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

[KerrAvon]

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.

[Exiletyke]

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.

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
Litigation been going on for the last twenty years or so [any news of a breakthrough] laughs loudly

[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

[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 ?

[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.

[ragingpup]

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

I think that this flurry of posts prove more is that some people will distort fact and even create fiction to attack the EU. There is much to be critical of, but the fact that even Kerr is running rings around Leave posters, pointing out obvious flaws in repeated evidence for arguments against the EU, speaks volumes about the fact that the arguments are transparently flimsy.

[BigLadonOS]

I think that this flurry of posts prove more is that some people will distort fact and even create fiction to attack the EU. There is much to be critical of, but the fact that even Kerr is running rings around Leave posters, pointing out obvious flaws in repeated evidence for arguments against the EU, speaks volumes about the fact that the arguments are transparently flimsy.

Again I say that this has been hatching for over a decade and has nothing to do with the BREXIT vote. Dont you get it yet? A vote to stay in the EU in 2016 would have led to this anyway and we would have been signed up to it from the start.

Why are all you remoaners making all this a post Brexit issue when it is not? I am not making this a post Brexit issue I am letting people know what was going to happen if we had voted to stay in the EU.

[ragingpup]

Again I say that this has been hatching for over a decade and has nothing to do with the BREXIT vote. Dont you get it yet? A vote to stay in the EU in 2016 would have led to this anyway and we would have been signed up to it from the start.

Why are all you remoaners making all this a post Brexit issue when it is not? I am not making this a post Brexit issue I am letting people know what was going to happen if we had voted to stay in the EU.

Sorry but you are pointing out potential dangers of what might happen if we had stayed in the EU. And you are backing that up with a mixture of opinion pieces and short pieces of EU figures stating the direction that they would like to go in but in no way have these become anything more than vague ideas, let alone the fear that we wouldn't have the powers to veto and block such developments. You are passing these off as facts and they are simply not facts. This is very different to expressing concerns about the way the future directions, which are quite valid. But many Leave folks are twisting these beyond belief.