European Election Results .. due from 10 p.m. Sunday night...,

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners have decided to apply their desperate logic to the premier league. And it's a blow for Manchester city. 

They've added up the final points tally for Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal.

And they've announced that LONDON won the Premier League!

[dsr]

Seriously you really do need to go back to school and study something.
The EE vote does not clearly show “we still want to leave”

I know let’s try a little maths test just for you. What percentage of the electorate voted for the Brexit party in the Euro elections ? I’ll make it easier with multiple choice.
Was it :
A) 32%
B) 12%
C) 52%

When you’ve worked it out there is a supplemental English language question for you

Which of these percentages would validate a statement that the majority of people still want to leave ?

A) 12%
B) 32%
C).....etc etc !

So what you are saying is that slightly less than 15% of the electorate wants to reverse the Brexit decision, which is way short of a majority, so it's full steam ahead for October 31st?

[thatdberight]

Hells teeth - this thread has taken a funny turn
Little tip - maybe don’t use that type of language with your “friends” !

You'd be surprised how little some of them care. They're not an homogeneous lump of think-alikes.

[RingoMcCartney]

Why do you persist with this line of argument when it is not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest, and many within the company have blamed Brexit for its demise? The EU has not said “no can do” with regard state aid to British Steel. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ge-exports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should the government simply ignore the legal advice it's been given?

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Should it ignore the legal advice.


Yes




Or




No?

[RingoMcCartney]

The 2016 referendum result has not been implemented yet.

If we were to have a 2nd referendum it would mean that as a Leave voters, I would have to had won TWO referenda in order to have viewpoint implemented. Whereas, a remain voter would only have to have won ONE referendum to have their viewpoint implemented. How is that fair or democratic?

It's not.....

[Colburn_Claret]

Seriously you really do need to go back to school and study something.
The EE vote does not clearly show “we still want to leave”

I know let’s try a little maths test just for you. What percentage of the electorate voted for the Brexit party in the Euro elections ? I’ll make it easier with multiple choice.
Was it :
A) 32%
B) 12%
C) 52%

When you’ve worked it out there is a supplemental English language question for you

Which of these percentages would validate a statement that the majority of people still want to leave ?

A) 12%
B) 32%
C).....etc etc !

Are you deliberately obtuse, or just like fishing.
I said in the very post that you've just replied to, that the pundits had 35% voting for Parties wanting to Leave, and 35% voting for Parties that wanted to Remain. Now in my maths thats an even split, just like the referendum. Unless of course you want to pretend that all the other 30% want to remain as well, but couldn't be bothered to vote for a Party that was standing on that platform.
It's ok, that's the way the rest of the remainers on here think.

There is no argument, based on yesterdays results, to claim that the country want a 2nd vote. There was no evidence in that result to show the public had changed their mind, nothing, and without the evidence to support a 2nd vote, it's still a bunch of poor losers, crying in their glasses.

[AndrewJB]

I think the Brexit Party will push a more “populist” agenda rather than a “right wing” agenda if they fought a GE nicking Labour policies on social issues, student debt etc, infrastructure programme whilst being more nationalistic.

Labour lost because people saw through their “Brexit Policy” in the way Barry Gardiner described it.

That is why I think rather than backing a stitched up question recommendation, they should come out and say we have had three years of political intertia which is affecting the economy with Business investment down etc so now is the time to settle it once and for all a straight question Leave on WTO with the hope of possibility negotiating a deal or Remain. The Liberal manifesto in 2010 had a similar policy. If the Remainers think public opinion has changed they should accept that question.

Nationalist parties in Europe tend to have (outside of their racially divisive ones) working class friendly policies, but in English speaking countries that tends not to be the case. For the Brexit Party to move in that direction would be a sea change from where UKIP had been under Farage. I personally don't believe they'll do it, apart from offering a few carefully targetted sops here and there. They'll claim to represent working people, but when you scratch the surface it'll be the same free market / neo-liberal song.

I don't think Labour will move entirely toward a remain stance (attempting to outflank the LibDems and Greens on the issue would be a mistake). The Greens would best consolidate their gains by highlighting how much more progressive they are than the LibDems.

[elwaclaret]

Fair enough, but Ringo is spinning these faster than a Chinese plate spinner on acid.

Its a sight to see

But the highlight is him having a go at Dsr over the British steel thing.

He just won't accept that its not as simple as he wants to make it.

Crikey, who saw that one coming?!?

Heavy industry has been on its pants since the seventies... it is why a Thatcher killed most off, and not one pm since has had the backbone to look too closely at the outside investment asset stripping that leaves the country far poorer and time has proved over and over does not safeguard jobs for anything but the short term.

Just more spin that it’s being blamed on Brexit for me. If you want a steel industry JC’s Labour Party is the only one willing to try and sort it out... whether you’d trust them to re -Nationalise them and then turn them around is another political question altogether.

[TVC15]

So what you are saying is that slightly less than 15% of the electorate wants to reverse the Brexit decision, which is way short of a majority, so it's full steam ahead for October 31st?

No that’s not what I am saying.
Have another go

[Colburn_Claret]

Heavy industry has been on its pants since the seventies... it is why a Thatcher killed most off, and not one pm since has had the backbone to look too closely at the outside investment asset stripping that leaves the country far poorer and time has proved over and over does not safeguard jobs for anything but the short term.

Just more spin that it’s being blamed on Brexit for me. If you want a steel industry JC’s Labour Party is the only one willing to try and sort it out... whether you’d trust them to re -Nationalise them and then turn them around is another political question altogether.

Not fishing Elwa, just genuinely don't know, but seeing as the EU won't allow us to save British Steel, it's against their rules, would they allow a Labour Government to Nationalise it. The second would cost a hell of a lot more than the first. If they would, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Can't save it, but ok to Nationalise it....

[Wile E Coyote]

the utter arrogance of those wanting a 2nd referendum is staggering !

they blame the old, the working class...anybody really who voted against them basically. Had the boot been on the other foot we would barely hear a word from them.
They suggest we know more now than we did in 2016, so what ? there was no great outcry saying the electorate needed three years to debate this before casting our votes.
Now look at the pathetic and insipid politicians we have supposedly representing us, what a shower of ****. and a disgrace to democracy.

[elwaclaret]

So what you are saying is that slightly less than 15% of the electorate wants to reverse the Brexit decision, which is way short of a majority, so it's full steam ahead for October 31st?

Fully expect Labour to decide on Remain platform from now, which will further alienate many traditional far left. The Conservative and Unionist party will absolutely have to go harder on Brexit as their core support clearly abandoned them to vote Brexit party. Think it has got far far less likely that we won’t leave again in October.

For my part not quite the Nationalist meltdown I was expecting but enough that Europe is in for a period of real turbulence, and the extremes have proved they are still gathering support... being part of a Nationalist Europe with right and left not agreeing on anything has always been the reason I wanted nothing to do with European government... economic instability creates political turmoil... in a Europe that is not traditionally too precious when it comes to democracy (historically and potentially) dictatorships are born.

[TVC15]

Are you deliberately obtuse, or just like fishing.
I said in the very post that you've just replied to, that the pundits had 35% voting for Parties wanting to Leave, and 35% voting for Parties that wanted to Remain. Now in my maths thats an even split, just like the referendum. Unless of course you want to pretend that all the other 30% want to remain as well, but couldn't be bothered to vote for a Party that was standing on that platform.
It's ok, that's the way the rest of the remainers on here think.

There is no argument, based on yesterdays results, to claim that the country want a 2nd vote. There was no evidence in that result to show the public had changed their mind, nothing, and without the evidence to support a 2nd vote, it's still a bunch of poor losers, crying in their glasses.

Why don’t you read the whole of your own post.
You said :

“The EE clearly show that despite the negative campaigning we still want to leave”

I said that the EE does not show that - it clearly doesn’t when only 12% of the electorate voted for the Brexit party.
That does not mean it shows that majority still want to leave or want to remain - it means that you cannot tell which way the country would vote based on euro elections where only just over 1 in 10 people voted.

It’s neither obtuse nor complicated - it’s just a bit of simple maths

[TVC15]

There is no argument, based on yesterdays results, to claim that the country want a 2nd vote. There was no evidence in that result to show the public had changed their mind, nothing, and without the evidence to support a 2nd vote, it's still a bunch of poor losers, crying in their glasses.

When you say no evidence, nothing - do you mean other than the Lib Dem’s and Green Party enjoying their best results in decades on the back of a clear stance of remain ?

Why are you so worried about a 2nd referendum anyway ? - you are pretty convinced it will go the same way. What’s the problem ?

[elwaclaret]

When you say no evidence, nothing - do you mean other than the Lib Dem’s and Green Party enjoying their best results in decades on the back of a clear stance of remain ?

Why are you so worried about a 2nd referendum anyway ? - you are pretty convinced it will go the same way. What’s the problem ?

Referendums are not a dice rolling game. They are a couple of times in a lifetime during most periods, we’re not Switzerland. They also not only take politicians away from doing their proper work but cost billions to do...

That Cameron was a moron for opening the wound is beyond question, by failing to deliver May has led to it festering. Many suspect this was her plan all along to thwart brexit.

As has been proved time and time again results just result in instant spin re-brexit, so what makes you think another referendum will create a new result in any less of a mess, besides all the time and money wasted? Europe will be sounding very different to the last few years by October, once all the nationalists (right and left) settle in.

[TVC15]

Referendums are not a dice rolling game. They are a couple of times in a lifetime during most periods, we’re not Switzerland. They also not only take politicians away from doing their proper work but cost billions to do...

That Cameron was a moron for opening the wound is beyond question, by failing to deliver May has led to it festering. Many suspect this was her plan all along to thwart brexit.

As has been proved time and time again results just result in instant spin re-brexit, so what makes you think another referendum will create a new result in any less of a mess, besides all the time and money wasted? Europe will be sounding very different to the last few years by October, once all the nationalists (right and left) settle in.

It’s not just a matter of calling for a 2nd referendum which is exactly the same as the first one though.
If any lessons have been learned from the last 3 years then any further referendum will be hopefully much more of an informed decision about the options - and probably more specific.
I say hopefully because 100% it will be full of predictions, contradictory economic forecasts and ambiguity in many areas.
Whatever the result the country will remain divided and whoever loses will not be happy and some will always campaign to either still leave or go back to joining Europe....there are people in both parties who still never got over the original referendum to join Europe !

[Lancasterclaret]

Pretty fair* analysis of last night here

https://nicktyrone.com/my-immediate-tak ... n-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*fair if you have a brain and actually use it occasionally, rather than just crashing out the same old bilge for the last three years

[nil_desperandum]

Didn't say you proposed it. Just made a minor point that you liked the post on this thread that was only about long term A50 revocation.

I've no problem with short term revocation either - I suggested it is last year on the basis we would not strike a deal before end of March.

I haven't followed what you've posted for three years. For what it's worth here's my consistent view for you to continue to pick holes in it if you like:

- I don't believe there should have been a referendum.

- I voted to remain.

- I think the UK needs to implement the outcome of the referendum hopefully agreeing a deal with the EU.  That should not include freedom of movement.

- I can understand why people think it'd be appropriate to hold a referendum, but equally I can see why people hold the opposite view.

- I don't want a no deal and would want a second referendum before that.

- I'm fundamentally opposed to revoking A50 on a long-term basis without another single topic vote i.e. specific referendum.

Ok, I agree with virtually all the above, so we are not so far apart. (The only issue on which we would disagree is on the "technicalities" of what we mean by "free movement", but let's not go there.)
With regards to the misunderstanding about "long term A50 revocation". I've looked back on the thread, and I think that I have found the post you refer to, and how the misunderstanding came about.
I assume you mean John McGreal's post in which he said the Labour Party should noow go all out on a revoke article 50 pledge. I did give that a "like" but only because he also said:

"Forget the second referendum. Obtain a clear and legitimate mandate to remain in the EU by winning enough seats in a general election to do just that."

In my view, that would - in fact - give it more not less legitimacy than a People's vote. (i.e. If Labour fought a GE with revoking article 50 as a main plank of their manifesto and secured an overall majority, or a majority with SNP support, then I personally think that they would have a mandate to revoke)
However, this would not be permanent, since any subsequent government could choose to trigger article 50 again. It's all perfectly democratic so long as the government has a parliamentary majority. This is the sovereign Parliament that is the basis of our democratic system. (And this incidentally is why neither you nor I believe that - in general - referenda should be held, (unless it's an absolutely binary issue, with no options available or attached).

[Devils_Advocate]

Pretty fair* analysis of last night here

https://nicktyrone.com/my-immediate-tak ... n-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*fair if you have a brain and actually use it occasionally, rather than just crashing out the same old bilge for the last three years

Very good article and a well articulated interpretation of this weeks events.

Unfortunately I doubt most on here would be able to get past the first eight words before getting all worked up and going back to the safety of their echo chamber and land of make believe

[dsr]

Pretty fair* analysis of last night here

https://nicktyrone.com/my-immediate-tak ... n-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*fair if you have a brain and actually use it occasionally, rather than just crashing out the same old bilge for the last three years

Are you saying that people who "crash out the same old bilge" for three years are necessarily without a brain? Because that group certainly incldes you!

The flaw in that article (or at least the bit I really don't like) is that never once does he mention the democratic effect of overturning the referendum. For him, it's a tactical battle to overturn a result unpopular with some; it's not a fundamental principle.

[Caballo]

Pretty fair* analysis of last night here

https://nicktyrone.com/my-immediate-tak ... n-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*fair if you have a brain and actually use it occasionally, rather than just crashing out the same old bilge for the last three years

Hoisted by your own petard there Lancs

[martin_p]

I didn’t vote as so fed up with it all. At least the Brexit Party will hold Juncker and the rest of the gravy train ( cue for some people in uproar over that term such as the resident troll) to account.

I thought the argument was that they couldn’t be held to account and that’s not democratic. Now you’re saying that who we send as MEPS makes a difference!

[LordBob]

The 2016 referendum result has not been implemented yet.

If we were to have a 2nd referendum it would mean that as a Leave voters, I would have to had won TWO referenda in order to have viewpoint implemented. Whereas, a remain voter would only have to have won ONE referendum to have their viewpoint implemented. How is that fair or democratic?

It's not.....

So simple, so well articulated, so right you are .

[Lancasterclaret]

Hoisted by your own petard there Lancs

I had an internal sweepstake on who'd be first to be that unoriginal.

I was wrong. Thought better of you to be honest.

The reality of the three years is pretty obvious. If you want Brexit, you ignore it, if you don't, you point out the problems and get people ignoring it because its not what they want to hear.

If we were making stuff up, then it would be obvious be now.

Thats why this is still going, because the Brexit promised is not going to be the Brexit that happens. No £350 million for the NHS, no sunlit uplands, no Europe doing what its told.

Reality people, is a real bitch the longer you ignore it.

[AndrewJB]

Should the government simply ignore the legal advice it's been given?

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Should it ignore the legal advice.


Yes




Or




No?

Not "should" but could they? Yes. The government often ignores legal advice. They knew for instance that much of their attack on benefits would be successfully challenged in court, but pressed ahead anyway. Numerous legal people have pointed out that the UK has been keeping the Chagos Islanders from their home illegaly for decades, and yet the government has done nothing to facilitate their return.

When did an EU official say "No can do" (or words to that effect) in regard to state aid toward British Steel?

[Quickenthetempo]

These losing politicians claiming victory are embarrassing and the main reason the country hates them at the moment. Absolute clueless.

Just admit defeat, tell the truth, no more spin and move on. Get better policies.

[Caballo]

I had an internal sweepstake on who'd be first to be that unoriginal.

I was wrong.

Your brain comment already had unoriginal covered.

[IanMcL]

I emailed Mr C, last night to tell him to resign!
I had had a couple of large Drambuie's, however, I remain, of that mind. He is a non-league and liability to progress.

The rest of the parties are naff anyway.

[Lancasterclaret]

These losing politicians claiming victory are embarrassing and the main reason the country hates them at the moment. Absolute clueless.

Just admit defeat, tell the truth, no more spin and move on. Get better policies.

Thats the problem highlighted Quick

Your side have not told the truth in 2016, 2017, 2018 and are continuing to in 2019.

Doesn't help at all.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good breakdown of the election results here

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status ... 2156428291" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Your brain comment already had unoriginal covered.

I had you down as quite bright. Oh well.

[Quickenthetempo]

Thats the problem highlighted Quick

Your side have not told the truth in 2016, 2017, 2018 and are continuing to in 2019.

Doesn't help at all.

Just my side?

[Lancasterclaret]

Just my side?

Does depend on which way you want to look at it.

To me, its inconceivable that this is still going on, and the only reason it is is because the original concept is so far away from what we have now (and that can work for both Brexiteers and remainers).

Its easy for me to deal with because I knew the original concept of the best possible Brexit wasn't possible, but a lot of Brexiteers still think its possible and refuse to accept that it isn't.

Then you have the likes of Colburn/Ringo/Dsr etc telling us that "No, we always knew it was going to be ****. Thats what we voted for".

Clearly it isn't, because this is still going on.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anne Widdecombe everyone

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1 ... Bi8zpc9Crs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

Does depend on which way you want to look at it.

To me, its inconceivable that this is still going on, and the only reason it is is because the original concept is so far away from what we have now (and that can work for both Brexiteers and remainers).

Its easy for me to deal with because I knew the original concept of the best possible Brexit wasn't possible, but a lot of Brexiteers still think its possible and refuse to accept that it isn't.

Then you have the likes of Colburn/Ringo/Dsr etc telling us that "No, we always knew it was going to be ****. Thats what we voted for".

Clearly it isn't, because this is still going on.

I said at the time, the deal with Canada had taken 7 years to produce, and that was with goodwill on both sides. With no goodwill on the EU side, and only 2 years, we had no chance.

As for knowing how bad it was going to be, obviously we knew. George Osbourne told us. 800,000 job losses, year long recession, growth dropping by between 3% and 6%, 12% fall in Sterling, house prices drop by 10%, inflation up by 3%, wages down by 4%, and £4,300 loss of income per household. We knew all that, and yet we still voted for it. Why? Because we thought the Treasury forecasts were wrong. And time has proved, all the short-term ones were indeed wrong, and I have little doubt the long-term ones will be too.

So unless you are saying that the overall effect post-Brexit will not only reverse the economic good news of the last three years, but will also produce negative effects as bad as what we were told before the election, then it's not valid to say we didn't know the effects. We were clearly told, and we took them into account.

Can you honestly say that the economic impact we have had so far is worse than was forecast in the pre-referendum campaign?

[Lancasterclaret]

I said at the time, the deal with Canada had taken 7 years to produce, and that was with goodwill on both sides. With no goodwill on the EU side, and only 2 years, we had no chance.

As for knowing how bad it was going to be, obviously we knew. George Osbourne told us. 800,000 job losses, year long recession, growth dropping by between 3% and 6%, 12% fall in Sterling, house prices drop by 10%, inflation up by 3%, wages down by 4%, and £4,300 loss of income per household. We knew all that, and yet we still voted for it. Why? Because we thought the Treasury forecasts were wrong. And time has proved, all the short-term ones were indeed wrong, and I have little doubt the long-term ones will be too.

So unless you are saying that the overall effect post-Brexit will not only reverse the economic good news of the last three years, but will also produce negative effects as bad as what we were told before the election, then it's not valid to say we didn't know the effects. We were clearly told, and we took them into account.

Can you honestly say that the economic impact we have had so far is worse than was forecast in the pre-referendum campaign?

No mention at all of the promises that were made in 2016 by the leave side?

Shock

[dsr]

Anne Widdecombe everyone

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1 ... Bi8zpc9Crs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We talk with the EU, of course. If the EU will talk to us. Is there any suggestion that we will be in purdah for evermore? If there is no deal and no negotiation before 31st October, then there will be after 1st November. Even the EU wouldn't be so ridiculous as to refuse to talk trade with its biggest partner, either because it was still sulking or for whatever other reason. Could they?

[Lancasterclaret]

We talk with the EU, of course. If the EU will talk to us. Is there any suggestion that we will be in purdah for evermore? If there is no deal and no negotiation before 31st October, then there will be after 1st November. Even the EU wouldn't be so ridiculous as to refuse to talk trade with its biggest partner, either because it was still sulking or for whatever other reason. Could they?

You watch that video again.

She's not all there mate.

[dsr]

No mention at all of the promises that were made in 2016 by the leave side?

Shock

The Leave party said it would be good after Brexit, the Remain party said it would be bad from the moment the result was announced. So far, the leave party hasn't had the chance to test its predictions because we haven't left; the Remain predictions have been tested and have been found to be wrong beyond the normal levels of Treasury incompetence. So why not talk about Remain election campaign failures for a change? How many people did they put off from voting Remain with their authoritative but entirely bogus "predictions"?

[Lancasterclaret]

The Leave party said it would be good after Brexit, the Remain party said it would be bad from the moment the result was announced. So far, the leave party hasn't had the chance to test its predictions because we haven't left; the Remain predictions have been tested and have been found to be wrong beyond the normal levels of Treasury incompetence. So why not talk about Remain election campaign failures for a change? How many people did they put off from voting Remain with their authoritative but entirely bogus "predictions"?

We haven't left. Unlike a lot of companies.

Course, all those companies that have left are just doing it because of "global economic pressures"

The longer we put off the reality of your economic nirvana the better to be perfectly honest.

[Lancasterclaret]

Pretty fair by Peston as well

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-27/did ... Q_B8jWHZe4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

We haven't left. Unlike a lot of companies.

Course, all those companies that have left are just doing it because of "global economic pressures"

The longer we put off the reality of your economic nirvana the better to be perfectly honest.

Have 820,000 jobs been lost because of the result? If it's less than 820,000, then it's no argument to say "we weren't informed", because we were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was using official statistics provided by the Treasury.

[RingoMcCartney]

So simple, so well articulated, so right you are .

Cheers fella

[RingoMcCartney]

Not "should" but could they? Yes. The government often ignores legal advice. They knew for instance that much of their attack on benefits would be successfully challenged in court, but pressed ahead anyway. Numerous legal people have pointed out that the UK has been keeping the Chagos Islanders from their home illegaly for decades, and yet the government has done nothing to facilitate their return.

When did an EU official say "No can do" (or words to that effect) in regard to state aid toward British Steel?

"Should it" or "could it". You say yes, it could. But you're behind the curve. The government has already made the decision. It's going to listen to its legal advisors.

Perhaps because it's aware of this-

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.

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

Unfortunately, yes. 

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.

What would be the point in attempting to break EU law when the precedent has been set in Belgium and Italy?

Anyway, you think they perhaps should. It's irrelevant, there not going to.

And as for when an EU official say "No can do, UK ". As far as I'm aware one hasn't. But, I didn't say anything official has. Its laws did. That's why I was absolutely correct when I said "the EU says "No can do UK"

And proved aggi, Marty p and Lancaster claret wrong once again. As for Iwillveyourwill, God knows what he thinks. He claimed he "fundamentally agreed with me" then when I confirmed that, he reckoned I was "misrepresenting " him. A strange character that's for sure.

[Lancasterclaret]

Think you've attempted to argue with both remainers and brexiteers on this British steel thing Ringo old chap.

I think we've all tried to tell you that its not as simple as you are making it to be.

if thats proving us all wrong, then hey, whatever floats your boat mate.

[RingoMcCartney]

Think you've attempted to argue with both remainers and brexiteers on this British steel thing Ringo old chap.

I think we've all tried to tell you that its not as simple as you are making it to be.

if thats proving us all wrong, then hey, whatever floats your boat mate.

And I've knocked each and everyone of you out of the park!

How? Simply sticking to the facts.

The government will not , following legal advice, breach EU law. FACT. It's not allowed to save British Steel.

Consequently, my assertion "The EU says - no can do UK" is bang on the money.

Dr Ruth Bender, , the government's legal advisors, the EU, and Ringo McCartney - several.

The usual gaggle of message board Remoaners- once again, zero.

[AndrewJB]

The Leave party said it would be good after Brexit, the Remain party said it would be bad from the moment the result was announced. So far, the leave party hasn't had the chance to test its predictions because we haven't left; the Remain predictions have been tested and have been found to be wrong beyond the normal levels of Treasury incompetence. So why not talk about Remain election campaign failures for a change? How many people did they put off from voting Remain with their authoritative but entirely bogus "predictions"?

Unfortunately the part of the remain campaign that received most press attention was that run by the Conservative Party. You got straightforward honesty from the Green Party, and Corbyn (7/10).

The leave campaign said a lot of things before the referendum, and although we haven't left yet there are a few facts we can check. The EU would be an easy negotiating partner, we hold all the cards anyway, and they'll be very ready to do a free trade deal with the UK - the easiest in history. We'd stay within the customs union in any case (we'd be mad to leave apparently). At the very least we'd keep most of the benefits. Countries would be lining up to do deals with us afterward. Turkey would join the EU within four years. I'll leave the bus to one side. The above information was repeated again and again. We were laughed at and accused of not having enough faith in the UK for expressing concern that these things might not come to pass. Now, three years later... Fine, the bus was recanted the morning after, and everyone insisted it was "metaphorical". But we know now that the pudding was massively over-egged. We hold all the cards? We had "brexit bulldog" David Davis heading the team, and still no joy. It's nearly three years later, and we still haven't worked out an acceptable withdrawal agreement. On this evidence what are the odds that the free trade deal will still be the easiest in history? We also know that Turkey isn't now joining the EU any time soon. So given how appallingly wrong they got things, how confident are you in their predictions of economic sunlit uplands once we leave?

The above relates only to the economic story, because as you probably know I as a UK citizen don't whatsoever feel any less free due to being European as well.

[Lancasterclaret]

Farage can't be removed as leader of the Brexit Party

Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

Jesus

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/11 ... 2294406145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bfcboyo]

It won't matter when the EU has collapsed in ten years time.

[AndrewJB]

"Should it" or "could it". You say yes, it could. But you're behind the curve. The government has already made the decision. It's going to listen to its legal advisors.

Perhaps because it's aware of this-

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.

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

Unfortunately, yes. 

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.

What would be the point in attempting to break EU law when the precedent has been set in Belgium and Italy?

Anyway, you think they perhaps should. It's irrelevant, there not going to.

And as for when an EU official say "No can do, UK ". As far as I'm aware one hasn't. But, I didn't say anything official has. Its laws did. That's why I was absolutely correct when I said "the EU says "No can do UK"

And proved aggi, Marty p and Lancaster claret wrong once again. As for Iwillveyourwill, God knows what he thinks. He claimed he "fundamentally agreed with me" then when I confirmed that, he reckoned I was "misrepresenting " him. A strange character that's for sure.

Further up the thread I remarked about how often these rules are broken by different countries, who perhaps see it in their national interest to do so when they do, or believe their actions will find their way through the loopholes (see the links below). And there is nothing to stop a country from nationalising parts of its economy. Read these links for yourself and you'll see there are ways in which the government can direct investment into the economy without falling foul of EU state aid rules. As one link shows, Britain uses legitimate state aid less than a quarter as much as Germany does, and nearly half of France's total. Even then, the EU can not stop us from breaking their rules on state aid. There is no EU bureaucrat to physically or otherwise prevent us from doing so. There was no letter from them saying; "we hear you're considering state aid, so we're telling you you can't" They can only look into it afterwards. Far from being correct, your statement; "EU says no can do" isn't. It would have to be changed to; "did you do?"

Far from being pushed around on this issue we are likely to be the country that pushed strongest for restrictive state aid rules.

https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/eu--c ... state-aid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.ippr.org/research/publicati ... and-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;