O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[animallittle3]

The UK agreed a deal with the EU to sort out the banking issue
Shows a different mindset to sorting British Steel

Indeed Exile , a bit of a declining industry given the news today regarding Deutsche Bank .

Perhaps Deutsche Bank are the new Lehman Brothers ?

[KerrAvon]

The UK agreed a deal with the EU to sort out the banking issue
Shows a different mindset to sorting British Steel. That's the point

I'm not sure that it would have been possible to agree a deal to allow the UK to subsidise British Steel. What could we offer to the EU to stop the company gaining an unfair competitive advantage by us doing so? And what would be the point? British Steel was sold to its current owners for £1. That tells you all you need to know. It is a lame duck. The days of using taxpayers money to keep dying industries in a permanent vegetative state are over.


And, to repeat, we would be prevented from intervening under WTO terms and, in all likelihood, a future trade deal.

[Exiletyke]

I'm not sure that it would have been possible to agree a deal to allow the UK to subsidise British Steel. What could we offer to the EU to stop the company gaining an unfair competitive advantage by us doing so? And what would be the point? British Steel was sold to its current owners for £1. That tells you all you need to know. It is a lame duck. The days of using taxpayers money to keep dying industries in a permanent vegetative state are over.


And, to repeat, we would be prevented from intervening under WTO terms and, in all likelihood, a future trade deal.

Another not sure post Cur
Would the litigation that is going on [for the last 20 years or so] be funded by the taxpayer I wonder? After all som-one has to pay

[great_fire]

Basically whatever the EU does Remainers will defend it unquestioningly, it's like a cult to them.

[KerrAvon]

Basically whatever the EU does Remainers will defend it unquestioningly, it's like a cult to them.

I'm not really into defending the EU. I'm more interested in having a factual debate as opposed to one based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

[WanChaiMiller]

Can anyone explain the problem with an joint EU army?

[animallittle3]

Can anyone explain the problem with an joint EU army?

What happens if 4 countries don't want to go to war with a particular country ?

What do we do , sit there and get blown to bits because the EU can't get all the members to agree .

28 countries , 24 different languages would be problematic in the heat of battle .

[ragingpup]

Raging , you might want to take a look at the link I've added .

I'd be interested as to know why anyone on the left would want to be part of this organisation .


https://jacobinmag.com/2019/05/europ...antidemocratic

Not had much chance to read in depth but this seems to be a fair argument. Good points on the general flaws in the EU system, and much more pursuasive as an argument to leave than the (lack of) arguments cast this far in here so far. But still looks a little far to the far left perspective that makes me feel somewhat centrist! Not comfortable!

[Stovicmiller]

Can anyone explain the problem with an joint EU army?

. Who would pay for this EU army? Most nato countries in Europe don't pay their fair share into the nato pot. America has far has I know pays the bulk of the money going into the pot. Most EU countries are in nato so if they had to find the extra money to pay for the EU army it's only my opinion but it would come out of their nato buget. So that in turn would piss of the American president. Why should America protect Europe if if won't protect itself. He is unpredictable the American president

[BigLadonOS]

I’m sorry, Biggie, but you are just plain wrong on many of your points:

The UK government could not bail out British Steel in a manner that would amount to a state subsidy, but if the UK leaves on WTO terms, we would also be prohibited from acting in that manner (hence the litigation that has been ongoing between the US and the EU for the last twenty years or so in respect of alleged subsidies to Boeing and Airbus). Similarly, any future trade deals will include ‘level playing field’ provisions that have the same effect.

The UK agreed a deal with the EU over the support provided to British Banks. Lloyds TSB had to be broken up as did RBS. When the latter could not find a buyer for part of its business to allow that to happen, they were required to provide substantial funding to challenger banks instead.

The EU cannot change EU law to force the UK to take part in the creation of a European Army as Security and Defence matters are specifically excluded from their jurisdiction. It would need a treaty change to alter that position. Treaty changes can only be made by a unanimous decision and by ratification by national governments (and by referendum under the constitutions of some member countries). For the same reason the EU could not impose majority voting on tax matters as you envisage in post 2793.

The EU did not prevent the UK from ending austerity. They would not have the jurisdiction to do so. You may be confused with the Eurozone where the ECB imposed financial disciplines on countries such as Greece in return for bail outs. The IMF did a similar thing to the UK in 1976 in return for stopping the country going bust.

You were saying?

The Treasury keeps the UK under the control of EU austerity policies.
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: OCTOBER 11, 2018
The UK solemnly goes on complying with all requirements on a member state of the EU. This year they dutifully filed their “2018 National Reform Programme and their 2018 Convergence programme”. The Treasury has long accepted the EU’s demands that we keep throttling back the deficit and move to getting down the debt as a percentage of GDP. There are times when the EU are right about this, but at issue is who makes such a judgement and who actually runs our economic policy? The EU has overdone the austerity in some cases causing more unemployment and lost output than needed. Mr Osborne turned this into the keystone of his economic policy and claimed it as his own, but it was just the UK version of EU economic policy which we were obliged to follow by being members.

The EU duly marked our homework this year and concluded formally “The Council is of the opinion that the UK needs to stand ready to take further measures as of 2018-19 to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact”. Presumably seeing that this would go beyond our membership, they mentioned in the supporting text the possibility that we will stay in for another 21 months transition when they would expect this policy to continue to be binding. The Council has instructed the Treasury to keep the nominal growth rate of public spending down to a maximum of 1.6%. That is a real terms cut at current inflation rates.

I want the UK Treasury to step aside from the long shadows cast by the European Semester and to announce a new budget strategy for the years ahead following our departure on 29 March 2019. We need a policy which is kinder to growth and to public service provision than the EU strategy has proved. The PM has said she is ending austerity. This is incompatible with following EU rules beyond next March, and depends on getting our money from the EU to spend at home.