Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[aggi]

I think the latest polls have the strong leave at 34 and strong remain at 28 - which would mean remain would need to pick up around 60 per cent of the rest to win a referendum.

That's a big ask and I'd guess you're probably right, nothing has changed in three years, apart from opinions hardening.

Polls I saw had it fairly much even. Are you counting the SNP and Plaid Cymru? Obviously there is an argument that they are more national parties but they have been very pro-remain in their views so I can't see many who want to leave voting for them.

[If it be your will]

.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not sure it's that simple Nildesp.

My perception is that No Deal Brexiteers will mainly vote UKIP or Brexit, and some will vote Conservative and some Labour.
Brexit will also attract voters disgusted by the conduct of the two main parties.
Most Conservative votes will come from TM deal supporters.
Labour votes will come from 'dyed in the wool' Labour supporters, some leave voters, some remain.
The big remainers will vote Green and Libdem with a few for Change UK.
Ireland, Wales and Scotland have their nationalistic considerations to complicate matters further.

So I think the interesting measure will be Brexit/UKIP versus LibDem/Green/Change as the clearest measure of the strength of feeling on either side.

Nothing wrong with your analysis but based on current "polls" it doesn't contradict my simplistic point.
Effectively we have a 3 way split divided into roughly equal measures
Brexit / UKip approx 33%
Remain (Coalition) Lib Dems, Greens, Change Uk, SNP, Plaid Cymru approx 33%
and traditional Labour / Conservatives 33%
This leaves us more divided than ever, but it does suggest that approx two thirds don't support a "no deal" brexit, since the brexit party option is the only one that offers this, and it also tell us that is now considerable support for a Confirmatory Vote, given that this is now Labour Policy. (Support for a Confirmatory vote was in single figure percentages this time last year.)

[Juxtaposition]

Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March,

She said when asked 

Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"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."

I wasn't aware that Ruth Bender was a "right-winger". Nevertheless, she as an Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, confirms that state aid rules set by the EU has prevented the UK government from saving British Steel.


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

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

https://news.sky.com/video/clark-no-the" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... l-11726187

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

What if the company and the government were discussing a government loan, and they couldn't come to an agreement? Would it still be all the EU's fault?

[nil_desperandum]

Only if you discount Scotland, Wales and NI.

That tends to be what English right wing political groups do, though in Guich's case I think it was simply an oversight.

[RingoMcCartney]

Very briefly:

Subsidising British Steel: Not allowed
Renationalising British Steel: Allowed
Renationalising then subsidising (or offering any other market advantage): Not allowed

You could play around with the exemptions to state aid rules, but you'd run the risk of every steel company in the EU taking you to court.

If it's a "no" to - Does current EU regulation mean that giving state aid to British Steel would distort the market. Consequently, the government is unable to give State aid to save British Steel due to EU law? 

Could you please explain the above quote?

[RingoMcCartney]

All else being equal - no (probably)

I'm really not trying to use this as an argument against the EU. But the only realistic way of maintaining an active domestic steel industry would be protectionism - either import duties or state aid. Currently the EU decide the former, and the latter is forbidden in EU law.

A bigger question is should we be propping up an unprofitable company anyway? Believers in globalised free markets would argue 'absolutely not'. But if we lost all expertise in steel making, and in 20 years we suddenly needed to make our own steel again, we'd be in trouble. But then you could say that about every sector.

Also , if the EU isn't stopping the UK government from saving British Steel due to its state aid rules.

Why did you say the above please?

[RingoMcCartney]

What if the company and the government were discussing a government loan, and they couldn't come to an agreement? Would it still be all the EU's fault?

No. That'd be a lack of the 2 sides coming to a satisfactory agreement.

[Devils_Advocate]

If it's a "no" to - Does current EU regulation mean that giving state aid to British Steel would distort the market. Consequently, the government is unable to give State aid to save British Steel due to EU law? 

Could you please explain the above quote?

So you ask IIBYW a specific question (probably thinking he is going to give you the answer you want) and he answers it in simple terms as you asked him to. You then dig out an old post of his from 2 pages ago and start questioning about that instead

Why don't you carry on the conversation about the question you asked rather than going off at a tangent now you haven't got the response you were hoping for?

Remind me again who is the one who's been discredited on here time and time again?

#rattled

[Juxtaposition]

No. That'd be a lack of the 2 sides coming to a satisfactory agreement.

Ok. Because that's literally what happened.

So you agree this isn't the EU's fault.

[If it be your will]

.

[RingoMcCartney]

Neither of these things are what you originally said. Maybe you think they are because your viewpoint is very simplistic (why else would you keep changing your point) but in reality whilst you've been trying to prove your original point (which has already been answered) you've asked multiple, quite different questions.

There's no point in discussing it any further as any answer will result in the inevitable

When somebody has been given multiple chances to provide a simple yes or no answer, and they're reduced to saying "it's too simplistic" . Then, despite claiming they have answered refuse to simply repost the answer, because they can't, cos they haven't! Then further reduced to posting juvenile memes. You know it's game over for them.

[RingoMcCartney]

Oh, go on then:

The confusion is your second question was actually two questions, so my answer is:

1)No
2)Part A: yes; Part B: no

(Jesus. What am I doing taking part in this nonsense???)

So if , Does current EU regulation mean that giving state aid to British Steel would distort the market? - yes


And the government is unable to give State aid to save British Steel due to EU law?  No?

Why did you say "I'm really not trying to use this as an argument against the EU. But the only realistic way of maintaining an active domestic steel industry would be protectionism - either import duties or state aid. Currently the EU decide the former, and the latter is forbidden in EU law." and would you not "run the risk of every steel company in the EU taking you to court." As you previously said this would be possible.?

You appear to be contradicting yourself IWBYW.

[martin_p]

When somebody has been given multiple chances to provide a simple yes or no answer, and they're reduced to saying "it's too simplistic" . Then, despite claiming they have answered refuse to simply repost the answer, because they can't, cos they haven't! Then further reduced to posting juvenile memes. You know it's game over for them.

You got a simplistic ‘no’ from IIBYW and proceeded to ask him a load more questions. It’s almost as if the simplistic ‘no’ he gave you was too simplistic!

[RingoMcCartney]

Ok. Because that's literally what happened.

So you agree this isn't the EU's fault.

It's not the EU'S fault they cannot come to an agreement.
That's right. As I agree.

But, given the stalemate in which we find ourselves, the government is unable to give State aid to save British Steel due to EU law.

2 entirely different things.

[RingoMcCartney]

I gave a straight answer to the question you asked but you’ve changed the question again! No, the EU did not block it because the bail out was structured to meet EU law.

I’m genuinely confused over what point you’re actually trying to make.

Finally we're getting somewhere!

. So you agree with the first part of my post-

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

The EU did not block it"


Part 2


Do current EU laws block the UK government from giving state aid to save British Steel?

I'm not asking if those rules can be broken, and you'd be prepared to break them.

I'm simply asking, do current EU laws block the UK government from giving state aid to save British Steel?


Yes 





Or 





No?

[Devils_Advocate]

Perhaps you would answer IWBYW.

In 2008 did the EU block the UK government from bailing out the banks.

And I'm not being facetious. In plain English, no caveats just a "simplistic" Yes or no. Did they?

Secondly,

Does current EU regulation mean that giving state aid to British Steel would distort the market. Consequently, the government is unable to give State aid to save British Steel due to EU law?

Again no attempt at belittling, just a concise yes or no?

No;No.

The government is able to give state aid to British Steel just like it did with the banks. It would be challenged successfully by the EU just like it was with the banks. Does this finally end it?

[RingoMcCartney]

All else being equal - no (probably)

I'm really not trying to use this as an argument against the EU. But the only realistic way of maintaining an active domestic steel industry would be protectionism - either import duties or state aid. Currently the EU decide the former, and the latter is forbidden in EU law.

:Very briefly:

Subsidising British Steel: Not allowed
Renationalising British Steel: Allowed
Renationalising then subsidising (or offering any other market advantage): Not allowed

You could play around with the exemptions to state aid rules, but you'd run the risk of every steel company in the EU taking you to court.

[Burnley Ace]

(Jesus. What am I doing taking part in this nonsense???)

You can’t help yourself- he sucks you in with his childlike simplicity (or stupidity) and you think you are helping him understand!!

[RingoMcCartney]

Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March,

She said when asked 

Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"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."


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

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

https://news.sky.com/video/clark-no-the" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... l-11726187

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

[Devils_Advocate]

My mistake I thought you just wanted an answer in plain English, no caveats and a simplistic yes or no so was trying to help.

As you were!!

[RingoMcCartney]

You can’t help yourself- he sucks you in with his childlike simplicity (or stupidity) and you think you are helping him understand!!

This is a new approach.

The lofty, "it's too simplistic to answer " technique.

AKA - "we know he's right, but simply cannot bring ourselves to admitting it"

[RingoMcCartney]

My mistake I thought you just wanted an answer in plain English, no caveats and a simplistic yes or no so was trying to help.

As you were!!

If you're unable to see the contradiction in terms in IWBYW's separate explanations I'm totally relaxed about that.

Maybe he'll come back on and clarify.......

He also seems to have a differing opinion about EU law preventing the UK government from bailing British Steel, out to, Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, whi was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

I'm sure the BBC would choose quality guests when it comes to these matters.

[Guich]

That tends to be what English right wing political groups do, though in Guich's case I think it was simply an oversight.

Thank you NilD

I admit I didn't consider any of Wales, Scotland and NI being firmly in either camp - more as Labour.

If I was to take a stab at it - I'd say that while Plaid Cymru is remain - most of their voters aren't, majority of SNP voters are remain and NI voters slightly remain.

I agree that we are pretty much split 33/33/33 - whereas Parliament doesn't reflect that very well. Which, I guess, has made it a nye on impossible job for TM to get anything through.

I often wonder if we had left the EU a couple of years ago without being told, how long it would take any of us to notice...

[RingoMcCartney]

Well even by my own high standards I've put a good half dozen Remoaners to the sword today. At times today I've felt like the man keeping the plates spinning!


Im signing off now. I've spent way too much time on here than I should've done. So much so that I wanted an early finish tomorrow but today's shenanigans have put paid to that. So I'll bid you all adieu.


Just as an aside. If the poster Elizabeth arrives on here I can assure you of 2 things.

I must admit I myself find it a little weird. And it's genuinely genuinely not me. Ask yourself this. Having got the better of half a dozen Remoaners, why in the world , would I log in under a different name and do a poor parody of myself. Makes zero sense.







Have a great bank holiday weekend ladies

[RingoMcCartney]

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.

[Juxtaposition]

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.

This is not true. The government and the company couldn't come to an agreement on a loan which, as you already said, means the EU isn't to blame.

I don't know why you continue to post something you know to be untrue. Ah. Never mind. I know exactly why.

[AndrewJB]

Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March,

She said when asked 

Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

"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."


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

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

https://news.sky.com/video/clark-no-the" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... l-11726187

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

They could nationalise it, and if they were interested in saving it, they would. The government is simply hiding their inaction behind the bogeyman of the EU and not for the first time. Let's not forget, it wasn't government austerity that led to our services being in crisis. It was the EU.

[nil_desperandum]

Thank you NilD

I admit I didn't consider any of Wales, Scotland and NI being firmly in either camp - more as Labour.

If I was to take a stab at it - I'd say that while Plaid Cymru is remain - most of their voters aren't, majority of SNP voters are remain and NI voters slightly remain.
.

Cheers Guich. your post has prompted me to look at the NI referendum results in a little more detail.
Leave in fact only polled just under 350,000 which equated to 44% of the vote. (350,000 incidentally isn't far away from the 370,000 who voted either DUP or UUP in 2017 GE.)
The turnout at 62% was much lower than the UK average of 72%, this despite the fact that Ireland is seen as being pivotal to all discussions.
My feeling is that if the election was rerun there now there would be a higher turnout because people are now far more aware of the border issue, and this would increase the remain share since you can't really see where the additional "leave" (DUP / UUP) votes would come from.
Incidentally it's revealing that all the areas that adjoin the "border" had large remain majorities. (They were obviously more aware of potential issues than anyone else.)

[Lancasterclaret]

This is a new approach.

The lofty, "it's too simplistic to answer " technique.

AKA - "we know he's right, but simply cannot bring ourselves to admitting it"

Not new at all

Its that dreaded word that makes you foam at the mouth.

Reality

[aggi]

When somebody has been given multiple chances to provide a simple yes or no answer, and they're reduced to saying "it's too simplistic" . Then, despite claiming they have answered refuse to simply repost the answer, because they can't, cos they haven't! Then further reduced to posting juvenile memes. You know it's game over for them.

Each of those multiple chances involved you asking a different question though. You didn't like the first answer so you asked something different in the hope I wouldn't notice the terms of reference had changed. It's one of your transparent "Ringo is never wrong" tactics that everyone is aware of. I just wonder whether you do it unconsciously and really do believe that you're right or this is all a facade.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Devils_Advocate]

I am able to put an axe through my neighbour's head.
I am forbidden from putting an axe through my neighbour's head

I've come back to discover that this went on for ages after I'd left. Surely, after reprinting several of my posts it must have dawned that I'm both a leaver and agree that bailing out British Steel is problematic under EU law. What on earth has all this been about? Why have you spent the best part of a day arguing a point we actually agree on? What went wrong, Ringo?

(Let's see if he wastes another hour of his time...)

Think you might have to wait till tomorrow as he's running with his mad 'remain voting' Liz act tonight

[AndrewJB]

A lot of EU citizens here told they couldn’t vote today.

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

Another thing I can’t talk about with authority, but I suspect - considering the government’s we’ve had over the last forty years - that the U.K. has been a major driving force in getting these EU rules set up.

[If it be your will]

.

[Heathclaret]

In 2012 Hollande threatened to nationalise the French steel site in Florange. ArcelorMittal were in dispute with the French government at the time. The threat was real. Have rules changed since then. In 2014 the Italian government stepped in and nationalised the steel Ilva plant in Taranto until a buyer could be found . It employed 14000 people. Network rail is government owned as is LNER. If we saved the banks, surely we vmcan save steel production in Scunthorpe.

[Lancasterclaret]

Peter Oborne, life long Brexiteer making a very good case for taking a step back to clear everyones heads

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... ink-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Peter Oborne, life long Brexiteer making a very good case for taking a step back to clear everyones heads

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... ink-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He speaks a lot of sense. But unfortunately Brexit has become some sort of cult for a lot of people so someone talking sense won’t make a blind bit of difference. They only have ears for their cult leaders now and the chances of any of them talking sense anytime soon are remote to say the least.

[martin_p]

May to resign on 7th June.

[Lancasterclaret]

Doesn't matter who they replace her with, the same problems will still be there.

Painful listen this to be fair.

[nil_desperandum]

Doesn't matter who they replace her with, the same problems will still be there.

Painful listen this to be fair.

Thought that the speech was well crafted and delivered to be fair up until the emotional choreographed exit.

[martin_p]

The last ten seconds of her speech was the first time she's looked remotely human.

[Juxtaposition]

Thought that the speech was well crafted and delivered to be fair up until the emotional choreographed exit.

I doubt that end was choreographed. If so she deserves an Oscar for faking fighting tears so expertly.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not sure that bit was choreographed.

She's been dead emotionally for her entire political career

[nil_desperandum]

I doubt that end was choreographed. If so she deserves an Oscar for faking fighting tears so expertly.

Maybe choreographed was the wrong choice of word, but you really don't expect a world leader to break down and walk off.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good job she's not a world leader then!

Going down as the worst PM for decades isn't going to anyone emotional state any good