Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ignore Reuters then if you must, but again can you debate the contents rather than the author?
:whistle:

I've debated it. The facts don't support the author's conclusion. The facts have been thrown in to give an air of credibility. I haven't ignored Reuters - I know you think a couple of facts spouted by a UKIP type verified by Reuters gives credibility by association - it doesn't.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

I've debated it. The facts don't support the author's conclusion. The facts have been thrown in to give an air of credibility. I haven't ignored Reuters - I know you think a couple of facts spouted by a UKIP type verified by Reuters gives credibility by association - it doesn't.

So this:

The opposition to sanctions comes despite the fact that the project itself is in contravention of the EU’s own Gas Directive, which states that the transmission system operator has to own the network and cannot also be an undertaking involved in the production or supply of natural gas.

is not a fact then?
And that does not support this:

the EU is prepared to bend its own rules

Perhaps you have an alternative fact, in which case please enlighten us?

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So this:
is not a fact then?

No it isn't - it's an opinion.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

No it isn't - it's an opinion.

The EU Gas Directive is an opinion?

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Or the alleged 20 million "divorce bill";

It's £20bn and, AIUI, it's a proposed payment for access to the single market during a transition. The divorce payment is on top of that. Speculation of course.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I suspect however that Eurocrats will not be satisfied with the contents.

The best way to create dissatisfaction in the EU negotiating team would for the UK government to agree a clear negotiating stance where there is absolute unanimity. Today may be the start - touch wood.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The EU Gas Directive is an opinion?

*sigh* No, the project being in contravention of said directive is an opinion. I don't even care - I'm just trying to teach you the difference between fact and opinion. Sometimes, this'll blow your mind, articles can contain both fact AND opinion. That doesn't make the opinion therein a fact.

Rinoa

Not too happy about the 2 year transition. Just prolonging the uncertainty.

However, according to Peston, TM is persuing CETA + and not the half in half out EEA.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-21/what-the-cabinet-decided-on-brexit/

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

*sigh* No, the project being in contravention of said directive is an opinion. I don't even care - I'm just trying to teach you the difference between fact and opinion. Sometimes, this'll blow your mind, articles can contain both fact AND opinion. That doesn't make the opinion therein a fact.

*sigh* indeed.
You appear not to understand; the statement is fact, not opinion.
Therefore it looks like you are the one needing taught the difference because the following clearly states

The opposition to sanctions comes despite the fact that the project itself is in contravention of the EU’s own Gas Directive, which states that the transmission system operator has to own the network and cannot also be an undertaking involved in the production or supply of natural gas.

The directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0073
Nordstream owners: https://www.nord-stream.com/about-us/
The laws broken:

Nord Stream 2 would contravene energy market rules established by the EU under the so-called Third Energy Package, whose most interesting innovation concerns “unbundling”. This stipulates that entities that exercise control over an undertaking in the production or supply sector may not simultaneously control or exercise any rights over a transmission system, and vice versa. This applies to any operators that did not exist or which were not a vertically integrated undertaking as of September 3, 2009. Such operators must obtain from the competent regulatory authority a certification that unbundling rules are complied with, and this certification must be approved by the European Commission. If the operator is controlled by a non-EU entity such as Gazprom, the transit system operator must also prove that the security of supply is not at risk.

https://www.ft.com/content/444d9aec-27f2-366e-a6d1-2948b390a2e2

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Rinoa wrote: »

Not too happy about the 2 year transition. Just prolonging the uncertainty.

However, according to Peston, TM is persuing CETA + and not the half in half out EEA.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-21/what-the-cabinet-decided-on-brexit/

If it is true, nor will many others be happy.
Fortunately for now at least it is all speculation.
Tomorrow we will have fact.
Hopefully.

Herzlos

Calling it a fact doesn't automatically make it one. The fact is I've been too busy on my super yacht this week to find out of its a fact or not.

Is there an unbiased source for this fact?