|
Post by venceremos on Jul 23, 2019 23:29:30 GMT 1
Be interesting to see who his cabinet is made up of. I think he'd be wise in including Hunt, that would unite the party. Excited and hopeful of seeing Francois, Baker, Rees-Mogg and Patel involved. I may be proudly socially liberal but I draw the line at anyone being excited at the prospect of seeing Francois, Baker (who?), Rees-Mogg & Patel involved in anything, never mind government. That should be an arrestable offence. We really are fishing up the dregs if they get anything. At least you didn’t mention Danny K If he gets something, that would just be beyond parody. Dimwit doesn’t begin to do justice to his never beginning talents.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 23, 2019 23:48:45 GMT 1
We cannot eliminate VAT on domestic fuel bills. This is a fact. EU state aid rules prohibit state aid. Who would have thought? You basically have no clue what you are talking about. Complete waste of time responding to your fact free drivel. Now I know you claimed never to have been wrong on EU-related matters but when you say the EU prohibits state aid you’re either being disingenuous or you don’t know what a notified state aid is. Either way your sarcasm looks rather silly. There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. A notified state aid when the European Commission decides whether to allow the aid to proceed. When the Commission 'decides'. Oops sorry, my bad we don't like that word do we. The Commission never decides anything does it.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 7:28:48 GMT 1
We cannot eliminate VAT on domestic fuel bills. This is a fact. EU state aid rules prohibit state aid. Who would have thought? You basically have no clue what you are talking about. Complete waste of time responding to your fact free drivel. There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Jul 24, 2019 7:59:42 GMT 1
There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. State aid is a bit of a red herring, as the UK has always been reluctant to provide such aid and has done so at levels below that of our European neighbours. Therefore, the restricitions on the aid that EU members can provide (of which we are part of the decision making process) are generally to our benefit. Also, while narrower in scope, the WTO also has rules about subsidies and aid. If you trade with other countries you are going to be bound by some extra-national rules to some degree. We are not operating in some kind of national bubble where we can do whatever we please, although this is how the idea of "sovereignty" seems to be viewed by some.
|
|
|
Post by highlandshrew on Jul 24, 2019 8:01:19 GMT 1
There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. Yes, but that's not what Drew said. His statement that 'EU state aid rules prohibit state aid' is just plain wrong, like a lot of what he and other leave supporters tend to write and choose to believe. I'm all in favour of informed debate on this subject, but I will always check 'facts' that are used in support of any argument and challenge them where necessary. Unfortunately it seems we now have a PM who isn't so careful with his words.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 8:23:43 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. Yes, but that's not what Drew said. His statement that 'EU state aid rules prohibit state aid' is just plain wrong, like a lot of what he and other leave supporters tend to write and choose to believe. I'm all in favour of informed debate on this subject, but I will always check 'facts' that are used in support of any argument and challenge them where necessary. Unfortunately it seems we now have a PM who isn't so careful with his words. Sure, then that is incorrect. The EU does not prohibit state aid. But on the question of sovereignty, my point still stands.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 8:36:22 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. State aid is a bit of a red herring, as the UK has always been reluctant to provide such aid and has done so at levels below that of our European neighbours. Therefore, the restricitions on the aid that EU members can provide (of which we are part of the decision making process) are generally to our benefit. Also, while narrower in scope, the WTO also has rules about subsidies and aid. If you trade with other countries you are going to be bound by some extra-national rules to some degree. We are not operating in some kind of national bubble where we can do whatever we please, although this is how the idea of "sovereignty" seems to be viewed by some. Well to be honest I think people who say things like 'the UK has always been reluctant to provide such aid' is a bit of a red herring. Or when discussing VAT people think its necessary to point out who set the level in the first place. That isn't what is being discussed here, its about where the decisions are made and by whom. Whether the Tories, Labour or whoever would chose to or not to is by the by. Agree with you on the second point though and that is very much touched on in the political declaration. If Brexit does come about and we wish to trade with others then these things will be negotiated with and agreed on with trading partners.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 24, 2019 8:47:48 GMT 1
The VAT thing is another red herring, we’ve always had a sales tax. I got my first job in retail in 1968 when Purchase Tax on so called luxury goods was 50%.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 24, 2019 9:05:55 GMT 1
There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. It boils down to whether you consider the impact on sovereignty to be 'worth it' for the membership brings. The issue is that some remainers like to claim EU membership has no impact on sovereignty. Why they try to argue this I have no idea.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 24, 2019 9:08:40 GMT 1
Yes, but that's not what Drew said. His statement that 'EU state aid rules prohibit state aid' is just plain wrong, like a lot of what he and other leave supporters tend to write and choose to believe. I'm all in favour of informed debate on this subject, but I will always check 'facts' that are used in support of any argument and challenge them where necessary. Unfortunately it seems we now have a PM who isn't so careful with his words. Sure, then that is incorrect. The EU does not prohibit state aid. But on the question of sovereignty, my point still stands. There is a general prohibition subject to some limited exceptions contained in hugely complex legislation with the decision ultimately resting with the unelected EU commission. Seems like a perfect example of how EU membership impacts upon the sovereignty of member states to me.... Even the arch remainer Greg Clark admitted we couldn't help British Steel because of EU state aid rules.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 9:24:56 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. Why they try to argue this I have no idea. No, neither do I. But then I don't really get the sovereignty thing either to be honest. Appreciate it is important to many but I don't feel that way, I'm easy. Whether that could change in the future, dunno. But at the moment, I don't get it. Not knocking it, I just don't get it..👍
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 9:30:58 GMT 1
Sure, then that is incorrect. The EU does not prohibit state aid. But on the question of sovereignty, my point still stands. There is a general prohibition subject to some limited exceptions contained in hugely complex legislation with the decision ultimately resting with the unelected EU commission. Seems like a perfect example of how EU membership impacts upon the sovereignty of member states to me.... Even the arch remainer Greg Clark admitted we couldn't help British Steel because of EU state aid rules. Yeah but to say prohibit would suggest it is not permissible at all. That's clearly not the case. I think that is what people are pulling you up on. 👍 And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure I would believe everything we hear from those making contributions on such things when it comes to what goes and what not. Greg Clark may say one thing but that hugely complex legislation may say something entirely different. Think we have to take things said with a bit of scepticism. Not looked into it but I don't have confidence that our MP's know everything about how the EU works.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 24, 2019 9:35:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 24, 2019 9:41:23 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. It boils down to whether you consider the impact on sovereignty to be 'worth it' for the membership brings. The issue is that some remainers like to claim EU membership has no impact on sovereignty. Why they try to argue this I have no idea. Drew just could not bring himself to write "benefits" as in "for the benefits membership brings". If there is anything you don't like as a member you stay in and fight, like the French and Germans have from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 9:42:11 GMT 1
I'm sure he'll be reminded of that come his first PMQs...
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 24, 2019 9:46:42 GMT 1
It boils down to whether you consider the impact on sovereignty to be 'worth it' for the membership brings. The issue is that some remainers like to claim EU membership has no impact on sovereignty. Why they try to argue this I have no idea. Drew just could not bring himself to write "benefits" as in "for the benefits membership brings". If there is anything you don't like as a member you stay in and fight, like the French and Germans have from the outset. Typo sorry - on a phone. Membership obviously brings benefits and burdens.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 24, 2019 12:39:29 GMT 1
Now I know you claimed never to have been wrong on EU-related matters but when you say the EU prohibits state aid you’re either being disingenuous or you don’t know what a notified state aid is. Either way your sarcasm looks rather silly. There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. A notified state aid when the European Commission decides whether to allow the aid to proceed. When the Commission 'decides'. Oops sorry, my bad we don't like that word do we. The Commission never decides anything does it. It wouldn't make sense for members of a trading bloc to embark on state aid projects that distorted competition though, would it? That's what agreements are - a voluntary restriction of each party's freedom to do whatever they want because the greater benefit is obtained by acting in unison. You may hang your hat on supposed "sovereignty" but it's always compromised and always will be. There are no self-sufficient nations. At least you've acknowledged, however grudgingly, that there is such a thing as state aid within the EU. It would have been nice if you'd conceded that your earlier post was misleading but that was always going to be too much to hope for from the "never wrong" one.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 24, 2019 13:07:58 GMT 1
There is a general prohibition, true, rightly intended to prevent distortion of competition and trade between members. However, there’s also a structure for member states to provide targeted aid provided certain criteria are met. The UK’s provision of enhanced tax relief for companies spending on R&D is a prime example of such a notified state aid. But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. Despite Drew banging on about "hugely complex legislation" (does he think legislation is usually short and simple? Let me show him some that I work with - all UK, I hasten to add), the procedures are straightforward enough that member nations can develop their own targeted state aid programmes, as the UK has done. Would it be better to spend millions endlessly subsidising British Steel's losing battle or direct it towards innovative science and technology-based work, as the UK does? It's not a restriction on the levels of state aid per se - around £20 billion has been paid to UK companies via the R&D tax relief scheme since it began, all within the EU - it's an insistence that such aid is targeted and non-distorting. The member states set the criteria for state aid, motivated by mutual self-interest. The EU is simply the sum of its members, not some alien umbrella body dropped on top of them, as brexiteers seem to believe. The question of sovereignty has been reduced to an all-or-nothing silliness. Every nation compromises, concedes something here to gain something there - no exceptions. The only real question is whether there's a mutually beneficial deal. With the EU I say there is, Drew says not but it's not really about sovereignty either way. If we leave the EU on 31 October, on 1 November we'll be looking for new agreements that will compromise our supposed "sovereignty".
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Jul 24, 2019 13:11:30 GMT 1
The situation with regards a GE looks murky as hell to be fair.
According to Robert Peston, Matt Hancock ("Boris' representative on earth") has ruled out an electoral pact with the Brexit party. Swinson seems unlikely to want to a deal with Corbyn but is also on record as saying she will do whatever it takes to stop Brexit which seems to rule out a reprise of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.
Some kind of alliance would have to happen for any of the parties to get close to a majority. Greens polling 9% seems to make them kingmaker and rule out a Con/Brexit majority (particularly if their votes swing to Labour in a GE as has happened in the past and whatever moderate Tories are left switch to the LDs in disgust at a pact with Farage and co, the LDs having cannily elected Swinson to mop them up).
Will Labour's endorsement of a second referendum be enough to get the Lib Dems onside? Either way, calling an election pre Brexit looks like it could be a catastrophic miscalculation on a par with May's attempt to "Crush the Saboteurs".
If Brexit matters above all else then the only choice is for BoJo to push on without going to the people. I don't doubt that that's his intention (or, more accurately, the intention of those pulling his strings) but whether he actually makes it that far remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by highlandshrew on Jul 24, 2019 14:45:36 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. It boils down to whether you consider the impact on sovereignty to be 'worth it' for the membership brings. The issue is that some remainers like to claim EU membership has no impact on sovereignty. Why they try to argue this I have no idea. And the other side of that coin is that some leavers like to claim that leaving the EU will result in total freedom to do as we like, when in reality that is not the case. For example, if we leave the EU without a negotiated trade deal we will revert to WTO rules. However, as this House of Commons paper shows, we will still have restrictions on State Aid, including prohibition on some things. WTO Agreement on subsidies
In addition to EU state aid rules, the UK is party to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Under the Agreement, some subsidies are prohibited outright while the rest are ‘actionable’ – meaning that the subsidy is allowed, but other countries can take certain actions if the subsidy harms them. Countries can protect their industries by taxing imports of the subsidised good – this is known as imposing a ‘countervailing duty’.'Taking back control' may seem attractive in principle, but in practice it presents a different set of challenges. To this end I note you still haven't answered the question about whether parliament blocking a 'no-deal' exit from the EU would be a demonstration of the 'sovereignty' you seem to yearn for.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2019 15:00:18 GMT 1
But then who sets that criteria and who determines whether it has been met? And member states must therefore work within this criteria as anything else would be a breach of EU rules. So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but could be refused to do so. If you join the club then of course you must play by the rules. But its clear that for many people ceding these decisions to a supranational body isn't their thing. Hence the question of sovereignty. Despite Drew banging on about "hugely complex legislation" (does he think legislation is usually short and simple? Let me show him some that I work with - all UK, I hasten to add), the procedures are straightforward enough that member nations can develop their own targeted state aid programmes, as the UK has done. Would it be better to spend millions endlessly subsidising British Steel's losing battle or direct it towards innovative science and technology-based work, as the UK does? It's not a restriction on the levels of state aid per se - around £20 billion has been paid to UK companies via the R&D tax relief scheme since it began, all within the EU - it's an insistence that such aid is targeted and non-distorting. The member states set the criteria for state aid, motivated by mutual self-interest. The EU is simply the sum of its members, not some alien umbrella body dropped on top of them, as brexiteers seem to believe. The question of sovereignty has been reduced to an all-or-nothing silliness. Every nation compromises, concedes something here to gain something there - no exceptions. The only real question is whether there's a mutually beneficial deal. With the EU I say there is, Drew says not but it's not really about sovereignty either way. If we leave the EU on 31 October, on 1 November we'll be looking for new agreements that will compromise our supposed "sovereignty". So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but would find themselves unable to do so, they could be refused to do so? So surely when it comes to state aid, the UK has ceded power and decision making to the EU? Is the UK not bound and constrained to what state aid it can and can not provide by EU membership? As far as I can tell, it is. You are of course right in that the EU is nothing more than the will of its members but as you say, that is brought about by collaboration and compromise. It is an agreement brought about by the interests of all 28 members and then it goes further in that power is then ceded by those member states to the supranational EU. I think we all understand that, even those who voted leave. Its just that many people would rather not see such power ceded to the EU. Perhaps because they may think that certain policies go against their best interests or (and this seems to be the beef with many who voted to leave) they don't wish to see control and responsibility ceded to some third party entity. And with all that said, you might well be right in that such agreements may need to remain if we wish to continue trading with the EU. The political declaration would suggest so. I mean the rules with regards state aid and an unfair advantage would still seem relevant. We wait and see. But I do think this is about sovereignty; some people are happy that the UK does cede such power and responsibility to the EU, some are positively enthusiastic about it because they see the EU as a force for good, others not so much.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 24, 2019 16:05:14 GMT 1
Despite Drew banging on about "hugely complex legislation" (does he think legislation is usually short and simple? Let me show him some that I work with - all UK, I hasten to add), the procedures are straightforward enough that member nations can develop their own targeted state aid programmes, as the UK has done. Would it be better to spend millions endlessly subsidising British Steel's losing battle or direct it towards innovative science and technology-based work, as the UK does? It's not a restriction on the levels of state aid per se - around £20 billion has been paid to UK companies via the R&D tax relief scheme since it began, all within the EU - it's an insistence that such aid is targeted and non-distorting. The member states set the criteria for state aid, motivated by mutual self-interest. The EU is simply the sum of its members, not some alien umbrella body dropped on top of them, as brexiteers seem to believe. The question of sovereignty has been reduced to an all-or-nothing silliness. Every nation compromises, concedes something here to gain something there - no exceptions. The only real question is whether there's a mutually beneficial deal. With the EU I say there is, Drew says not but it's not really about sovereignty either way. If we leave the EU on 31 October, on 1 November we'll be looking for new agreements that will compromise our supposed "sovereignty". So is it true to say that under EU rules, members are only allowed to provide state aid within the guidelines set by the EU and/or with the approval from the EU? So is it true to say that the levels of state aid that the UK can provide is determined by its membership of the EU? So its conceivable that the UK (or any other member state) may wish to provide state aid but would find themselves unable to do so, they could be refused to do so? So surely when it comes to state aid, the UK has ceded power and decision making to the EU? Is the UK not bound and constrained to what state aid it can and can not provide by EU membership? As far as I can tell, it is. You are of course right in that the EU is nothing more than the will of its members but as you say, that is brought about by collaboration and compromise. It is an agreement brought about by the interests of all 28 members and then it goes further in that power is then ceded by those member states to the supranational EU. I think we all understand that, even those who voted leave. Its just that many people would rather not see such power ceded to the EU. Perhaps because they may think that certain policies go against their best interests or (and this seems to be the beef with many who voted to leave) they don't wish to see control and responsibility ceded to some third party entity. And with all that said, you might well be right in that such agreements may need to remain if we wish to continue trading with the EU. The political declaration would suggest so. I mean the rules with regards state aid and an unfair advantage would still seem relevant. We wait and see. But I do think this is about sovereignty; some people are happy that the UK does cede such power and responsibility to the EU, some are positively enthusiastic about it because they see the EU as a force for good, others not so much. I think the perception some have that this is all about sovereignty is a misperception because every nation has to cede some aspects of sovereignty. I wouldn't say I see the EU as a "force for good", more as a force for the benefit of its self-interested members, which might be good or might not. The point is, with or without the EU, the UK will always cede aspects of its sovereignty in reaching agreement with supranational organisations (like NATO etc) and trading partners. On the state aid point, yes, the EU sets the criteria for its members. But it's not so much what you refer to as "the level" of state aid that is restricted as the type and target of such aid. Sticking with my example of a notified UK state aid (R&D tax relief), it's up to the UK government how that's operated, who can benefit and to what extent. Others might want to return to an industrial policy of throwing money at ailing industries but our history suggests this is a waste of resources. It's simply a sensible strategy not to permit unfair competition within a common trading bloc, hence the targeting rather than a literal blank cheque for member states. It does amuse me to see some on the right bemoaning any restriction of state aid. I bet they wouldn't be making that argument if we had a Labour government.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Jul 24, 2019 16:10:39 GMT 1
Need to change the title of the thread to Boris is Prime Minister.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 16:27:32 GMT 1
Great speech.... which signals a GE prior to Oct 31st....
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 24, 2019 16:52:43 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 16:55:34 GMT 1
Great speech.... which signals a GE prior to Oct 31st.... MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 24, 2019 17:05:02 GMT 1
Considering he’s wanted to be PM for decades that speech outside Downing Street was dire, as was yesterday’s when he accepted the Conservative leadership. He really needs to get some writers in to help him as it was painful watching that, he committed to pledges he has no hope of delivering
More importantly it was economically incoherent which for a Conservative PM is political suicide. Think we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of the Conservatives being the party of business
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Jul 24, 2019 17:09:47 GMT 1
Great speech.... which signals a GE prior to Oct 31st.... I think the new PM and his team know the chances of a general election and his speech today reflects that with Johnson setting out his stall against Labour. In 2017 Labour made hay on education and police numbers. Johnston is already nullifying that. He's made his brexit position clear, labour don't have one and then there's the economy. Labour want to spend £100 billion on nationalising utilities, they got away with that in 2017 due to the weak and feeble May.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 24, 2019 17:40:26 GMT 1
Well one good thing today is that finally failing grayling isn't going to be in cabinet, small things
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 24, 2019 17:42:38 GMT 1
Looking at his list of promises today Johnson is living in cloud cuckoo land.
|
|