FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > eu level playing field
eu level playing field
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules.  who is cherry picking now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news."
Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry."
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine "
Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs."
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds."
It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu.  You really have lost the plot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot."
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip."
Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive. "
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up."
No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now? "
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide. "
Yes but in this country we sell off our strategic assets unlike the french or germans so that shareholders can make a profit at any cost to the business. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide. "
I missed that. 3% of it's output.
Still good though. It actually turns out that Network Rail is pretty dependent on them.
Yet British Steel remains unviable.
Again, how many times has BS had its debt written off, had loans guaranteed and been invested in?
What miraculous change happens this time? The British government stops putting work out to tender, but buys exclusively from one company regardless of price? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide.
I missed that. 3% of it's output.
Still good though. It actually turns out that Network Rail is pretty dependent on them.
Yet British Steel remains unviable.
Again, how many times has BS had its debt written off, had loans guaranteed and been invested in?
What miraculous change happens this time? The British government stops putting work out to tender, but buys exclusively from one company regardless of price?"
You cant get your head around that its better to keep people employed and everyone who surrounds them? If and that is if they had to pay a bit more for the steel it would still work out cheaper than decimating port talbot or scunthorpe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide.
I missed that. 3% of it's output.
Still good though. It actually turns out that Network Rail is pretty dependent on them.
Yet British Steel remains unviable.
Again, how many times has BS had its debt written off, had loans guaranteed and been invested in?
What miraculous change happens this time? The British government stops putting work out to tender, but buys exclusively from one company regardless of price?You cant get your head around that its better to keep people employed and everyone who surrounds them? If and that is if they had to pay a bit more for the steel it would still work out cheaper than decimating port talbot or scunthorpe."
I'm perfectly able to "get my head around" the arithmetic of paying to keep people in work rather than paying for them to be unemployed.
Another assertion without evidence from you and an attempt to characterise me in a particular way rather than just discuss the point.
Steel manufacture is also a strategic industry and there may well be a critical mass needed to maintain it. I don't know what that level is, and I doubt that you do either.
However, when you start to distort the market and you spend your scarce resource in maintaining old technology rather than moving up the value chain with new ones then you fall behind as a country.
What should be happening is finding ways to provide the correct education, communication and transport links to make every part of the country a viable location for new companies and industries to locate.
Your plan is great though. A backward looking dream that we can all get behind  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide.
I missed that. 3% of it's output.
Still good though. It actually turns out that Network Rail is pretty dependent on them.
Yet British Steel remains unviable.
Again, how many times has BS had its debt written off, had loans guaranteed and been invested in?
What miraculous change happens this time? The British government stops putting work out to tender, but buys exclusively from one company regardless of price?You cant get your head around that its better to keep people employed and everyone who surrounds them? If and that is if they had to pay a bit more for the steel it would still work out cheaper than decimating port talbot or scunthorpe.
I'm perfectly able to "get my head around" the arithmetic of paying to keep people in work rather than paying for them to be unemployed.
Another assertion without evidence from you and an attempt to characterise me in a particular way rather than just discuss the point.
Steel manufacture is also a strategic industry and there may well be a critical mass needed to maintain it. I don't know what that level is, and I doubt that you do either.
However, when you start to distort the market and you spend your scarce resource in maintaining old technology rather than moving up the value chain with new ones then you fall behind as a country.
What should be happening is finding ways to provide the correct education, communication and transport links to make every part of the country a viable location for new companies and industries to locate.
Your plan is great though. A backward looking dream that we can all get behind "
Get over yourself mate its not all about you its about eu protectionist rules to stop the uk helping uk companies and people, i cant believe you are so eu blinkered that you cant see that or maybe you can and just disagree with everything posted to get attention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?"
there are two different issues going on here.... they are being conflated...so let seperate them and the allegations that are being...
a) brexiteers always look at alitalia and complain they circumvent state rules... the italian government CAN subsidise it based on national interest and security rules! (the way that germany subsidise Deutsche Bahn, the french SNCF, ect ect edct....) as long as it being used as a market entity!
the issue in this particular case is alitalia are being accuse of the subsidy being used to undercut competative routes.. which is a no no!
b) in the FlyBe case, what they are asking for is a delay in a tax bill being paid (not its cancellation!!!) so that it can thru the winter months and pay it in the summer...
the reason why BA are complaining is that if FlyBe were to go bust they don't want to the regional routes they run... they want the Heathrow Slots they have to be able to run intercontinental routes!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Italy has been the most corrupt country in europe for decades and the irony in your post is that the EU are actually doing a pretty good job of reining in the more overt forms of corruption hence this is actually news.Pity we were not so intent on following the rules we could have bailed out the steel industry.
If you give an industry state aid WTO rules allow other countries to raise tariffs.
See Airbus and Boeing and all of the steel and aluminium cases.
You'd know this as you think a WTO relationship with the EU would be fine Your point is? It allows countries to raise tariffs if the state aid produces a cheaper product not if it saves an industry and jobs.
Any state subsidy is actionable if it prejudices another country. It doesn't have to make it cheaper.
The fact that it exists when it is not commercially viable and selling a competing product that displaces their own is grounds.It was designed to stop the flood of state aid funded cheap goods hence the tariffs on chinese steel when they flooded the market which i presume you know.So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
We could have put tariffs on Chinese steel but we voted against imposing them whilst in the EU.
Our fault to begin with.
British Steel has gone through several owners now. Debts have been written off but it appears to remain not to be viable. It could now also face standard WTO steel tariffs to the EU which it currently doesn't.
What do expect this state aid to achieve if it cannot be made viable in the private sector? "Turned around" by doing what?
Ironically the latest potential purchaser is Chinese.
Don't make the foolish assertion that I somehow "want" people to lose their jobs. What a crappy pretence to try and paint the person you're debating with as uncaring.
Get a grip.Sometimes companies need cash injections to turn them round do you get that ? this government is now embarking on massive spending in infrastructure and now we are outside the eu rules enable to buy our own steel instead of putting it out to tender,a ready made market.Yes it seems to me you are happy for people to lose their jobs to keep your european utopia dream alive.
How many times has this happened with British Steel already?
It does not make steel for infrastructure. It makes specialist, high value products.
You are making stuff up.No you are a little excerpt from BS A commitment to technological innovation enables the business to offer total customer solutions built on British Steel's core strengths of metallurgy and manufacturing excellence. ... We offer a wide range of steel rail products for global railway applications, combined with vast experience of supplying rail worldwide.
I missed that. 3% of it's output.
Still good though. It actually turns out that Network Rail is pretty dependent on them.
Yet British Steel remains unviable.
Again, how many times has BS had its debt written off, had loans guaranteed and been invested in?
What miraculous change happens this time? The British government stops putting work out to tender, but buys exclusively from one company regardless of price?You cant get your head around that its better to keep people employed and everyone who surrounds them? If and that is if they had to pay a bit more for the steel it would still work out cheaper than decimating port talbot or scunthorpe.
I'm perfectly able to "get my head around" the arithmetic of paying to keep people in work rather than paying for them to be unemployed.
Another assertion without evidence from you and an attempt to characterise me in a particular way rather than just discuss the point.
Steel manufacture is also a strategic industry and there may well be a critical mass needed to maintain it. I don't know what that level is, and I doubt that you do either.
However, when you start to distort the market and you spend your scarce resource in maintaining old technology rather than moving up the value chain with new ones then you fall behind as a country.
What should be happening is finding ways to provide the correct education, communication and transport links to make every part of the country a viable location for new companies and industries to locate.
Your plan is great though. A backward looking dream that we can all get behind Get over yourself mate its not all about you its about eu protectionist rules to stop the uk helping uk companies and people, i cant believe you are so eu blinkered that you cant see that or maybe you can and just disagree with everything posted to get attention. "
EU state aid rules are to prevent unfair competition which ultimately effects the customer in what is supposed to be a free internal market.
Ultimately the UK and it's tax payers will pay more for the same product.
You didn't really get around to explaining how spending our limited money on industries that we have proven again and again not to be viable will help us develop new opportunities and re-skill the workforce to transition to these areas.
I am perfectly able to see your short-term view. If you have a five year political horizon it makes perfect sense.
For a country it doesn't in the medium to long term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?"
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival "
It's a bit of an odd one.
There is a logic for government to subsidise the connectivity to the West country, but it should then be run as a loss making service for that reason.
If it is not actually viable as a business then it shouldn't be running other routes. That would be unfair competition.
I struggle with the idea of government bailing out large, struggling company, sometimes multiple times which have soaked money to shareholders but letting thousands of small businesses which individuals have sweated for go to the wall.
Why is one okay and not the other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival
It's a bit of an odd one.
There is a logic for government to subsidise the connectivity to the West country, but it should then be run as a loss making service for that reason.
If it is not actually viable as a business then it shouldn't be running other routes. That would be unfair competition.
I struggle with the idea of government bailing out large, struggling company, sometimes multiple times which have soaked money to shareholders but letting thousands of small businesses which individuals have sweated for go to the wall.
Why is one okay and not the other?"
When the large companies go to the wall they take hundreds of small ones with them.So by bailing them out you are also securing the small ones ffs its not rocket science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival
It's a bit of an odd one.
There is a logic for government to subsidise the connectivity to the West country, but it should then be run as a loss making service for that reason.
If it is not actually viable as a business then it shouldn't be running other routes. That would be unfair competition.
I struggle with the idea of government bailing out large, struggling company, sometimes multiple times which have soaked money to shareholders but letting thousands of small businesses which individuals have sweated for go to the wall.
Why is one okay and not the other?When the large companies go to the wall they take hundreds of small ones with them.So by bailing them out you are also securing the small ones ffs its not rocket science."
So any large British company which is going bankrupt should be bought and subsidised by the UK taxpayer under all circumstances? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival
It's a bit of an odd one.
There is a logic for government to subsidise the connectivity to the West country, but it should then be run as a loss making service for that reason.
If it is not actually viable as a business then it shouldn't be running other routes. That would be unfair competition.
I struggle with the idea of government bailing out large, struggling company, sometimes multiple times which have soaked money to shareholders but letting thousands of small businesses which individuals have sweated for go to the wall.
Why is one okay and not the other?When the large companies go to the wall they take hundreds of small ones with them.So by bailing them out you are also securing the small ones ffs its not rocket science.
So any large British company which is going bankrupt should be bought and subsidised by the UK taxpayer under all circumstances?"
No to be honest im not for nationalization but i think its a subject for the British government no one else.If it affects the security of the country then yes save it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Flogging Who knows but the uk government couldnt even consider it due to eu state aid rules."
That's simply not true. If it were true that the British steal industry collapsed because of EU rules then how come the German and French steel industries haven't collapsed also.
The reality is in fact quite the opposite. The EU tried to introduce measures to stop the dumping of cheap Chinese steel on the European market but those measure were opposed by Britain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"You couldnt make it up the italians are being investigated for state aid payments to alitalia the day after Barnier insists that the uk adhere to eu state aid rules. who is cherry picking now?
The owner of British Airways has filed an official complaint to the European commission about the bailout of the regional airline Flybe, amid growing political and industry criticism of the government’s rescue deal.
Is this not the same thing by the uk tory government ?
The Flybe deal hasn't gone through yet. Their are still many problems with the terms of the proposed deal.
I understand that Flybe only has sufficient funds to see it through this month, so a deal is imperative for its survival
It's a bit of an odd one.
There is a logic for government to subsidise the connectivity to the West country, but it should then be run as a loss making service for that reason.
If it is not actually viable as a business then it shouldn't be running other routes. That would be unfair competition.
I struggle with the idea of government bailing out large, struggling company, sometimes multiple times which have soaked money to shareholders but letting thousands of small businesses which individuals have sweated for go to the wall.
Why is one okay and not the other?"
It looks like Flybe is going under. No Goverment deal arranged, and the Coronavirus has seen to a heavy fall in bookings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot."
I wonder, did you object when Thatcher decimated UK mining, steelworks and shipbuilding because she did not want to use taxpayers' money to bail out inefficient, uncompetitive industries?
Somehow, I doubt that you did. Or did you think she was wrong to do away with nationalised industries, arguably vital to national security; providing employment - directly and indirectly - for millions?
Maybe you've lost the plot? Maybe not.
Certainly, you have a short and selective memory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
I wonder, did you object when Thatcher decimated UK mining, steelworks and shipbuilding because she did not want to use taxpayers' money to bail out inefficient, uncompetitive industries?
Somehow, I doubt that you did. Or did you think she was wrong to do away with nationalised industries, arguably vital to national security; providing employment - directly and indirectly - for millions?
Maybe you've lost the plot? Maybe not.
Certainly, you have a short and selective memory."
She was certainly insightful to have done away with coal mining . For domestic consumption . For coal fired power stations. Global warming anyone?. Tough decision but she was right wasn’t she ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"So you would prefer 1000,s of people out of work the loss of a national steel industry that could be turned round in a few years and sold off just to please the eu. You really have lost the plot.
I wonder, did you object when Thatcher decimated UK mining, steelworks and shipbuilding because she did not want to use taxpayers' money to bail out inefficient, uncompetitive industries?
Somehow, I doubt that you did. Or did you think she was wrong to do away with nationalised industries, arguably vital to national security; providing employment - directly and indirectly - for millions?
Maybe you've lost the plot? Maybe not.
Certainly, you have a short and selective memory.
She was certainly insightful to have done away with coal mining . For domestic consumption . For coal fired power stations. Global warming anyone?. Tough decision but she was right wasn’t she ?"
To be fair, she was a scientist and listened to expert advice including about the threat of climate change.
However, closing down an entire industry without an alternative path to work in place will lead to disaster for local communities. Which it did.
The point though, is apparently these industries didn't need saving and neither did the jobs, but apparently others do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
