State aid rules are there to stop subsidised companies unfairly competing with non subsidised ones: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
State aid rules are there to stop subsidised companies unfairly competing with non subsidised ones: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html
And "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Of course State aid rules are there for a purpose, but they are also circumvented when it suits, similarly the EU has not had true independent audits of its finances in 12 years, they use an EU Register of Auditors.
See that's where I can't follow the British thinking anymore (at all). It's preposterous to expect the EU to give KPMG, PWC or any other assortment of international "accountants" millions for them to give their opinion on EU spending. Obviously there need to be checks & balances, one can argue for more, but to expect them to be external is bizarre.
Forgive a dumb question, but who independently audits the UK's finances?
I have no idea, specifically who, but as far as I am aware auditors appointed on behalf of the crown report to the HoP, as well as via the Audit Office.
Thanks, I was really wondering if they are any more independent than the EU's are. They may well be, I don't know.
Why is it bizarre? Through their individual Governments, tax payers across the 28 countries are paying into the EU pot, surely they are entitled to an independent audit of whether that money is spent correctly (as intended) and efficiently and what measures are being used to confirm these outcomes. Such actions would go a long way to silencing the EU's detractors.
Funny how the UK electorate are so worried about what happens to their £8bn a year that goes to the EU whereas most of them haven't got a clue what happens to the £817bn the UK government spends. Jokers.
The UK government does not waste money - it is in the hands of highly competent ministers like Chris Grayling.
Because literally no government I know of does it. How are auditors appointed on behalf of the crown any more independent from her majesty's government than EU auditors are from the EU?
HS2 Service Pack 6
A company probably would know if a competitor was being unfairly subsidised and can take it to court. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/intro_en.html
things you shouldn't say if you're trying to get a second referendumSoubry said:
She’s talking about 1975 presumably. The 2016 referendum didn’t so much lance the boil as turn it into a bubonic plague bubo.
nope
Ah, Scottish then I suppose...
To be honest the 2014 referendum would have lanced the boil had it not been followed up by the 2016 referendum which destroyed the argument that leaving the UK meant leaving the EU.
That would actually be great for Remain - split the leave vote quite nicely I imagine.
Them not taking no deal Brexit off the table means they secretly want it.
That's the line isn't it?
For the most part I dont try to look beyond the immutable truth that they are all just trying to further their own careers.
Wouldn't it be hard to hold a second referendum in good democratic faith if you just rule out hard next for people in advance?
One of the arguments against any particular option is that the original referendum didn't specify what kind of Brexit was to be implemented if you follow that logic you can't exclude no deal without disrespecting the first vote.
One of the arguments against any particular option is that the original referendum didn't specify what kind of Brexit was to be implemented if you follow that logic you can't exclude no deal without disrespecting the first vote.
That's nonsense though isn't it?
Food security is enhanced by having many diverse suppliers not restricting supply to only EU countries. Its also an argument which isn't given any credence in any of the other "basis of life" essentials like energy supply for example.
See it for what it is pure protectionism, set up to appease powerful self interest groups which the various countries political leaders cow down to.
It also deprives developing economies of markets they need to improve their economies by selling something they can make money at and do cheaper than us.
Meanwhile our own competitive businesses pay the penalty because we must protect our farmers at all costs in any trade deal and its the first thing cited as an excuse by other countries not to open their markets to us.
Neither is the food supply restricted to "only EU countries" nor does keeping the ability to grow your own foods curtail your ability to source food from outside.
Simply not true. The same is done with water and the NHS. Most European countries would very much like to source their own oil or natural gas, if it was there to source to begin with.
That's your opinion and not true for a lot of the 28 member countries.
Or alternatively it keeps developing countries citizens from having to compete with much richer customers for food on an absolutely level playing field. Worth remembering that the island of Ireland was still exporting food during the famine!
You're calling it an "excuse" yourself. Don't think they'd come up with another if we'd get rid of this one?
Well strictly speaking it could be argued that the Remain Option lost the first referendum, so then as an option its taken off the ballot sheet, i.e.if there is to be a second referendum it should only be about how we leave, the two responses to:
Which form of Brexit do you wish to see actioned?
being either;
1) May's Deal or
2) No Deal (WTO)
of course a Revoke A50, option could be legitimately put to the public in a third referendum, if there is no clear majority (say two-thirds) between 1 or 2 above?
They could have it plastered on the side of a train:
"Instead of spending £63bn on HS2 why not have 8 years of EU membership and save the economy!"
I won't derail the thread any further than this post but you are all over the place with your arguments here.
Of course subsidising farming and setting quotas curtails your ability to source from outside, that's the whole point of it, to stop EU citizens from buying cheaper food from outside by taxing them and using the taxes raised to pay for farming that couldn't compete otherwise and when that doesn't work set quotas. If the other sources can't sell into lucrative markets like the EU then they don't produce it and can't develop the agricultural industries as there is no return. Then the EU dumps its surplus on their market and destroys their ability to produce enough food for themselves. There is a reason CAP is loathed by food producers around the world and they have a valid point.
Meanwhile we all pay more for our food which might not be very important to you but its a major cost to the poorest, they are burdened with it in order to protect the income of some of the wealthiest people in Europe. Agriculture is less than 2% of EU GDP and employment in agriculture has halved since the 90's yet the EU spends 40% of it budget subsidising agriculture through CAP. It is utter madness to continue with this policy but the proposed 5% reduction for the next round of spending is already opposed by France and Spain.
This is not about temporary support during the occasional downs this is ongoing massive support of failing businesses in a sector that falls further and further behind the rest of the world. Its wasteful, corrupt, immoral and deeply counter productive but the EU loves it and people who love the EU go to any lengths like citing like the potato famine from 1840's to try and justify continuing with it.
I'm all over the place with my arguments because I am directly addressing yours, something you are failing to do here (once again).
I agree that the dumping of surplus is a problem, the rest of the points you raise are ideological and not in the interests of ordinary citizens. But since you're not interested in derailing this thread, never mind. The EU is in no way perfect and certain things need changing, but it's not responsible for "keeping poorer economies from developing", "too high grocery prices" or any of the other stuff you claim. Go to any US supermarket (or Switzerland, Canada, Norway) and compare.
For what its worth i find supermarkets in UK amazingly cheap and thats why i usually bring back a suitcase full of food stuffs. Next trip 17th may, cant wait.
You won't be able to do that when the Uk have left.
Yeah i will
Smuggling?
Course
As expected the Labour hierarchy attempted to sneak in a European Election Manifesto with no mention of a second referendum, but under pressure have now said they will decide their policy on Tuesday. Be interesting to see if Corbyn backs down or not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48078468
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48078468
Complete collapse from UKIP then as they descend into being utterly fecking mental.
In the EU elections Farage will 'hoover up' a lot of UKIP's former votes in his new Brexit party, he is also set to decimate Labour in the North and strip out the Tories in the Shires.
Lets face it the EU election is Farage's 'home turf' and (if they go ahead) and he wins, he will count it as the second referendum and Remain will have shot its self in the foot, by splitting its vote between the minor parties, Labour and a handful of remain Tories.
Tons of pressure now on May and the EU to sort Brexit before the EU Elections and avoid giving Farage a field day!
So that is 73% for parties committed to leaving the EU as it stands and 45% at least pro leaving even if Labour decides to put a 2nd ref in their manifesto. Plus any leave voters who switch following a Labour decision to do so.
Do you know what the polls are saying on voting remain versus leave if there is a 2nd ref on Brexit?
I think that the UK are gonna need to go through a Jon Snow type resurrection on Game of Thrones.
Jon Snow made a vow to stay in the Night's Watch until he died. Then he got stabbed and was brought back to life. He got out of his vow on a technicality.
Brexit has to happen. But I think that when it does, we'll try and make it easy to rejoin on a second referendum. We'll need to get out and in on a technicality.
I don't foresee a People's Vote before a Brexit. Leaving needs to be the first step before rejoining. That's the best that Parliament will ever consent to. It's also why voting intention looks pro-Brexit. I reckon if you ask people whether it's better to remain or leave they'll say 'remain'. But they won't vote that way in the short term for the sake of the integrity of British democracy.
Jon Snow made a vow to stay in the Night's Watch until he died. Then he got stabbed and was brought back to life. He got out of his vow on a technicality.
Brexit has to happen. But I think that when it does, we'll try and make it easy to rejoin on a second referendum. We'll need to get out and in on a technicality.
I don't foresee a People's Vote before a Brexit. Leaving needs to be the first step before rejoining. That's the best that Parliament will ever consent to. It's also why voting intention looks pro-Brexit. I reckon if you ask people whether it's better to remain or leave they'll say 'remain'. But they won't vote that way in the short term for the sake of the integrity of British democracy.
Not much wiggle room there and a conservative style implosion potentially is they don't
Suspect they will try and fudge it around a confirmentry refefendum under unspecified circumstances?
Still think the conservatives might not even put up candidates for the European election on principal (the real principal being they don't want the humiliation and can spin this as taking the moral high ground as labour remainers thwart brexit)
You would think there would be no wiggle room, but if this link is correct they were just ignored.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...WpK3uLfLyHnx90LRSVa-L3MzRDdX-kVIlb7PHVLrBDv2O
You could be right about the Tories but they're going to look bad whatever they do, and rightly so.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...WpK3uLfLyHnx90LRSVa-L3MzRDdX-kVIlb7PHVLrBDv2O
You could be right about the Tories but they're going to look bad whatever they do, and rightly so.