# State aid/launch aid



## CCOVICH (7 Jun 2005)

I have noticed that the duspute between the EU and the US on Airbus/Boeing invloves Airbus receiving 'launch aid' from the UK, Germany, France and Spain. 

Does anyone know what the difference is between this type of aid and the aid that the Irish government was prevented from giving to Intel?


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2005)

The difference is that we are a small country and was giving grants to a US company and France, Germany and the UK are big countries and were giving aid to a EU company. All the rest is window dressing.


----------



## CCOVICH (9 Jun 2005)

I see.  Reading an article in yesterday's Irish Times on State Aid, it appears that it is deemed 'illegal' if it distorts competition within the EU, i.e. without the IDA grant, Intel might choose to locate their new plant in Greece as opposed to Ireland. Is the Airbus project for the good of all EU members and the launch aid is not anti competitive with regard to the EU (but may be anti competitive in a global sense)?


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2005)

If Intel were locating their office in France (not much chance of that) or Germany do you think that this would have been an issue? 
The reality is that some of the big older members are p**sed off with us taking the handouts and then taking jobs from the economies that supplied the money in the first place. I can see where they are coming from but issues such as this and tax harmonisation will be bandied about because they are seen as issues that can help the old European economies.  It's all about who pays the piper.


----------



## MugsGame (9 Jun 2005)

We're a net contributor to the EU. Depending on how you value the fishing rights we gave away, possibly even the biggest per capita.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2005)

Only in the last few years.


----------



## MugsGame (10 Jun 2005)

Depends on what you include in the calculation. Our territorial waters are a huge national resource and we allowed European fishing fleets almost unhindered access to them. On that basis it's easy to argue we were always a net contributor, and we shouldn't be made to feel like the poor man of Europe happy to take EU infrastructure money to build roads for the English and German tourists.


----------



## Guest127 (15 Jun 2005)

two or three different sets of values apply to almost everything in the eu. for instance its illegal to subsidise An Post for keeping open loss making sub post offices, yet almost everyone wants them kept open, ( the only ones subsidising unprofitable post offices now are the staff of an post.) its illegal to subsidise intel yet its fairly obvious that intel will seriously think 'outside the box' next time round and do a runner. it's apparantly not illegal to subsidise a giant eu corporation ie airbus industries. if the eu must have an airline manufacturing capacity in order not to be dependent the usa then same could be said for national airlines ie Aer Lingus. Personally I think this is a load of bull but like purple says its all how you dress your window. its no wonder some of us will vote no given half a chance.


----------

