That "Level Playing Field"

[JOK]

Tis true, and a perfect example of a system that works. Perceived breach of law / regulation; Challenge through the courts; courts make decision based on laws / regulation. Politics not to be seen.

The thing that surprises me is that JOK appears to be surprised that this system is in place, to the point it appears he is saying that Ireland knew something the UK didn't. And JOK is an intelligent poster that has researched the EU and based a decision on remain / leave based on that research. It also appears that decision may be flawed.

I don’t think I’ve expressed any surprise at the system. I hold my hand up here and admit I cited the wrong body. i.e. I should have put ‘European Commission’ not E.U. The ability or not to challenge E.U. was not my point.
You wrote “…take advantage of something we could have done all along but were told we couldn't.” suggesting, I believe, that it was Leave campaigners who “told us we couldn’t”.
My point was we were told we couldn’t, as Ireland was’ by the European Commission. The fact that assertion proved to be illegal doesn’t negate the fact of the “telling”.
Decision not flawed. (despite the questionable ‘intelligent’ presumption  )

[baggy1]

It's hardly an illegal assertion, Ireland had read the laws around anti-competition and read them one way, the EC read them another and they challenged them through the courts. That would be the same in any case like this regarding similar topics such as AML or Data Protection for instance - they are all subject to interpretation as opposed to laws such as speeding which are black and white.

I haven't read the actual case in any more detail than the BBC article to be fair but it appears that the ECs evidence that Ireland had broken any competition laws was lacking rather than they hadn't bent / broken the rules. If that is the case then it will be difficult to challenge the decision through the supreme court because, and correct me if I'm wrong, they are only allowed to challenge the decision using the evidence submitted and not 'sharpen their pencil' to make the case better.

Th point being that the EU and it's courts aren't as bad as people painted in the run up to the referendum and definately not in the 'telling us what to do' world of pain that was cited at the time. We had laws that we signed up to and knew and the EU bodies held us to account over. We did get very 'they can't tell me what to do' over it all.

Long and short of it is that we do look like we are in for a bumpy ride for the next few years and my assertion is still the same - it wasn't broken, we didn't need to fix it.

[Protheroe]

I think you're all missing the point. If there is no such thing as a "level playing field" within the EU (there isn't) - then why is the EU insisting it applies to the UK?

[baggy1]

I think you're all missing the point. If there is no such thing as a "level playing field" within the EU (there isn't) - then why is the EU insisting it applies to the UK?

Because the UK are stupid enough to put themselves in a position whereby they can demand it.

[Protheroe]

Because the UK are stupid enough to put themselves in a position whereby they can demand it.

Hmm. I don't think that's the case at all.

[baggy1]

Of course you don't - it's those nasty europeans making our life terrible.

Let's put it this way - if you had one of your employees that decided you were causing him too much grief with your rules and procedures and he decided he could do better on his own. So he decides to go into competition with you to make himself better off. The only problem is that he still needs you to supply him with the majority of his income and he needs to enter into a contract with you. Do you a) give him everything he wants and allow him to take your business from under your nose as you are keen on the benefits of a free market economy and him driving down your prices and/or income is just fair trade, or b) tie him into a contract that means he cannot undercut you and take your business?

[Derek Hardballs]

Of course you don't - it's those nasty europeans making our life terrible.

Let's put it this way - if you had one of your employees that decided you were causing him too much grief with your rules and procedures and he decided he could do better on his own. So he decides to go into competition with you to make himself better off. The only problem is that he still needs you to supply him with the majority of his income and he needs to enter into a contract with you. Do you a) give him everything he wants and allow him to take your business from under your nose as you are keen on the benefits of a free market economy and him driving down your prices and/or income is just fair trade, or b) tie him into a contract that means he cannot undercut you and take your business?

I don't think you can  count the UK as an employee of the EU - it certainly wasn't supposed to be that way. But going with the analogy, I would be cheering for A and the best possible deal for said employee if I was part of his family even if I didn't agree with his decision to leave, as he has now left and it's in the interests of him and his family. I would not be cheering on his former 'employers' in any negotiations in any form and would show him support and criticise his opponents and not him in those negotiations. I'd do this so as not to undermine his and my own and the rest if my family's interests, certainly not because I wanted to be proved right or because I didn't like him very much. Hoping for B is contrary to my interests and seeming to support the former employer to achieve it would divide the family further as well  - there's nothing to be said for it.

That’s great as long as the family member can be trusted to do what is right for all the family not just those members that stand to gain from his success. So far this family members decisions have taken away my right to unhindered movement across Europe and offered little if anything back.

[baggy1]

And the big point you are missing is that I'm not cheering for the EU, I'm just pointing out that we can't expect them (and realistically never should have expected them) to bend over and give us everything that we want. This is something that I have pointed out from long before the referendum - we were deluded to think this would be an easy ride and people are even further deluded if we think the current wombles in power can deliver milk, let alone a multi national set of trade and relationship deals.

[baggy1]

Sorry Rick - my posts seem to be going back in time and I've managed to delete the bit you've quoted.

And the big point you are missing is that I'm not cheering for the EU, I'm just pointing out that we can't expect them (and realistically never should have expected them) to bend over and give us everything that we want. This is something that I have pointed out from long before the referendum - we were deluded to think this would be an easy ride and people are even further deluded if we think the current wombles in power can deliver milk, let alone a multi national set of trade and relationship deals.

[baggy1]

I would disagree that we are encouraging the EU to play hardball just by voicing opinions, the EU know how close a call the referendum was, it also knows that if held again there would be a fair amount of people that think it just isn't worth it (which it isn't) and vote differently or not at all. We can see what a car crash this is becoming and I can't sit by and watch I'm afraid.

Let me ask you a simple question - in the middle of a pandemic and with a potential winter spike on its way, do you think it was wise not to ask for a delay / extension? We simply aren't ready for this, an example - we need 50k customs brokers to help with all of the extra paperwork (say it quietly red-tape) that business will have to get through, it takes 18 months to train a customs broker.

We are, as a country, cutting off our noses in spite of our face