Commission inquires about UK’s offer to Nissan
politico.eu/article/commission-inquires-about...
politico.euPosted Nov 5, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC
4947
politico.euNissan is half owned by Renault. Renault is 20% owned by the French state. Maybe the commission could ask the French govt what's in the deal.
2
Officials would like to check whether the controversial guarantees breach EU rules preventing governments from subsidizing favored companies or sectors,
This is political bullshit. I'm not even British but they decided to leave, let them leave. Why aren't we spending the same energy investigating the relationship between Germany and Volswagen ? And why did Deutsche Bank benefit from special stress tests ?
Germany is the spoiled kid of Europe.
-38
I'm not even British but they decided to leave, let them leave.
They haven't left yet and until they do they have to play by the rules. It's a pretty simple concept really. Also it may not be the brightest of ideas to try to distort the market through illegal state aid while you are trying to get a favourable trade deal from the countries you are screwing over with that state aid.
45
the countries you are screwing over with that state aid.
Also the companies they're screwing over with that state aid, i.e. other carmakers operating in UK.
23
As long as the UK government hasn't done anything, then there's nothing to investigate.
2†
RTFA it's literally what the spokesperson said:
“We have seen press reports regarding this issue,” said Ricardo Cardoso, a spokesperson for the Commission. “As a result, the Commission at services level is in contact with the U.K. authorities.”
He added that such exchanges are common and that the Commission had not taken any formal view on whether the assurances amounted to state aid.
5
UK knows it's going to get a bad deal anyway.
This would take years to go through the system and the UK will be long gone by then.
-6
If they are leaving, they shouldn't give a tin shit about the EU's rules.
-14
[deleted]
17
If they want to start a trade war they will lose , please go right ahead.
13
Ah that "us vs. them" attitude on this sub is prevalent as ever.
You're the only one talking about a trade war.
-16
The problem is that the rules don't seem to apply to the Germans
-17
Got any real proof ?
19
[deleted]
1
What does this have to do with Germany?
34
I don't think is trying to stop them from leaving, but more of a notice that if you want to do this you need to enter exit negotiations.
The other week the UK made sure to tell the EU that they are still members and will continue being active in the EU council until they declare article 50. They can't say that then the next day say well we are planning on leaving so we don't have to play by the rules until we leave.
13
but more of a notice that if you want to do this you need to enter exit negotiations.
To be fair I'm reasonably sure the UK can make whatever commitments it wants given they wouldn't come into play until the UK has left. In the same vein the UK can hold discussions with industry, other countries or anyone else really, what they can't do is act formally on those discussions until they have left. Whether or not a UK agreement breaches EU rules at that point may or may not be relevant (depending on what agreements the UK has with the EU at that point).
That said looking into this is potentially reasonable in that it might have an impact now (lets say the UK guarantees a tax cut to a company in 3 years to boost investment now) but it'd be a more complex calculation because there is a difference between state aid, and pointing out what the UK governments position would be at a given time under a different rule set..
2
You know Article 50 can't be declared till everything is legally on a sure footing right? It is written into Article 50 actually.
0
They can't say that then the next day say well we are planning on leaving so we don't have to play by the rules until we leave.
When has the UK said that? I don't believe it has.
-1
It's bizarre how most here (see comment chain) are stating that since the UK is still in the EU, it must still follow the rules; and yet when the UK threatened to block the 'EU Army' proposal (something the UK government would be entirely entitled to do, as it is still a full member), everyone freaked out, given we 'were on the way out'.
Which is it? Genuinely curious. Should the UK be able to act as a full member or not?
it is even more bizarre that you make it seem the UK threat was after the EU inquiry, while it was the other way around
Did I make it seem that way? I literally just stated the facts, timestamps are clear to be seen. There is nothing in my post which indicates that the UK threatened to block an EU Army after the Commission started an inquiry.
If anything, you are incorrect. My post states
And then following on to the bit about the 'Army' proposal
There is nothing there that overtly states a timescale, and even looking at the grammar, you cannot come to the conclusion that the words used indicate that the threat came after the inquiry. That just doesn't make sense. Clearly the 'EU Army' thing came first given the tenses used in my post.
E: Oh okay. English language rules mean nothing so just downvote. Cheers bud.
the order of the items you mention last to first
That may be so, but the intention is clear if you read the words and understand the current and past tenses.
This does not indicate the 20th birthday came afterwards simply because it is written afterwards. Simple understanding of the language and a gram of common sense will tell you which came first.
Pointless downvoting is plain stupid by the way.
I suggest that as long as it is a member state, the UK should follow European Union law, which is codified in the EU Treaties. This includes the rules against state aid. I'd suggest you wouldn't want to be known as a state that violates treaties as a matter of course once they're no longer convenient to you, when you will still have to renegotiate the 60+ trade agreements that you're a part of as a function of being an EU member.
You're legally totally within your right to block further defense cooperation - that is a political matter. Your political choices will also have political consequences. That may not be fair, but those are the consequences of choosing Brexit.
[deleted]
Yeah, sorry if that came across a bit hostile. I'm afraid nothing about the EU exit process is designed to be fair to the state that leaves: not the politics, not the law, not the economics. Forfeiting all the advantages that the EU gives you is inevitably going to make a state leaving the EU worse off. Which makes it extremely easy for politicians to demagogue against the EU.
It's just a political game now. One party annoys the other because it still can, without really expecting to come of it. It's unfortunate that things like this happen, but I can't say I'm really surprised.
Especially given the fact the UK would probably be expected to be a major contributor to the EU army.
Probably not, most people think the UK will have left by the time there's anything to be paid. That's sort of the thing with the EU, whatever it does; it does it slowly.
source based on actual facts, not guessing?
Why would the UK have an opinion if it was not expected to contribute?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about and what it had to do with my comment.
uhum.