.2% if the French workforce. You don't need a graph to present that. Graphs are for more complex groups of data, where you are looking for trends and patterns. This is just a single number. You present that as a number.
The point I'm making and you are determinedly missing is that our entire trading relationship with our biggest trading partner by far, is about to be renegotiated from scratch. We do nearly 60% of our overseas trade with the EU, or with third countries through EU-arranged trade deals.
Every single clause, semi-colon and paragraph break of those agreements are up for re-negotiation. Re-negotiation of agreements underpin those arrangements, and secure many millions of jobs across a swathe of services and industries on both sides of the Channel.
And you obsess about a tiny, niche industry, employing a fraction of a percent of the workforce in the UK and France, as though it was some causus belli.
Staring at the interesting patterns on the bark of one particular tree, while ignoring the entire f**king forest.
-
Sproty.
It's a fact that 65,000 people is equivalent to about 0.2% if the French workforce. You don't need a graph to present that. Graphs are for more complex groups of data, where you are looking for trends and patterns. This is just a single number. You present that as a number.
The point I'm making and you are determinedly missing is that our entire trading relationship with our biggest trading partner by far, is about to be renegotiated from scratch. We do nearly 60% of our overseas trade with the EU, or with third countries through EU-arranged trade deals.
Every single clause, semi-colon and paragraph break of those agreements are up for re-negotiation. Re-negotiation of agreements underpin those arrangements, and secure many millions of jobs across a swathe of services and industries on both sides of the Channel.
And you obsess about a tiny, niche industry, employing a fraction of a percent of the workforce in the UK and France, as though it was some causus belli.
Staring at the interesting patterns on the bark of one particular tree, while ignoring the entire f**king forest.
It's not me obscesing about Fishing rights it s Brussels .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51319257
-
Do you actually ever read these links before you post them Sproty?
-
It is ridiculous certain people obsess over something that contributes 0.1%.