I don't agree, this time. You call EU's system slow, but the fact that it prevents possible harming is actually faster. With the WTO rule you would have to prove it harmed the market, that means you have to allow it first, then look at the numbers and then open a case. That, in facts, makes it even slower. On the other hand, in the EU, we already know that countries like Germany would crush the competition through State Aid, so it was a big concession from richer countries, and if the UK wants to join the Common Market it has to agree to the rules or they are free to go their way, by themselves.
6:23 WTF is ambiguous here??? Cars are regularly sold across the border. Starbucks meanwhile is service and food sale, you use it locally or not at all. Undercutting car manufacturers EU wide with subsidized FIATs is just going to happen. I *seriously* doubt someone will buy fresh coffee in the Netherlands to undercut Starbucks francises in Germany. If nothing else, the coffee is cold by then. Or that Netherlands coffee tourism will develop because of that little aid. The reason we waived it for Canada, was because shipping goods across a ocean will just eat any advantage from state aid.
Starbucks would much rather invest in a country that gives them money than one that doesn't. If the UK starts giving them back handers, they're going to focus more on here than the EU. It's also worth pointing out that it would, in fact, be very possible for EU citizens to find cheaper UK Starbucks better than their own - Ireland and NI are right next to each other and will have a soft border. Any Starbucks on the (in this example) more expensive Irish side would be bonkers to not take the extra few minutes over the border and get it for a Euro cheaper. Why would anyone choose the Dundalk Starbucks over the Newry one if it's cheaper?
I actually looked online for 3 min and I got a the answer on why Starbucks not got "state aid" but fiat car company. I know no one is perfect but to have such a misunderstanding the law really means makes me worried that people watching this will assume what he talks about is true when there is no such confusion.
@@theMoporter 1. Wth? You think people cross international borders in relevant numbers to buy coffee? Have you forgotten that you still have to pay for petrol/a transportation ticket? 2. Starbucks places their shops every 600 feet, if they can get away with it (enough people). You think they put down less in an country then they have room for? 3. How is more Starbucks going to affect EU trade? Your country buying more coffee beans? You are free to subsidize the coffee producers that are outside the EU.
@@KelticStingray Do you think they are grown in the EU? If so, nice subsidizing another countries agriculture! It not: how is it going to affect EU partners?
@@mohammedraheem6288 it isn't so much secret generally as much as they just don't announce much, if anything, until they have actually agreed on something. Pretty standard for negotiations.
Even if the political decleration was legally binding, the UK could just break it in a very limited and specific way, and everything would be just fine, right? On a serious note though, this the state aid system really is one of those red tapes we really need to fix.
The UK agreed to all of this in the political declaration, only to claim the EU came just up with this. It would benefit Johnson if he read what he signs.
If you sign something and say that you'll do what you signed, even if it's not legally binding, you gotta do it. That's how such declarations work. Of course you don't *legally* have to, but then don't be pissed when everyone else keeps ignoring you and pushes you around - you brought this upon yourself.
@@qwesx Fair. I just think both sides were very clear throughout May and Boris' negotiations that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration were different things with very different bindings / intentions. Which is why Boris is wrong to back track on the Northern Ireland protocol.
No deal is the best for both sides! Let's the brits enjoy what they voted for, and hope the UK never rejoin the EU again. Hope the UK stops blaming everything on the EU in the future.
The deal with Japan doesn't view tax breaks as state aid, same with WTO state aid rules which they'll be more than happy to comply with, the EU does and tax avoidance is what brexit is really about
It's sort of half-true. According to reports, the UK-Japan trade deal (the actual text of which isn't available yet) commits to a very limited state-aid "blacklist". Basically, a "blacklist" is just a list of state aid things that are obviously out of line - stuff like no completely unlimited guarantees for companies, no saving failing firms without a restructuring plan, no lying abut how much state aid you've done. This is more than the complete freedom the UK was originally demanding, but it's less than their current position (or what we can glean from David Frost's comments) and it's way less than anything the EU will agree to - Zac
@@SteveFisher0571 Ding! Someone has hit the bullseye. I would say it's really about preventing many kinds of fiscal transparency... of which tax avoidance is a big part.
Lets give the UK complete independence on state aid ... and throw them out of the single market for good! If they want in they have to play by the same rules as anybody else (or should not have left in the first place). Jesus Christ! Where does this feeling of entitlement come from?
The EU are actually doing everything in their power to retain their own jurisdiction over the UK after the UK leaves. The UK are striving to become an Independent Union. Ambiguity in rules and regulations ALWAYS appear to me to grant the EU the power to do whatever they want with scant or little regard for anyone else. Always one sided in the EU favour. Well they do have their own courts and " tongue in cheek" it does work for them.
You understand that the majority of these rulings have been constructed and implementated by all EU countries, including the UK? Pretty sure that many of the regulations preventing you from an easy leave ... have been initiated by the UK. 😂
The weird thing is that the UK stands to lose the most from a no deal but seem to believe they are in a position of strength. I don't get it. If the UK really applies a "we do whatever we want" rule, all they're going to get is the EU activating the "we'll tax the wazoo out of your exports" card. Which will lead, among others, all car manufacturers to leave the UK.
@@Andromahlius your comment and the first reply just sums up the whole Brexit debacle: Remainers in the UK and everyone else: Realistic warnings of the overwhelming negatives of Brexit based on neutral observations with reasonable speculation, explained rationally. Brexiteers: NO *fingers in ears while shouting slogans
I don't agree with the thrust of this piece. Just because the UK hasn't used state aid in the past doesn't mean it doesn't plan to in the future. Cummins, the de facto decision maker here, has clearly spelt out of vision of the UK sponsoring tech industries so that it becomes a global leader.
It seems very much against Conservative principles, and in particular Thatcherite principles. Almost like they're setting the scene for a future left-wing government.
@@daveemberton5271 It is against Conservative principles, the party which was more behind the EU state aid laws than any other when they were drafted. Indeed, much of the modern EU is a UK Conservative Party creation. The Four Freedoms being a case in point. No other national party pushed harder for state aid limitation. But this isn't conservatism any more and it's not left wing either, this is populism. Cummins holds the Tory party in the same utter contempt he holds all politicians. He knows Brexit will kill industries, he wants the gov to buy showcase tech industries. It's all in his blog.
The "threatens to distort" is difficult to understand or defend? It is the main reason and lever for the EU state aid rules. The point being that by the time the market is distorted and damage can be shown and then taking it to court, it may be too late. Which really is the ideal goal of state aid isn´t it (although nobody will admit to it)? I subsidize my (insert your favorite industry here) until your (same industry) has gone bust. Voila, no more state aid necessary. Rinse and repeat with next industry. That is the world the EU desperately wants to avoid within the single market.
@Felix wow buddy. tone it down. I really hope no industry anywhere gets destroyed. You are talking about real people here. That´s why it is so important, in my mind, to have compatible rules between trading partners.
"by the time the market is distorted...it may be too late" - yeah right, just like for that bridge. Checking things for "threatening" the internal market relations 20 years after the fact seems fine I guess. It feels logical for UK to sort those things out on its own instead of waiting for 26 countries' worth of legal backlog.
You really don't understand the issues. Governments are not supposed to support industry in their own country. But it's OK for, say, Italian state aided companies to operate UK rail franchises. It's just the UK government that would make them inefficient. Learn a little more.
AFAIR the UK was one of the biggest driving forces behind the EU state aid rules. Now they don't like those rules anymore because.... yeah... They haven't resolved anything, still dancing around the same issues since the start of the talks. Maybe BoJo should set a new deadline, or ten.
BoJo doesn't want a deal. That's exactly what is going to happen and I'm fine with it. English people voted for English independence at the cost of Northern Irish safety or Scotland issues. I'm more curious now how will this mess be solved once the UK leaves with no deal
@@neodym5809 They take what they get at this point, once this is done with EU it will be worst for UK, the wolves are watching and they smell blood, i don't want to think what the likes of China/USA/India will demand
I think you should have another go at this before the massive humiliation starts. There are only about 300 cases coming to make you look quite silly. Put your crash hat on now!
@Hawk Anonymous Obviously the UK diplomats and politicians were not working in the interests of the people of the UK, or anyone else in the EU, for that matter. Civil servants, what do you expect?
Thank you for explaining this so concisely! I think many people think "state aid" has something to do with welfare. Also the fact that it's an EU-only term explains why I'd never heard it used before
To be fair "international law" encompasses any kind of treaty they signed up on. But I guess "we're going to break our agreement with the EU on this particular issue" doesn't sound quite as dramatic as "we're breaking international law". :P
You're right. The people using the term are the ones who talked about "crashing out" of the EU. Emotive terminology intended to shut down rational discussion.
A Canada style deal was never going to be a starter for the UK. It is a bit like asking for country membership to a golf club, when you live next door to the clubhouse.
@@physiocrat7143 In this analogy, the game is golf - that's why I stated "golf club". The EU is the club and the UK is a person seeking membership on the cheap.
@@henrybn14ar The UK is no longer a member of the EU. However it would appear that the UK is still seeking certain advantages of EU membership, such as tariff and quota free trade, but without being beholden to the EU rules. To me, this is like a person wanting to enjoy unfettered access to the facilities of, say, a golf club without having to follow the club rules or pay a membership fee.
@@512TheWolf512 I mean, it’s government intervention in competitive markets. But I’m also American. Our definition of socialism is basically “when the government does stuff.”
Common Agricultural Policy .EQ. State Aid. Rampant, in favour of France, since the beginning of the EU, meaning the EU has always existed for the benefit of and greater glory of France, hence France under De Gaulle refusing to let the UK join for 13 years, as we would have disturbed France's top-dog position from the outset, and no way did it want that. So it was always a cosy club, and if it hadn't been for the UK, it would not today have 27 member states, a situation which ought to have humbled France, but it still insists on better terms for its farmers than those of the late joiners.
State aid could increase as a form of protectionism after any deal or no deal or tariffs to export goods and services while decreasing VAT for non EU exports would allow more profitable exports outside the EU afterwards. Ideas aside they cant offer what we dont need and truth is Canada or Australia trade deal they dont want. Case in point no deal Brexit.
First comment - from Germany! Fishery: btw about 350 years ago Charles II gave 50 fisherboats from Belgium the eternal right to fish in British waters... can you comment on that?
Well if the UK considers this promise no more than an irrelevant historical footnote, they should allow Gibraltar full independence to join the EU along the lines of San Marino, Monaco and Andorra.
Brexit has ALWAYS been about state aid rules. GB has also always criticised the EU for being 'protectionist' but in reality of course GB has long wanted this status for itself. Outside the EU, GB will be able to heavily invest and artificially push up businesses and industries it deems as being most internationally competitive - this of course flying in the face of classic conservative and liberal doctrine of 'marketplace of ideas' 'invisible hand' and the mantra of 'never choosing/picking winners and losers'. UK wants to firstly become a financial tax haven just outside the EU giving businesses from around the world a dumping ground for their toxic industries and pay little to no tax, then of course gangster will be able to wash their dirty money through UK banks and bury it in overpriced property that will further reduce space for affordable and social housing...
@@mohammedraheem6288 on the one hand literally toxic industries ie importing lower standard foods (violating UK's own standards - ironically very non-protecionist in that respect) that will lead to i m sure farming practices changing here and potentially US takeovers of British estates/farms. then on the other hand toxic industries such as creeping privatisation of NHS and businesses that will insist on low to no tax burden and workers' rights in order to come to the UK..
According to the UK government own website the creative Industries contribute £111 billion per year, whereas the fishing industry contribute only £1.4 billion. So can someone tell me why we spend all this time I'm discussing the UK fishing industry when it's relatively peanuts.
That is such a stupid thing to say. In the formal sense that a bill would have to be passed following the referendum you may be correct. So you keep making the same stupid point over and over for years. The 2016 referendum was, of course advisory, and the Commons could have ignored it without being in breach of the law. David Cameron, however, had committed the government to accepting it, and MPs decided also to do so when they passed the EU Notification of Withdrawal bill in 2017 by the massive majority of 384 votes. This means it is now binding. There is no doubt whatsoever that leaving is binding. Now please be quiet for the rest of eternity.
In 1947 we gave state aid to landowners/farmers in order to provide more food for post-war Britain.When we joined the EU part of our contribution (£3.4 billion) was returned to landowners/farmers.When we left the EU (Brexit),they stopped the £3.4 billion because we had stopped our contributions.Boris thought this most unfair,so very,very quietly,he decided that the British taxpayer should pay landowners (the rich landed gentry ) £3.4 billion,for the next 5 yrs (this is state aid ).We, the taxpayer now has the privilege of handing millionaires.....billions ie Sir James Dyson..£2m, The Queen..£400k, Khalid Abdullah..£400k. No wonder they did a U-turn over school meals !
The political declaration and what the EU is now demanding are VERY different things. In the PD the UK agreed that "Yeah, we'll follow general EU and international standards". What the EU are now demanding is the UK remains under EU law and the EU courts, including any new EU laws and decisions, forever. The UK agreed to a agreement between equals. The EU is demanding subservience, it holding all the power and the UK bound to obey. Since the EU clearly regards the UK as an economic rival to hand the EU power over UK economic and business laws would be insane. It would be like Man U playing Chelsea and Chelsea demanding it can order Man U which players it is allowed to use and what tactics it is allowed to play. That's why we're so against it even though we will be very unlikely to break those rules. When your economic opponent is allowed to enforce the rules you have to follow, and even make up and introduce new rules, then clearly they will use those powers to hurt the UK. The objection from the UK is not "Well it isn't legally binding" but rather "That is way way beyond what we agreed!"
I know this is out of line for this topic but I'm gonna say just for this video since it relates to UK (plus the fishing thing at the start made me remember about it). Will there be a video on Diego Garcia?
They wanted to throw money at their donors, then realised that there'd be less attention if they appoint another friendly face to regulate the state aid allocations
At last someone has the political declaration is not legally binding. Now my point. This means that the use of Article 217 of the Lisburn Treaty by the EU Council on February 20th 2020 for the EU Mandate was also a breach of international law because under Article 217 it's use requires and any changes can only be made be Unanimous not majority vote of the EU Council. Also Article 217 is for EU Associates whose Guest can exit anytime without lots of Lisburn Treaty procedures That's why the EU position cannot change even if a majority of members want to. The problem for the EU is that if a no deal takes place and the UK withdrawal agreement legislation is not repealed The EU could be in serious trouble because Ireland would break International law if it voted on anything that effected Northern Ireland whether it is part of the NI protocol or not. This would block any relevant actions that require a Unanimous vote. That would seriously impact on EU business.
UK exports to the EU were the equivalent of 7.7% of GDP (in 2017), the question is would state aid and having control of our fishing waters increase GDP enough to compensate the 0% to 7.7% loss of GDP that no deal would cause?
To sanctioning the "threat of harm" instead "proven harm" has it's upsides. Proving actual harm is hard and takes a long time. Also the principle enforces, that damages need to be done before jurisdiction can kick in, which is way too late. A oligopoly or monopoly may be established way before any penalty can be applied. On the other side the "threat of harm" allows, that harm to the market can be prevented by suing before market distorting laws and subsidies can take effect. At least in theory, real world implementations are way more complicated.
Yeah I very much disagree. I believe Britain would accept state aid legislations considering we barely use our state aid concessions compared to France or Germany. I'm pretty sure fishing is just as much of deal breaker here. Considering Macron's not backing down from his ridiculous hardline stance. Even though he wants limited access for Britain into the UK, he still wants the same access for French fisherman in British waters after Brexit.
I'd love to get the Brexit colouring book but given that Brexit has continued much longer, I'm holding out to see whether a furture colouring book comes out that consolidates this.
How you humiliate yourself by using the colouring book joke and then making spelling errors that suggest that the colouring book is, indeed, your intellectual level. Nice own goal.
@@johnbishop5316 I'm guessing you don't know whether a future Brexit colouring book will be released and if so whether this will be a consolidated version to include the first book?
so the state aid law that the UK PUSHED IN THE EU to implement the UK was the driving power behind this, and they were like OH THIS IS SUPER IMPORTENT and now they leave and are like "why u have this fucking stupid law" xDDD
@Bri Ba Thats my point (thank you for working it out btw) if this video said it cost the UK 8.2 billion each year. Then that has a more of realistic impact on the minset of that debate!. The percentage scenario looks like its down playing the huge amount it actually costs us.
The EU needs to prepare to accept a large number of refugies. That is ok. But! There should be selecting on who can get in. And I think the only question that needs to be asked is are you coming from England? If yes, then "bugger off".
Interesting and informative video. I've never understood why state aid is such a thorn in the side for the tories as a Brexit issue. Historically they've always hated state aid and even proposed many of the EUs state aid rules. Where was the state aid for British Leyland/Rover, the mining industry, the steel industry etc?
@@physiocrat7143 I don't know where you got that idea from. The subsidies farmers get are from the EU (CAP). Our government has given no indication they intend to continue paying it after January 1st. 2021. Brexit means Brexit.
@@ianl1052 The NFU (really the national association of farmland owners, tenant farmers have their own organisation) have been spinning a sob story ever since 2016. Given the number of MPs who own farmland, I would expect them to want the public teat refilled.
@@physiocrat7143 Those very same farmers also expected their fellow MPs to vote for the amendment to the Agriculture Bill put forward by the HOL to make our high food standards apply to countries seeking to export foods into the UK as part of a trade deal (specifically the US). Look where that got them. 332 to 279 to reject the amendment. Ironically, the most support came from Labour where the bulk of tories voted against. I hope you like chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and genetically modified crops.
@@ianl1052 High UK food standards? Campylobacter chicken? Salmonella eggs? BSE beef? Overstocked poultry and pig houses? In the EU, sows are still kept in crates on hard floors. High EU food standards are a myth. Chicken need to be chlorinated. You drink and swim in chlorinated water. There is nothing wrong with GM as such, the problem is the Monsanto glyphosate, which is still in use in the EU. If you don't want to eat the things you mention, don't buy them. You can get things like Soil Association and Duchy marked products. If you want UK beef, look for the flag on the package. Or go vegetarian or vegan just to be certain. The food that is making everyone ill is sugar.
"leave in peace" will be devastating for UK economy, especially under current covid19 situation, of course there will also be some negative impact on EU, not desirable by either side. UK needs to accept it's not in a position to make demands.
@@Patrick-jj5nh in Africa we say, when 2 bulls are fighting the grass gets burnt, BoJo new what he was getting, remember the bus? Of course it will hurt us all, but don't you think the UK had enough "Extra Wurst" from all the exemptions and exclusions over the years?
@@klausmohr522 oh yea i very much agree and i suspect it's starting to dawn on a lot of people at least those closest to the negotiations but selling it to the brexit fundamentalists is another story..
@@klausmohr522 it would be derided as fake news/propaganda and comments would be flooded by bots no doubt. we have come to a place where it will be hard to get back to concept of a 'civil society' with shared values and norms.
Surely State Aid in the context of Brexit refers to the possibility that because of the large imbalance in value of goods traded between the UK and EU, exiting without a deal and going to WTO rules may mean the UK government using tariffs collected on imports from Europe to pay the tariffs of British goods imported into Europe. Oh dear, what a dastardly shame.
Heh. I can recall years ago working on a product that was intended for the UK market. It took us nearly a year to get a sign off from the relevant regulator... not because it was strict, but because there essentially were no carefully spelled out rules and it was instead a single office that gave you a pass fail and then you had to hire people with 'inside knowledge' of what they 'really wanted'. So yeah... I do not see the UK creating a more efficient or less ambiguous system, but instead simply want THEIR inefficient ambiguous people making the decisions.
the young generation in the UK grew up in the european union, they are used in the european standarts(high food standarts for example, all the laws that protect human rights, democracy etc. ) even though im not from the uk i cannot imagine that the youth wanted brexit! this was such such a bad decision :/ i feel so sorry for the people my age in the uk right now...hopefully you will come back in soon
Closer trade yes, standards yes, human rights yes, democracy yes, helping each other out yes most in UK are in favour of these things. Closer political Union and an ever closer Union, not everyone is in favour of, enough to get leave to win, EU does not look like they are going to change from that path, so any country that does not want closer Union is not going to stick around. I think some think it's for other reasons and some of that is true, but to get that many people voting leave you need those purely not happy with losing more sovereignty, that difficult truth is widely brushed under the carpet and ignored, much easier to think it was for more convenient reasons sadly.
Fish deserve independence and Sovereignty. Make those bullying humans stay on their "dry land". Reject their demands for fish! It's time to trade with the humans on WTO terms. How dare they talk about "our waters" - they have no god given right to ANY water, they are land animals ! If you support Brexit, you MUST support an end to all fishing !
@David Byrden: We're not limited-to-land animals! We have cof-fins, and we have a water-rich country named Finland. We may even be gillable, (Oops, typo.) ;-)
The other issue of State Aid is of credibility and longterm commitment. It's all well and good for the UK to promise not to abuse state aid under a more lax agreement....... but what has the UK done recently to show that it can be trusted to follow through on the terms and intent as negotiated? UK in 2020: "We promise not to go crazy with state aid under this new system." UK in 2022: "We are going crazy with state aid in a narrow and limited way."
TLDR has been recently leaning towards an anti-EU rhetoric. I recommend that it be very cautions with jargons, definitions and critical reasoning as this might break up its vow of impartiality commitment. To begin with, the ECJ or The European Court of Justice is an INDEPENDENT institution, thus it is not subordinate to ANY European Institution, let alone the European Union. Second, the laws governing the State Aid regime are indeed very complex and not possible to be explained even in a one hour video. The comparison between the two examples between the cases of Luxembourg vs Fiat and the Netherlands vs Starbucks is just too complex and a very unhappy example to be inserted in a Brexit negotiation context. Thirdly, the reason the EU demands that the U.K. signs up to a State Aid regime is two fold: First, the EU only agreed to proceed with negotiations should they follow the political declaration; furthermore, the given the U.K. government’s recent behaviour (e.g. the passing of the Internal Market Bill by the Commons), the country might be able to set up anti-competition laws and sunk the EU economy. For instance, there are talks of transforming the U.K. in a tax heaven or something close to it.
Starbucks and Fiat cases are both landmark cases that has shaped all EU laws on state aid. There is nothing complicated about. There are countless studies on online. you can google it and get the comparison in about 3 min.
@@csmain It’s indeed very complex to get to the law basics &fundamentals if one doesn’t have a background in law and still they are unfit to portrait a Brexit negotiation scenario.
@@BernardoTavora to oversimplfy the argument that the eu made against the starbucks but was later overturned in higher courts stated concluded that any consoludated group subsidzing one part of the business either by changing franchise cost etc is not parameter for state aid. Lets take console selling at a loss in a factory but is wholly owned and taxed in the same group. No one can make the argument that it is subsidized when in the end its part of the business stratagy of selling consoles at a loss when its being covered by sales of games controllers etc.
Both sides are behaving irrationally. Most countries have tax systems which punish the economies of the regions. All taxes have an effect in shaping the economy ie they are a distortion. The overdue reform of the Business Rates would help businesses like car and steel manufacturers in the UK. However, as an EU consumer, I am very happy to be able to buy cheap stuff from the UK subsidised by British taxpayers. Too many adverts make it impossible to follow a complex argument.
@@Jackwoody413 Including Covid. Most executions per capita, one party rule, political oppostition in gaol etc. Sounds perfect. Just the kind of people we want to trade with.
@Wat ching u Thank you for raising the intellectual tone of this discussion. Foreign is a meaningless term unless you specify where you are an what nationality you are. I doubt if any state will claim you.
The British government probably still wants to subsidise foreign company's who register in Great Britain and then ship the money abroad to support their company's over there.
If you study in the UK and you miss a deadline for an assignment, just bring up Brexit.
Blame the EU.😉😂😂😂😂😂
And if you break the law, just mention the Internal Markets Bill :-)
@@ianl1052 The funny thing is that in this particular case you'd actually be justfied in doing so...
@@GonzoTehGreat Why?
@@ianl1052 Watch the video. EU State Aid legislation badly needs reforming.
I don't agree, this time.
You call EU's system slow, but the fact that it prevents possible harming is actually faster.
With the WTO rule you would have to prove it harmed the market, that means you have to allow it first, then look at the numbers and then open a case.
That, in facts, makes it even slower.
On the other hand, in the EU, we already know that countries like Germany would crush the competition through State Aid, so it was a big concession from richer countries, and if the UK wants to join the Common Market it has to agree to the rules or they are free to go their way, by themselves.
Are we still in the fillers arc for BoJo’s Bizarre Adventures: The Brexit Saga? I’ve completely lost track 😂
@Lies Tricks Could you not ? :O
Another show gone down the drain in the last season
It's the 5 minutes of the actual story after the filler where there is still a tense standoff that has been continuing for far too long.
6:23 WTF is ambiguous here???
Cars are regularly sold across the border. Starbucks meanwhile is service and food sale, you use it locally or not at all.
Undercutting car manufacturers EU wide with subsidized FIATs is just going to happen.
I *seriously* doubt someone will buy fresh coffee in the Netherlands to undercut Starbucks francises in Germany. If nothing else, the coffee is cold by then. Or that Netherlands coffee tourism will develop because of that little aid.
The reason we waived it for Canada, was because shipping goods across a ocean will just eat any advantage from state aid.
Starbucks would much rather invest in a country that gives them money than one that doesn't. If the UK starts giving them back handers, they're going to focus more on here than the EU.
It's also worth pointing out that it would, in fact, be very possible for EU citizens to find cheaper UK Starbucks better than their own - Ireland and NI are right next to each other and will have a soft border. Any Starbucks on the (in this example) more expensive Irish side would be bonkers to not take the extra few minutes over the border and get it for a Euro cheaper. Why would anyone choose the Dundalk Starbucks over the Newry one if it's cheaper?
I actually looked online for 3 min and I got a the answer on why Starbucks not got "state aid" but fiat car company. I know no one is perfect but to have such a misunderstanding the law really means makes me worried that people watching this will assume what he talks about is true when there is no such confusion.
Do you think those coffee beans are grown in the Netherlands?
@@theMoporter 1. Wth? You think people cross international borders in relevant numbers to buy coffee? Have you forgotten that you still have to pay for petrol/a transportation ticket?
2. Starbucks places their shops every 600 feet, if they can get away with it (enough people). You think they put down less in an country then they have room for?
3. How is more Starbucks going to affect EU trade? Your country buying more coffee beans? You are free to subsidize the coffee producers that are outside the EU.
@@KelticStingray Do you think they are grown in the EU? If so, nice subsidizing another countries agriculture!
It not: how is it going to affect EU partners?
TLDR: "Most of these negotiations are held in secret"
Me: "I want to be in the room where it happens!"
Why are they held in secret?
@@mohammedraheem6288 it isn't so much secret generally as much as they just don't announce much, if anything, until they have actually agreed on something. Pretty standard for negotiations.
@@euanthompson makes sense, unless people want to hear and see every bit.
@@mohammedraheem6288 Are you mad? Everyone knows exactly what is said. Get your head back in that virtual reality machine please.
I imagine most of it is tedious and boring.
Even if the political decleration was legally binding, the UK could just break it in a very limited and specific way, and everything would be just fine, right?
On a serious note though, this the state aid system really is one of those red tapes we really need to fix.
And therefore the EU needs to be reasonable and compromise...
@@GonzoTehGreat If only the UK wasn't out of the EU, you could actually fix this from within...
@@FrostByte112 Ask yourself why the UK needs to fix this when there are 27 other countries in the EU...
@@FrostByte112 ,maybe the UK has already tried.
@@mohammedraheem6288 The UK was instrumental in implementing the EU state aid rules to begin with. So... not really.
The UK agreed to all of this in the political declaration, only to claim the EU came just up with this. It would benefit Johnson if he read what he signs.
It does make it a lot easier to lie if he doesn't know what the truth is tough.
Which as the video said is not legally binding.
If you sign something and say that you'll do what you signed, even if it's not legally binding, you gotta do it.
That's how such declarations work.
Of course you don't *legally* have to, but then don't be pissed when everyone else keeps ignoring you and pushes you around - you brought this upon yourself.
@@qwesx Fair.
I just think both sides were very clear throughout May and Boris' negotiations that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration were different things with very different bindings / intentions.
Which is why Boris is wrong to back track on the Northern Ireland protocol.
@@danielwebb8402 Sigh. Yet another remoaner who can't tell when he's dead.
No deal is the best for both sides!
Let's the brits enjoy what they voted for, and hope the UK never rejoin the EU again.
Hope the UK stops blaming everything on the EU in the future.
and hope Scotland leaves and join the EU.
@@peethasaccent you do know the shetland and Orkney islands want to break away from Scotland and stay in the UK if Scotland joins the EU? Good luck 👍
@@jayc342009 You know there is an indipendent movement in Cornwall too? Good luck!
@RAY MANNING The ones blaming EU is Naziuk, too bad the reason Naziuk is collapsing is internal, England exploit others
And the state aid clause with the Japan trade deal? It's said that is worse than the one proposed by the EU. It's that true?
The deal with Japan doesn't view tax breaks as state aid, same with WTO state aid rules which they'll be more than happy to comply with, the EU does and tax avoidance is what brexit is really about
It's sort of half-true. According to reports, the UK-Japan trade deal (the actual text of which isn't available yet) commits to a very limited state-aid "blacklist". Basically, a "blacklist" is just a list of state aid things that are obviously out of line - stuff like no completely unlimited guarantees for companies, no saving failing firms without a restructuring plan, no lying abut how much state aid you've done. This is more than the complete freedom the UK was originally demanding, but it's less than their current position (or what we can glean from David Frost's comments) and it's way less than anything the EU will agree to - Zac
@@TLDRnews thanks
@@SteveFisher0571 thanks
@@SteveFisher0571 Ding! Someone has hit the bullseye.
I would say it's really about preventing many kinds of fiscal transparency... of which tax avoidance is a big part.
You are doing a tremendous job of summarizing rather complex topics in a way that a non-laywer like me can comprehend it. Much appreciated!
Lets give the UK complete independence on state aid ... and throw them out of the single market for good! If they want in they have to play by the same rules as anybody else (or should not have left in the first place). Jesus Christ! Where does this feeling of entitlement come from?
The EU are actually doing everything in their power to retain their own jurisdiction over the UK after the UK leaves. The UK are striving to become an Independent Union. Ambiguity in rules and regulations ALWAYS appear to me to grant the EU the power to do whatever they want with scant or little regard for anyone else. Always one sided in the EU favour. Well they do have their own courts and " tongue in cheek" it does work for them.
You understand that the majority of these rulings have been constructed and implementated by all EU countries, including the UK?
Pretty sure that many of the regulations preventing you from an easy leave ... have been initiated by the UK. 😂
the UK here reminds me of Homelander on the last episode de The Boys, on top of the Chrysler building saying "I can do whatever I want"
The weird thing is that the UK stands to lose the most from a no deal but seem to believe they are in a position of strength. I don't get it. If the UK really applies a "we do whatever we want" rule, all they're going to get is the EU activating the "we'll tax the wazoo out of your exports" card. Which will lead, among others, all car manufacturers to leave the UK.
You’re just wrong
@@alantracy6757 Being in denial won't help your country, either.
@@Andromahlius ,what will happen to the car factories?
@@Andromahlius your comment and the first reply just sums up the whole Brexit debacle:
Remainers in the UK and everyone else: Realistic warnings of the overwhelming negatives of Brexit based on neutral observations with reasonable speculation, explained rationally.
Brexiteers: NO *fingers in ears while shouting slogans
Who in the UK loses what, precisely?
I don't agree with the thrust of this piece. Just because the UK hasn't used state aid in the past doesn't mean it doesn't plan to in the future.
Cummins, the de facto decision maker here, has clearly spelt out of vision of the UK sponsoring tech industries so that it becomes a global leader.
It seems very much against Conservative principles, and in particular Thatcherite principles. Almost like they're setting the scene for a future left-wing government.
@@daveemberton5271 It is against Conservative principles, the party which was more behind the EU state aid laws than any other when they were drafted. Indeed, much of the modern EU is a UK Conservative Party creation. The Four Freedoms being a case in point. No other national party pushed harder for state aid limitation. But this isn't conservatism any more and it's not left wing either, this is populism. Cummins holds the Tory party in the same utter contempt he holds all politicians. He knows Brexit will kill industries, he wants the gov to buy showcase tech industries. It's all in his blog.
Governments are experts in backing losers.
The "threatens to distort" is difficult to understand or defend? It is the main reason and lever for the EU state aid rules.
The point being that by the time the market is distorted and damage can be shown and then taking it to court, it may be too late. Which really is the ideal goal of state aid isn´t it (although nobody will admit to it)? I subsidize my (insert your favorite industry here) until your (same industry) has gone bust. Voila, no more state aid necessary. Rinse and repeat with next industry.
That is the world the EU desperately wants to avoid within the single market.
@Felix wow buddy. tone it down. I really hope no industry anywhere gets destroyed. You are talking about real people here. That´s why it is so important, in my mind, to have compatible rules between trading partners.
"by the time the market is distorted...it may be too late" - yeah right, just like for that bridge. Checking things for "threatening" the internal market relations 20 years after the fact seems fine I guess. It feels logical for UK to sort those things out on its own instead of waiting for 26 countries' worth of legal backlog.
@Felix you over-estimate the EU capabilities.
You really don't understand the issues. Governments are not supposed to support industry in their own country. But it's OK for, say, Italian state aided companies to operate UK rail franchises. It's just the UK government that would make them inefficient. Learn a little more.
@@johnbishop5316 And you really are mightily arrogant. Learn a little humility.
haha, when the alarm popped up on the video (at about 0:15) I actually went to dismiss it.hahaha
AFAIR the UK was one of the biggest driving forces behind the EU state aid rules. Now they don't like those rules anymore because.... yeah...
They haven't resolved anything, still dancing around the same issues since the start of the talks. Maybe BoJo should set a new deadline, or ten.
BoJo doesn't want a deal. That's exactly what is going to happen and I'm fine with it. English people voted for English independence at the cost of Northern Irish safety or Scotland issues. I'm more curious now how will this mess be solved once the UK leaves with no deal
But they have no trouble to sign Following Japanese state aid rules...
@@neodym5809 They take what they get at this point, once this is done with EU it will be worst for UK, the wolves are watching and they smell blood, i don't want to think what the likes of China/USA/India will demand
I swear the U.K. haven’t subsidised industries since the 80’s and have in fact let industries die out.
I think you should have another go at this before the massive humiliation starts. There are only about 300 cases coming to make you look quite silly. Put your crash hat on now!
Many EU rules may not be perfect, but the elephant in the room is that the UK is in such a weak position and BoJo cannot expect too much.
Weak position for doing what, precisely?
@@physiocrat7143 For accepting a border in the Irish Sea and letting the EU ignoring their deadlines.
@@mariorossi7149 I mean, what is it that the UK will want to do, that the EU will make it difficult for the UK to do?
@@physiocrat7143 Having a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU
@Hawk Anonymous Obviously the UK diplomats and politicians were not working in the interests of the people of the UK, or anyone else in the EU, for that matter. Civil servants, what do you expect?
Thank you for explaining this so concisely! I think many people think "state aid" has something to do with welfare. Also the fact that it's an EU-only term explains why I'd never heard it used before
Last time i was this early there was still a deadline.
To be fair "international law" encompasses any kind of treaty they signed up on.
But I guess "we're going to break our agreement with the EU on this particular issue" doesn't sound quite as dramatic as "we're breaking international law". :P
You're right. The people using the term are the ones who talked about "crashing out" of the EU. Emotive terminology intended to shut down rational discussion.
Somehow, it doesn't feel quite as wicked as the Israeli-occupied territories . But maybe I'm biased.
A Canada style deal was never going to be a starter for the UK. It is a bit like asking for country membership to a golf club, when you live next door to the clubhouse.
How does that analogy work? What is the game? Do you think people buy UK goods and services so as to do them a favour?
@@physiocrat7143 In this analogy, the game is golf - that's why I stated "golf club". The EU is the club and the UK is a person seeking membership on the cheap.
@@saddoncarrs6963 What is the game that the UK plays as a member of the EU? What is the advantage the EU is giving?
@@henrybn14ar The UK is no longer a member of the EU. However it would appear that the UK is still seeking certain advantages of EU membership, such as tariff and quota free trade, but without being beholden to the EU rules. To me, this is like a person wanting to enjoy unfettered access to the facilities of, say, a golf club without having to follow the club rules or pay a membership fee.
there's nothing like that familiar voice saying "hello and welcome to another TLDR video" with *that* intonation :) news made for humans.
So the UK is mad that the EU won’t let them be more socialist? That’s a twist I didn’t expect
State aid is socialism?
You have a weird conception of socialism.
@@512TheWolf512 I mean, it’s government intervention in competitive markets. But I’m also American. Our definition of socialism is basically “when the government does stuff.”
@@josh3658edwards Like I said, weird.
@Elliot Roger fan account Even more weird!. Pass the acid tabs.
That Harry Enfield reference was beautiful
I prefer open and *free* competition.
Me too. The EU never has
Common Agricultural Policy .EQ. State Aid. Rampant, in favour of France, since the beginning of the EU, meaning the EU has always existed for the benefit of and greater glory of France, hence France under De Gaulle refusing to let the UK join for 13 years, as we would have disturbed France's top-dog position from the outset, and no way did it want that. So it was always a cosy club, and if it hadn't been for the UK, it would not today have 27 member states, a situation which ought to have humbled France, but it still insists on better terms for its farmers than those of the late joiners.
A neutral regulator / policeman / court is something I'm sure the UK is fine with.
The treaty being refereed by one side isn't really how life works.
State aid could increase as a form of protectionism after any deal or no deal or tariffs to export goods and services while decreasing VAT for non EU exports would allow more profitable exports outside the EU afterwards. Ideas aside they cant offer what we dont need and truth is Canada or Australia trade deal they dont want. Case in point no deal Brexit.
First comment - from Germany!
Fishery: btw about 350 years ago Charles II gave 50 fisherboats from Belgium the eternal right to fish in British waters... can you comment on that?
Well if the UK considers this promise no more than an irrelevant historical footnote, they should allow Gibraltar full independence to join the EU along the lines of San Marino, Monaco and Andorra.
@@wigcherspanninga9900 that's not really comparable.
The UK EEZ is worth £5 billion plus...why should any part of it be given away
1:45 thought i was leaning on my volume button
The 3rd sticking point is which court will arbitrate in the case of disagreements after a trade agreement is signed.
Brexit has ALWAYS been about state aid rules. GB has also always criticised the EU for being 'protectionist' but in reality of course GB has long wanted this status for itself. Outside the EU, GB will be able to heavily invest and artificially push up businesses and industries it deems as being most internationally competitive - this of course flying in the face of classic conservative and liberal doctrine of 'marketplace of ideas' 'invisible hand' and the mantra of 'never choosing/picking winners and losers'. UK wants to firstly become a financial tax haven just outside the EU giving businesses from around the world a dumping ground for their toxic industries and pay little to no tax, then of course gangster will be able to wash their dirty money through UK banks and bury it in overpriced property that will further reduce space for affordable and social housing...
Pat H, what do you mean by toxic industries?
@@mohammedraheem6288 on the one hand literally toxic industries ie importing lower standard foods (violating UK's own standards - ironically very non-protecionist in that respect) that will lead to i m sure farming practices changing here and potentially US takeovers of British estates/farms. then on the other hand toxic industries such as creeping privatisation of NHS and businesses that will insist on low to no tax burden and workers' rights in order to come to the UK..
This is truly an excellent channel. Great content, balanced and to the point. Keep doing what you’re doing
Doesn't France massively subsidize the agriculture industry? How do they get around state aid rules?
didn't the UK Gov already stated that they want to undercut the EU? be it with state aid, tax cuts or cutting worker rights...
How long does it take to prove that there is “actual harm”? ... right: also 10 years.
According to the UK government own website the creative Industries contribute £111 billion per year, whereas the fishing industry contribute only £1.4 billion. So can someone tell me why we spend all this time I'm discussing the UK fishing industry when it's relatively peanuts.
i understand the argument for fisheries but state aid i don't understand why there's a problem after already agreeing set state aid with Japan
Not going well,is it?
Referenda are also non binding in the UK, but see what is happening.
That is such a stupid thing to say. In the formal sense that a bill would have to be passed following the referendum you may be correct. So you keep making the same stupid point over and over for years. The 2016 referendum was, of course advisory, and the Commons could have ignored it without being in breach of the law. David Cameron, however, had committed the government to accepting it, and MPs decided also to do so when they passed the EU Notification of Withdrawal bill in 2017 by the massive majority of 384 votes. This means it is now binding. There is no doubt whatsoever that leaving is binding. Now please be quiet for the rest of eternity.
State aid in the eu is likely to become looser as the main opposition to loose state aid was britain
Great explanation. Please also tell us what’s behind the UK government’s recent deal for ferries. What’s that all about?
In 1947 we gave state aid to landowners/farmers in order to provide more food for post-war Britain.When we joined the EU part of our contribution (£3.4 billion) was returned to landowners/farmers.When we left the EU (Brexit),they stopped the £3.4 billion because we had stopped our contributions.Boris thought this most unfair,so very,very quietly,he decided that the British taxpayer should pay landowners (the rich landed gentry ) £3.4 billion,for the next 5 yrs (this is state aid ).We, the taxpayer now has the privilege of handing millionaires.....billions ie Sir James Dyson..£2m, The Queen..£400k, Khalid Abdullah..£400k.
No wonder they did a U-turn over school meals !
The political declaration and what the EU is now demanding are VERY different things. In the PD the UK agreed that "Yeah, we'll follow general EU and international standards". What the EU are now demanding is the UK remains under EU law and the EU courts, including any new EU laws and decisions, forever. The UK agreed to a agreement between equals. The EU is demanding subservience, it holding all the power and the UK bound to obey. Since the EU clearly regards the UK as an economic rival to hand the EU power over UK economic and business laws would be insane. It would be like Man U playing Chelsea and Chelsea demanding it can order Man U which players it is allowed to use and what tactics it is allowed to play. That's why we're so against it even though we will be very unlikely to break those rules. When your economic opponent is allowed to enforce the rules you have to follow, and even make up and introduce new rules, then clearly they will use those powers to hurt the UK.
The objection from the UK is not "Well it isn't legally binding" but rather "That is way way beyond what we agreed!"
I know this is out of line for this topic but I'm gonna say just for this video since it relates to UK (plus the fishing thing at the start made me remember about it). Will there be a video on Diego Garcia?
Watching this after the recent news, if only they made the video 24 hours later
They wanted to throw money at their donors, then realised that there'd be less attention if they appoint another friendly face to regulate the state aid allocations
At last someone has the political declaration is not legally binding. Now my point. This means that the use of Article 217 of the Lisburn Treaty by the EU Council on February 20th 2020 for the EU Mandate was also a breach of international law because under Article 217 it's use requires and any changes can only be made be Unanimous not majority vote of the EU Council. Also Article 217 is for EU Associates whose Guest can exit anytime without lots of Lisburn Treaty procedures That's why the EU position cannot change even if a majority of members want to. The problem for the EU is that if a no deal takes place and the UK withdrawal agreement legislation is not repealed The EU could be in serious trouble because Ireland would break International law if it voted on anything that effected Northern Ireland whether it is part of the NI protocol or not. This would block any relevant actions that require a Unanimous vote. That would seriously impact on EU business.
UK exports to the EU were the equivalent of 7.7% of GDP (in 2017), the question is would state aid and having control of our fishing waters increase GDP enough to compensate the 0% to 7.7% loss of GDP that no deal would cause?
To sanctioning the "threat of harm" instead "proven harm" has it's upsides. Proving actual harm is hard and takes a long time. Also the principle enforces, that damages need to be done before jurisdiction can kick in, which is way too late. A oligopoly or monopoly may be established way before any penalty can be applied. On the other side the "threat of harm" allows, that harm to the market can be prevented by suing before market distorting laws and subsidies can take effect.
At least in theory, real world implementations are way more complicated.
OMG it's not fish anymore!?!
Yeah I very much disagree. I believe Britain would accept state aid legislations considering we barely use our state aid concessions compared to France or Germany.
I'm pretty sure fishing is just as much of deal breaker here. Considering Macron's not backing down from his ridiculous hardline stance. Even though he wants limited access for Britain into the UK, he still wants the same access for French fisherman in British waters after Brexit.
I'd love to get the Brexit colouring book but given that Brexit has continued much longer, I'm holding out to see whether a furture colouring book comes out that consolidates this.
How you humiliate yourself by using the colouring book joke and then making spelling errors that suggest that the colouring book is, indeed, your intellectual level. Nice own goal.
@@johnbishop5316 I'm guessing you don't know whether a future Brexit colouring book will be released and if so whether this will be a consolidated version to include the first book?
@@aqwsxzM But what about the "furture" one?
@@johnbishop5316 What about it?
so the state aid law that the UK PUSHED IN THE EU to implement the UK was the driving power behind this, and they were like OH THIS IS SUPER IMPORTENT and now they leave and are like "why u have this fucking stupid law" xDDD
Instead of percentage, why not say the actual figure in £££
@Bri Ba Because 1%GPD doesnt sound like anything, they should say its millions of pounds.
And its the uk, we have the British pound not the Euros..
@Bri Ba Thats my point (thank you for working it out btw) if this video said it cost the UK 8.2 billion each year. Then that has a more of realistic impact on the minset of that debate!. The percentage scenario looks like its down playing the huge amount it actually costs us.
The EU needs to prepare to accept a large number of refugies. That is ok.
But! There should be selecting on who can get in.
And I think the only question that needs to be asked is are you coming from England? If yes, then "bugger off".
Interesting and informative video. I've never understood why state aid is such a thorn in the side for the tories as a Brexit issue. Historically they've always hated state aid and even proposed many of the EUs state aid rules. Where was the state aid for British Leyland/Rover, the mining industry, the steel industry etc?
Plenty of state aid for owners of farm land.
@@physiocrat7143 I don't know where you got that idea from. The subsidies farmers get are from the EU (CAP). Our government has given no indication they intend to continue paying it after January 1st. 2021.
Brexit means Brexit.
@@ianl1052 The NFU (really the national association of farmland owners, tenant farmers have their own organisation) have been spinning a sob story ever since 2016. Given the number of MPs who own farmland, I would expect them to want the public teat refilled.
@@physiocrat7143 Those very same farmers also expected their fellow MPs to vote for the amendment to the Agriculture Bill put forward by the HOL to make our high food standards apply to countries seeking to export foods into the UK as part of a trade deal (specifically the US). Look where that got them.
332 to 279 to reject the amendment. Ironically, the most support came from Labour where the bulk of tories voted against.
I hope you like chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and genetically modified crops.
@@ianl1052 High UK food standards? Campylobacter chicken? Salmonella eggs? BSE beef? Overstocked poultry and pig houses? In the EU, sows are still kept in crates on hard floors. High EU food standards are a myth. Chicken need to be chlorinated. You drink and swim in chlorinated water. There is nothing wrong with GM as such, the problem is the Monsanto glyphosate, which is still in use in the EU.
If you don't want to eat the things you mention, don't buy them. You can get things like Soil Association and Duchy marked products. If you want UK beef, look for the flag on the package. Or go vegetarian or vegan just to be certain. The food that is making everyone ill is sugar.
Enough of this "Dithering and delaying", BoJo stop twisting and turning, lets move on, just leave in peace! And blame yourself!
"leave in peace" will be devastating for UK economy, especially under current covid19 situation, of course there will also be some negative impact on EU, not desirable by either side. UK needs to accept it's not in a position to make demands.
@@Patrick-jj5nh in Africa we say, when 2 bulls are fighting the grass gets burnt, BoJo new what he was getting, remember the bus? Of course it will hurt us all, but don't you think the UK had enough "Extra Wurst" from all the exemptions and exclusions over the years?
@@klausmohr522 oh yea i very much agree and i suspect it's starting to dawn on a lot of people at least those closest to the negotiations but selling it to the brexit fundamentalists is another story..
@@Patrick-jj5nh no wonder the UK (maybe only England) need so many yt channels explaining their own "Brexit" saga over there!
@@klausmohr522 it would be derided as fake news/propaganda and comments would be flooded by bots no doubt. we have come to a place where it will be hard to get back to concept of a 'civil society' with shared values and norms.
Surely State Aid in the context of Brexit refers to the possibility that because of the large imbalance in value of goods traded between the UK and EU, exiting without a deal and going to WTO rules may mean the UK government using tariffs collected on imports from Europe to pay the tariffs of British goods imported into Europe. Oh dear, what a dastardly shame.
Why does Canada have an Australian accent?
Heh.
I can recall years ago working on a product that was intended for the UK market. It took us nearly a year to get a sign off from the relevant regulator... not because it was strict, but because there essentially were no carefully spelled out rules and it was instead a single office that gave you a pass fail and then you had to hire people with 'inside knowledge' of what they 'really wanted'.
So yeah... I do not see the UK creating a more efficient or less ambiguous system, but instead simply want THEIR inefficient ambiguous people making the decisions.
British deadlines after deadline, deadline never end.
Wrong today, sunshine.
the young generation in the UK grew up in the european union, they are used in the european standarts(high food standarts for example, all the laws that protect human rights, democracy etc. ) even though im not from the uk i cannot imagine that the youth wanted brexit! this was such such a bad decision :/ i feel so sorry for the people my age in the uk right now...hopefully you will come back in soon
Closer trade yes, standards yes, human rights yes, democracy yes, helping each other out yes most in UK are in favour of these things. Closer political Union and an ever closer Union, not everyone is in favour of, enough to get leave to win, EU does not look like they are going to change from that path, so any country that does not want closer Union is not going to stick around. I think some think it's for other reasons and some of that is true, but to get that many people voting leave you need those purely not happy with losing more sovereignty, that difficult truth is widely brushed under the carpet and ignored, much easier to think it was for more convenient reasons sadly.
Image this shit between 28 countries, without the EU we would a total mess.
No harm but what isn’t a brexit sticking point at this stage
Fish deserve independence and Sovereignty.
Make those bullying humans stay on their "dry land". Reject their demands for fish!
It's time to trade with the humans on WTO terms. How dare they talk about "our waters" - they have no god given right to ANY water, they are land animals !
If you support Brexit, you MUST support an end to all fishing !
@David Byrden: We're not limited-to-land animals! We have cof-fins, and we have a water-rich country named Finland. We may even be gillable, (Oops, typo.)
;-)
The other issue of State Aid is of credibility and longterm commitment. It's all well and good for the UK to promise not to abuse state aid under a more lax agreement....... but what has the UK done recently to show that it can be trusted to follow through on the terms and intent as negotiated?
UK in 2020: "We promise not to go crazy with state aid under this new system."
UK in 2022: "We are going crazy with state aid in a narrow and limited way."
WHAT
"Sorry officer, I didn't realize I was speeding. I thought I was going as fast as allowed under the Internal Markets Bill."
Time to end the negotiations.
Have a beer or vino, shake hands and go our separate ways.
It’s all water under the bridge now, EU did not heed the deadline and UK will now prepare for a no deal scenario.
Ohh wow, totally called this 4 years ago, lol
Although no treaty will cause me a @@@@ storm of problems (you have no idea how bad), _Boris, just walk away and walk away now._
Why did they join the EU in the first place , this is a costly divorce
Cause it’s beneficially economically
The UK was bankrupt
No Deal Brexit
still pushing your silly coloring book -.-
TLDR has been recently leaning towards an anti-EU rhetoric. I recommend that it be very cautions with jargons, definitions and critical reasoning as this might break up its vow of impartiality commitment. To begin with, the ECJ or The European Court of Justice is an INDEPENDENT institution, thus it is not subordinate to ANY European Institution, let alone the European Union. Second, the laws governing the State Aid regime are indeed very complex and not possible to be explained even in a one hour video. The comparison between the two examples between the cases of Luxembourg vs Fiat and the Netherlands vs Starbucks is just too complex and a very unhappy example to be inserted in a Brexit negotiation context. Thirdly, the reason the EU demands that the U.K. signs up to a State Aid regime is two fold: First, the EU only agreed to proceed with negotiations should they follow the political declaration; furthermore, the given the U.K. government’s recent behaviour (e.g. the passing of the Internal Market Bill by the Commons), the country might be able to set up anti-competition laws and sunk the EU economy. For instance, there are talks of transforming the U.K. in a tax heaven or something close to it.
Starbucks and Fiat cases are both landmark cases that has shaped all EU laws on state aid. There is nothing complicated about. There are countless studies on online. you can google it and get the comparison in about 3 min.
@@csmain It’s indeed very complex to get to the law basics &fundamentals if one doesn’t have a background in law and still they are unfit to portrait a Brexit negotiation scenario.
@@BernardoTavora to oversimplfy the argument that the eu made against the starbucks but was later overturned in higher courts stated concluded that any consoludated group subsidzing one part of the business either by changing franchise cost etc is not parameter for state aid. Lets take console selling at a loss in a factory but is wholly owned and taxed in the same group. No one can make the argument that it is subsidized when in the end its part of the business stratagy of selling consoles at a loss when its being covered by sales of games controllers etc.
Both sides are behaving irrationally. Most countries have tax systems which punish the economies of the regions. All taxes have an effect in shaping the economy ie they are a distortion. The overdue reform of the Business Rates would help businesses like car and steel manufacturers in the UK.
However, as an EU consumer, I am very happy to be able to buy cheap stuff from the UK subsidised by British taxpayers.
Too many adverts make it impossible to follow a complex argument.
Yes it does give you an advantage just look at China’s state run businesses
And what do I see?
@@Jackwoody413 Including Covid. Most executions per capita, one party rule, political oppostition in gaol etc. Sounds perfect. Just the kind of people we want to trade with.
@Elliot Roger fan account Well to be fair, Huawei ran into problems.
If you took all money away and Prophets of what are you left with
Wait the EU isn’t a big bureaucratic, slow, confusing waste of time?? Yeah....
Fiat did have an advantage compared to other companies. Starbucks didn’t. I don’t think it was more complicated then that
Boris holding a gun to his own head "I'm going to pull the trigger". The EU response, 'Oh ok! 'go on then'
Wrong way around. The EU is holding the gun to it's own collective head . Boris has said OK, go on then.
@Wat ching u Thank you for raising the intellectual tone of this discussion. Foreign is a meaningless term unless you specify where you are an what nationality you are. I doubt if any state will claim you.
or maybe it's just a red herring debate so there is little banking regulation in a no deal brexit?
The British government probably still wants to subsidise foreign company's who register in Great Britain and then ship the money abroad to support their company's over there.
The plural of company is companies. Company's is a singular possessive form. And you think you have a worthwhile contribution? I don't think so.
Maybe I missed something? I thought Brexit is all about the financial services sector to the Tories
UK economy is predicted to contract by 10 % this year. A few percent more wouldn't make much difference.
This did not age well
this might be the one time I could be swayed that what the UK are doing might be a good thing.
Who made this animation? Some of the words are missing apostrophes and others beg not to be taken seriously
this state aid thing is crap from sound of it
It's best to do a deal with Australia for 1 trillion not with the EU
Nooo 1 more month.... sad but why delay the crash and burn...
BoJo head song must me shaggy's song it wasn't me.
Cause the EU has 26 members each one with veto power...
27
Fish clock= :48
Boris is finished !