British Steel

[Bentley Bullet]

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

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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!

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Herbert Anchovy]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Herbert Anchovy]

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?

[Hounslowrover]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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?

[Herbert Anchovy]

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.

[Herbert Anchovy]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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?

[Herbert Anchovy]

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.?

[SydneyRover]

See my mods to my post above yours HA

[Not Now Kato]

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
 

 
 
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!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

NNK I would disagree.  Any funds they give would I think breach a number of those criteria, sad but true.

[Not Now Kato]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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

[wilts rover]

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'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Herbert Anchovy]

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
 

 
 
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.

[Not Now Kato]

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
 

 
 
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?
 

[Herbert Anchovy]

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
 

 
 
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.

[Not Now Kato]

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
 

 
 
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.

[Herbert Anchovy]

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
 

 
 
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.

[Red wizard]

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.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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..

[Filo]

I have a mate works there, he reckons there are 80 interested parties looking to buy it

[Red wizard]

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.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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.