Commentary: Time for BAe to give in
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.If British Aerospace is wise it will comply with the European Commission's ruling yesterday and repay the pounds 44.4m sweetener it received from the Government to buy Rover, plus interest, and close the door on a saga that has bedevilled the company for the past four years.
At least one senior member of the BAe board believes this is what the company should have done three years ago when Brussels reached its original verdict that the sweeteners were unlawful. There is some force to this argument. The episode has continued to hang like a millstone around Rover's neck since, guaranteeing it periodic bouts of bad headlines, undermining customer confidence and generally distracting management.
To appeal against the ruling of the EC's competition commissioner, Karel van Miert, would be folly. BAe has been fighting the case for four years - surely long enough to convince shareholders that everything possible has been done to protect their interests.
Whether BAe pays pounds 44.4m or pounds 70m once the interest is added to the bill is irrelevant as far as the stock market is concerned - as the continued revival yesterday of its share price amply demonstrated.
In any case, BAe would almost certainly lose another appeal to the European Court of Justice since its first appeal only succeeded on a technicality. That the sweeteners were unlawful was never disputed.
What the case tells us about the commission's determination to
stamp out illicit state aid is less clear, since it always had more to do with the wool being pulled over Brussels' eyes by the British government than BAe gaining an unfair competitive advantage.
Mr van Miert has staked out his future plans in very vague terms so far, saying that 'a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach is called for' in relation to competition policy as a whole, hinting that he would be more relaxed over state aid.
What we can be certain about is that if the money is promptly repaid the sighs of relief will be heard in both London and Brussels.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments