I made idle speculation about a state aid complaint being made to Neelie Kroes, Bertiebasher had the guts to make the first complaint.
There is also a competition law angle. Once a house changes hands, it becomes instantly ineligible for the bailout. BUT it is exactly the same as it was the instant before the change of ownership. It hasn’t changed one iota. Yet, as a loan provider, the bailout-administering body is not legally allowed to discriminate between equivalent products. I would buy the argument that two physically totally-identical products, one unsold, one second-hand are, by definition equivalent. Would you?
Example:
*Here is an unopened box of chocolates, still in its wrapper. I will lend you money to buy this.
Here is an unopened box of chocolates, still in its wrapper, from the exact same batch as the first one and in all other respects identical. It was in the possession of a third party for one second but he chose not to open it and wishes to sell it on for the same price and on exactly the same conditions as the first one. I will refuse to lend you money to buy this.*
AFAIK, my behaviour in relation to the loan in relation to the box of chocolates is illegal. let’s talk about this, and the State Aid issue (which I know less than nada about and will need to defer to your knowledge of EU arcana).
