Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:06 pm

Cheers

I'm sure Ringo appreciates it as well!

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:08 pm

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:15 pm

Think there are a lot of questions about Gullerbill (is that them?) that run them though

They have an impressive list of failed companies now

Swizzlestick · Post by **Swizzlestick** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:46 pm

Deutsche Bahn has received billions of state subsidies hasn’t it?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:59 pm

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 8:00 am

Looking like “the 1922 committee” are trying to change their party rules so they can have another confidence vote on May if she doesn’t resign this week.

I thought having another vote when you believe people may have changed their mind was frowned upon.
All in it together.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 8:08 am

You see, they are "professionals" so are allowed to change their mind, in some cases, five times now and counting.

And we can't have another referendum (even though it actually offers a way out of this shitshow) because it, er, actually offers a way out of this shitshow.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:20 am

Don’t forget to vote today people. And do remember that a vote for the Brexit Party is a vote for an unrepentant IRA sympathiser representing the North West in Brussels.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:24 am

martin_p wrote:Don’t forget to vote today people. And do remember that a vote for the Brexit Party is a vote for an unrepentant IRA sympathiser representing the North West in Brussels.

Actually a vote for Brexit is for probably the fourth name on the list. Number 1 on the list can't fail to be elected unless their vote suddenly drops to Conservative levels.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:26 am

dsr wrote:Actually a vote for Brexit is for probably the fourth name on the list. Number 1 on the list can't fail to be elected unless their vote suddenly drops to Conservative levels.

Every vote casts ensures the IRA sympathiser gets in, just remember that. And for support to drop to Tory levels then people need to vote for someone else.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:28 am

martin_p wrote:Every vote casts ensures the IRA sympathiser gets in, just remember that. And for support to drop to Tory levels then people need to vote for someone else.

Only the first 10% or so are needed to ensure the IRA sympathiser gets in. This particular appalling electoral system means you don't know in advance who your vote or non-vote is going to.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:30 am

dsr wrote:Only the first 10% or so are needed to ensure the IRA sympathiser gets in. This particular appalling electoral system means you don't know in advance who your vote or non-vote is going to.

Your vote is going to the Brexit Party list and all the candidates on that list. You can try and make a conscience clearing argument if you want, but the fact is that a vote for the Brexit Party is s vote for an IRA sympathiser.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:33 am

They won't be MEPs for more than a few weeks or months. Who they are doesn't matter in this case. What matters is Brexit, not any other concerns at this time.

If he is an IRA sympathiser then pressure him to get N.I. out of the union for a two-nation Irish Republic and good riddance.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:47 am

martin_p wrote:Your vote is going to the Brexit Party list and all the candidates on that list. You can try and make a conscience clearing argument if you want, but the fact is that a vote for the Brexit Party is s vote for an IRA sympathiser.

I thought being an IRA sympathiser was acceptable in mainstream politics these days

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:53 am

If you believe in democracy you must vote brexit today. Nothing trumps it. I shall be lending my vote to Farage today and so should everyone.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:57 am

summitclaret wrote:If you believe in democracy you must vote brexit today. Nothing trumps it. I shall be lending my vote to Farage today and so should everyone.

That doesn't sound very democratic

Well, at least we know now about one of his policies.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 am

summitclaret wrote:If you believe in democracy you must vote brexit today. Nothing trumps it. I shall be lending my vote to Farage today and so should everyone.

I’m not sure why anyone who believes in Brexit is voting, I thought the EU was undemocratic.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:00 am

I've got something against voting for anyone who doesn't turn up for work but if quite happy to get paid for it and claim every expense going.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:03 am

Our remainer HOC has frustrated brexit ever since the referendum. It's aim is to grind us down. People need to stand up to them. Today is a massive opportunity to do just that.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:03 am

martin_p wrote:Don’t forget to vote today people. And do remember that a vote for the Brexit Party is a vote for an unrepentant IRA sympathiser representing the North West in Brussels.

After the lack of complaints about Tommy Robinson's criminal record and Claire Fox's views on the IRA at least we won't be seeing people bitching on here any more about Corbyn and the IRA or Fiona Onasanya voting before she was recalled because otherwise they'd be massive hypocrites and I'm sure this board doesn't have any of those.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:04 am

summitclaret wrote:Our remainer HOC has frustrated brexit ever since the referendum. It's aim is to grind us down. People need to stand up to them. Today is a massive opportunity to do just that.

Its all fine if its a protest vote summit, but if you are voting for Farage thinking that a member of the political elite is going to change the ways of other members of the political elite then you are bound to be disappointed.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:07 am

aggi wrote:After the lack of complaints about Tommy Robinson's criminal record and Claire Fox's views on the IRA at least we won't be seeing people bitching on here any more about Corbyn and the IRA or Fiona Onasanya voting before she was recalled because otherwise they'd be massive hypocrites and I'm sure this board doesn't have any of those.

You will. Today is very different. We are not voting for individuals today but parties. Robinson us an irrelevance.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:09 am

I'm sorry Summit, but that is Rowls level of hypocrisy.

AND NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THAT!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:11 am

dsr wrote: This particular appalling electoral system means you don't know in advance who your vote or non-vote is going to.

Sorry, I genuinely don't understand that.
It's quite clear who the candidates are for each party, and they're published in the order in which they will be elected. (Therefore we know that our IRA sympathiser will be elected first).
You then look and see who is No. 1 in each of the other lists and you know that if any of them gets above about 10% then they'll be elected, so effectively every vote counts unless you cast it for a candidate or party (like Tommy Robinson) who have no chance of getting 10%.
Then using current polling data for the NW region you can fairly accurately predict who else will be elected, although the figures are so close in the NW that it is quite difficult to be exact.
It looks like UKip will poll about 32% in the NW. This guarantees them 2 seats and almost certainly 3, so their first 3 candidates will go through.
According to the polls Labour would almost certainly get 2, and Liberals 1, but depending on turnout and if there is a slight swing to Libs then Libs could also get 2, or it could even be 2 for them and only 1 for Labour.
With both Tories and Greens currently polling around the 9% mark they will probably both get a seat each, but it wouldn't take too much for one or both to not get a seat at all, which if course would then go to one of the "big 3" depending on percentages.
So whilst it's somewhat complicated, it's also transparent and it means that every single vote counts. A swing of just 1 or 2% today could change a couple of seats.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:14 am

Nice thread explaining that the Brexit Party isn't a party, but essentially Nigel Farages personal fan club.

https://twitter.com/EFTA4UK/status/1131139537953001472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:17 am

summitclaret wrote:If you believe in democracy you must vote brexit today.

I totally agree. So on current polling predictions approx one third of the population will be voting for the Brexit Party.
66% against sends out quite a strong message - don't you think?
As Ringo would say: that's the problem with democracy, sometimes you lose.
(Oh, sorry forgot to leave gaps and use UPPER CASE lettering.)

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:19 am

This is likely to be the only 'second/confirmatory referendum' you will get so if you still want Brexit to go ahead vote for the Brexit party and if you want Brexit to be stopped then vote Liberal Democrat.

No reason to complicate matters beyond that level of analysis.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:19 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:It hasn't tried

You do this all the time

its not as simple as you want it to be. I know you don't like going into specifics (because it ends really badly for you) but questions like this are complex.

I know enough to know that if the UK declared today that the jobs where safe and they were going to nationalise to save it, then it would take time before anything was done about it. Lots of people would say stuff, but actually doing something about it would take some time.

But the Conservatives don't bail out stuff like this, so its a moot point.

There are a couple of PDFs online about the Italian plant on Taranto in 2016 if you want to check it out.

https://youtu.be/LKu43pLaItM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greg Clarke - the minister responsible admitting in Parliament just a few hours ago that the government has to comply with EU state aid law.

https://news.sky.com/story/british-stee ... k-11726024" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On sky saying the same.

Greg Clark turned down the company's funding request on legal advice it would have broken state aid legislation

Taken from the left wing "labour heartlands" website-

No state aid.

Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March, discussing why the Government could not give State aid to save British Steel, and how this might be affected if the UK were to leave the EU. The following text expands on some of the comments she made.

The EU does not allow state support of a business if it would distort competition in the single market.

Would it be against EU regulations to provide funding to British Steel in a time of need?

"Unfortunately, yes. The fact that all the economic factors go against the UK steel industry is not relevant, nor is the potentially devastating impact on the wider local economy were it to close. The EU has already ruled on this: in January 2016 the competition commissioner ruled that the Belgian government had illegally provided €211m to steel companies in one of its depressed regions, and ordered that the money be repaid. She also announced an investigation into €2bn of similar aid given by the Italian government to support its steel industry."

"The EU takes the view that State aid cannot be used if it distorts competition, and that EU regional funding is available to help with the social consequences of closing down industries that are uncompetitive."

So how come the banks were bailed out?

"There is a fundamental difference between banks and steel. If the UK, or Belgian, or Italian steel industry has to shut down, then other steel companies will pick up their contracts. Such commercial competition is the thrust behind most of the legislation: saving any of the ailing companies would adversely affect the other steel providers, who would not be able to take those contracts. In the case of the banks, their mutual interdependence made that impossible. Because they had all lent to each other, the collapse of any of the banks would have led to the collapse of the whole financial system. So, saving the banks was not anti-competitive, it was in fact supporting the market economy."

https://labourheartlands.com/british-st ... o-save-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney wrote:2008 - Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions.

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019 - The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club.

You said I was wrong.

You Lancaster claret are wrong. Or are you saying the government's legal team are wrong. And are you saying Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy who the BBC turned to for their research knows less than you !!!

Will you now accept the fact with good grace?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:22 am

aggi wrote:That's an outright lie though isn't it.

See above reply to Lancaster claret.

You prepared to hold you hand up too?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:26 am

First, well done for doing some research, and very well done for putting links so we can all check you are not making it up.

That is a massive improvement on your normal way of doing things.

While you where finding out about stuff you knew nothing about 24 hours ago, the conversation moved on with contributions from someone who knows a lot more about this than I do (ITBYW)

And he put is a bit more simply in that nationalisation fine, but state aid is more likely not to be.

This is what I said

"I know enough to know that if the UK declared today that the jobs where safe and they were going to nationalise to save it, then it would take time before anything was done about it. Lots of people would say stuff, but actually doing something about it would take some time."

Thats broadly in line with what has been said in the past 24 hours.

But thanks for the links again, an interesting read.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:27 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:https://youtu.be/LKu43pLaItM

Greg Clarke - the minister responsible admitting in Parliament just a few hours ago that the government has to comply with EU state aid law.

https://news.sky.com/story/british-stee ... k-11726024" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On sky saying the same.

Greg Clark turned down the company's funding request on legal advice it would have broken state aid legislation

Taken from the left wing "labour heartlands" website-

No state aid.

Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March, discussing why the Government could not give State aid to save British Steel, and how this might be affected if the UK were to leave the EU. The following text expands on some of the comments she made.

The EU does not allow state support of a business if it would distort competition in the single market.

Would it be against EU regulations to provide funding to British Steel in a time of need?

"Unfortunately, yes. The fact that all the economic factors go against the UK steel industry is not relevant, nor is the potentially devastating impact on the wider local economy were it to close. The EU has already ruled on this: in January 2016 the competition commissioner ruled that the Belgian government had illegally provided €211m to steel companies in one of its depressed regions, and ordered that the money be repaid. She also announced an investigation into €2bn of similar aid given by the Italian government to support its steel industry."

"The EU takes the view that State aid cannot be used if it distorts competition, and that EU regional funding is available to help with the social consequences of closing down industries that are uncompetitive."

So how come the banks were bailed out?

"There is a fundamental difference between banks and steel. If the UK, or Belgian, or Italian steel industry has to shut down, then other steel companies will pick up their contracts. Such commercial competition is the thrust behind most of the legislation: saving any of the ailing companies would adversely affect the other steel providers, who would not be able to take those contracts. In the case of the banks, their mutual interdependence made that impossible. Because they had all lent to each other, the collapse of any of the banks would have led to the collapse of the whole financial system. So, saving the banks was not anti-competitive, it was in fact supporting the market economy."

https://labourheartlands.com/british-st ... o-save-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You said I was wrong.

You Lancaster claret are wrong. Or are you saying the government's legal team are wrong. And are you saying Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy who the BBC turned to for their research knows less than you !!!

Will you now accept the fact with good grace?

Of course Brexit was one of the major causes of British Steel going from profit to collapse in a year, but that doesn’t seem to be worth a mention.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:27 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:See above reply to Lancaster claret.

You prepared to hold you hand up too?

You've certainly got some front mate I'll give you that.

Remember the numerous 8,000,000 page thread in which you effectively said black was white to avoid admitting being wrong?

I'm just glad you appear to have learnt your lesson and are using the free time you clearly have to read stuff first before posting it online.

We'll have you on the side of the good guys yet!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:30 am

The Union guy outside the plant saying that they were the first casualties of Brexit, but wouldn't be the last is a case in point sadly.

Ringo, did you do any research on the activities of the owners of British Steel, Greybull Capital? (might be Greybill not sure)

Now that is well worth half an hour of your time

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:30 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:37 am

If it be your will wrote:Well, yes. Anyone kidding themselves that it makes a blind bit of difference which personnel actually get sent to Brussels hasn't realised what little power the European Parliament actually has. That's why everyone uses it as a vote to try and influence domestic policy.

Deep down, is that not what you'll be doing, too??

Its got more power than that ITBYW.

Of course it matters, especially when it looks like we will be sending 35 absolute freeloaders who will do absolutely naff all to advance the UKs interests while we still remain in the EU.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:39 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You've certainly got some front mate I'll give you that.

Remember the numerous 8,000,000 page thread in which you effectively said black was white to avoid admitting being wrong?

I'm just glad you appear to have learnt your lesson and are using the free time you clearly have to read stuff first before posting it online.

We'll have you on the side of the good guys yet!

Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

No?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:39 am

martin_p wrote:Of course Brexit was one of the major causes of British Steel going from profit to collapse in a year, but that doesn’t seem to be worth a mention.

Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

No?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:40 am

If it be your will wrote:Well, yes. Anyone kidding themselves that it makes a blind bit of difference which personnel actually get sent to Brussels hasn't realised what little power the European Parliament actually has. That's why everyone uses it as a vote to try and influence domestic policy.

Deep down, is that not what you'll be doing, too??

I’ll be doing that (in fact have already done) today, but it’s a one off in extraordinary times for the EU elections. There is only one issue today and that’s our future relationship with the EU, the starting point for me being that we remain a part of it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:41 am

Amazing

He's spent all that time doing all that research, and has ignored anything that is most definitely there that might mean he can't blame it all on the EU.

THATS NOT HOW YOU DO RESEARCH.

THATS HOW YOU DO PROPAGANDA.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:42 am

martin_p wrote:I’ll be doing that (in fact have already done) today, but it’s a one off in extraordinary times for the EU elections. There is only one issue today and that’s our future relationship with the EU, the starting point for me being that we remain a part of it.

I think to be fair, thats what the vast majority on here are doing.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:43 am

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:44 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Amazing

He's spent all that time doing all that research, and has ignored anything that is most definitely there that might mean he can't blame it all on the EU.

THATS NOT HOW YOU DO RESEARCH.

THATS HOW YOU DO PROPAGANDA.

Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

No?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:45 am

Interesting take in the Spectator on Johnson being a possible PM.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/onl ... ry-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:45 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Interesting take in the Spectator on Johnson being a possible PM.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/onl ... ry-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

No?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:46 am

I can copy and paste all day mate as well!

This is what I said

"I know enough to know that if the UK declared today that the jobs where safe and they were going to nationalise to save it, then it would take time before anything was done about it. Lots of people would say stuff, but actually doing something about it would take some time."

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I can copy and paste all day mate as well!

This is what I said

"I know enough to know that if the UK declared today that the jobs where safe and they were going to nationalise to save it, then it would take time before anything was done about it. Lots of people would say stuff, but actually doing something about it would take some time."

The last time you couldn't bring yourself round to admitting you were wrong and I was right. When I said that money that came from the EU regional redevelopment fund to places like burnley was, given the UK is a net contributor to the EU just our money coming back. And I provided FACTS from the Office of National Statistics and the independent charity Full Fact. YOU BLOCKED ME!

You should be better than that

So ,

Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

No?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:53 am

This is what I said

"I know enough to know that if the UK declared today that the jobs where safe and they were going to nationalise to save it, then it would take time before anything was done about it. Lots of people would say stuff, but actually doing something about it would take some time."

If you can't read it, I can make the font bigger if it helps?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:53 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Is the government unable to give State aid to save British
Steel due to EU law?

Yes

Or

)
No?

Is it strictly speaking against EU law? Yes probably. Could the U.K. government have saved British Steel this week? Yes it could. It may have been breaking EU law, but as Lancaster pointed out it would have been a long time before it came to the EU court by which time British Steel would have recovered enough to pay the money back or gone bust anyway. It’s what other countries do.

Here’s one for you. Would British Steel have needed baling out if it wasn’t for Brexit?

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:54 am

martin_p wrote:Is it strictly speaking against EU law? Yes probably. Could the U.K. government have saved British Steel this week? Yes it could. It may have been breaking EU law, but as Lancaster pointed out it would have been a long time before it came to the EU court by which time British Steel would have recovered enough to pay the money back or gone bust anyway. It’s what other countries do.

Here’s one for you. Would British Steel have needed baling out if it wasn’t for Brexit?

Would British steel be cheaper than Chinese steel without Brexit ?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu May 23, 2019 10:54 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:See above reply to Lancaster claret.

You prepared to hold you hand up too?

We don't even have to look at the British steel stuff, you said:

2008 - Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions.

The EU says , " that's fine."

What actually happened was that the bail out had to be structured in very specific ways to avoid falling afoul of EU rules. It's this that resulted in the split of Lloyds and TSB and RBS having to pay over a load of money to smaller banks to promote competition.

There are limits on state aid, no-one is disputing that. Your suggestion that these weren't applied in 2008 isn't true though.