Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
The questuioin has been answered and it's time to move on - we've left the EU.
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------
I'm with your fellow Berkshire poster. If the amendment is needed, it's not needed now. It's antagonistic willy-waving to introduce it at this stage of the negotiations which shows a torrid and desperate approach.
It's been stated before why the EU won't allow a neighbouring country to compete on unequal terms yet have tariff-free access to the Single Market so no need to retread the well-worn track.
---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------
Pretty clear evidence here that BoJo is witholding a good deal with the EU from the British people. Why can't he give the EU the same guarantees he has given Japan? Frankly, it looks rather incompetent. Let's get a deal with the EU and move on, BoJo!
https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-...3-31b2247fa178 |
Do all EU countries operate on equal terms with each other? Of course not. Are you going to compare Romania(or anywhere else) with Germany? Any "equality" is because Germany sets it's OWN rules, and then forces the EU to follow suit.
It has to be implemented NOW, simply because time is running out and the Joint committee that is to supposedly decide and agree everything NI-related, hasn't decided or agreed on anything.
Typical nonsense comparisons.
The UK-Japan state subsidy restrictions are LIMITED in nature.
Quote:
|
That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.
|
No mention of level of state aid which is just one of the things the EU is insisting upon. I should imagine that on the issue of state aid, if that was all the EU was asking for, that aspect would've been agreed long ago. Where is the evidence that is the only concern of the EU on state aid?
Link
Quote:
The EU Commission says too much steel is produced in Europe. As a result, it has been inclined to take a fairly tough line on state aid in this sector.
In 2016 for example, the commission ordered Belgium to recover 211m euros in illegal state aid it had given to its steel industry.
...
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.
...
Therefore, it seems likely that EU single market rules are not the only thing limiting state aid.
|
Anyway.
Quote:
|
Aside from what is agreed with the EU, after Brexit, Britain will still belong to the World Trade Organization, which also has state-aid rules: members can impose tariffs - taxes on imports - on countries that excessively subsidise domestic industry.
|
Doesn't mean the UK is going to run amok with anything, just that the limits shouldn't be set by the EU and ECJ, where we have no say whatsoever. Did the EU insist that it was they and the ECJ to rule on anything with Japan etc, including state aid? OF COURSE NOT. Does the EU say that they can change the state aid rules, and Japan is FORCED to follow suit. OF COURSE NOT.