Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali · 15-01-2018 3:43pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

the costs of the plants are already spent and as such they are locked in for the medium term anyway (any tariffs etc will effect them but not enough to simply shut up shop).

Yes, this. It would be impossibly expensive to pull an actual manufacturing line out of the UK, ship it to Slovakia and start making the same car there.

The threat is longer term - when that model is replaced in 3-5 years, will the next model line be installed in the UK factory, or somewhere else?

15-01-2018 4:01pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not who they sell to but who they buy from. A UK car is 70% to 80% by value imported. If there is no simple import regime as exists at the moment, JIT goes out the window, stock holding goes up, and costs go up, and competitiveness goes down.

Are you sure about that?

The UK car industry exported £31Bn worth of cars in 2016, but imported £13bn of engines and components.

Nody · 15-01-2018 4:03pm

Aegir wrote: »

you are presuming that the UK plants only produce for the UK and the EU, this is very much not the case.

You mean production sold through existing FTA which as of day 1 Brexit are null and void meaning UK is back on basic WTO terms while that plant in Europe is still on the original terms. Also keep in mind 54% of their current export is EU countries in the first place which greatly reduces the scope for running even close to current volumes through the factories.

15-01-2018 4:10pm

Nody wrote: »

You mean production sold through existing FTA which as of day 1 Brexit are null and void meaning UK is back on basic WTO terms while that plant in Europe is still on the original terms. Also keep in mind 54% of their current export is EU countries in the first place which greatly reduces the scope for running even close to current volumes through the factories.

So your assumption that all cars produced in the UK are for either the UK market or the eu was wrong, because it is less than half of the production.

Nody · 15-01-2018 4:48pm

Aegir wrote: »

So your assumption that all cars produced in the UK are for either the UK market or the eu was wrong, because it is less than half of the production.

Actually EU & UK would make up about 65% of existing production (80% export of which 54% is EU + 20% domestic) and the other 35% is dependent on imports from EU countries AND dependent on existing EU trade deals to be exported. As we've already covered the JIT requirements and costs of not being JIT and lack of trade deals those 35% of production is not exactly going to start to grow somehow after brexit...

Skedaddle · 15-01-2018 5:08pm

Aegir wrote: »

I doubt very much that any car plants in the UK will suddenly be upping sticks and moving east. What you may see is other plants in europe slowly increase and european production switched there.

Why would you very much doubt that?
They're multinational companies that run on tight margins and if the UK becomes a less financially attractive location to produce in, they simply will move.

It's not about nationalism, loyalty or spite - it's simple economics. The UK government has absolutely screwed them over by changing all the rules of the game and all the regulation at the stroke of a pen.

They've no idea where they stand in terms of access to one of the world's largest markets and that kind of instability can only go on for so long.

To make it worse, the UK currently has no idea how long it will take it to cut trade deals with any other markets. It's not just EU markets, but the entire customs union and many global markets which have certainty because of agreements and deals with the EU. The UK is going back to the drawing board and seems to think that replicating all of this can be done in an afternoon.

What is being proposed is utterly unrealistic and is getting into the realms of insanity at this stage.

The UK domestic market isn't small, but it's certainly not huge like the US or the EU. Things will change for UK car plants. That's just an inevitable part of doing business. These are not charities.

In reality, a car plant is just a production line that's heavily automated and sits in a big shed.
If you can get workers who are competent enough to operate all of that gear (and there are plenty of those in many countries) you simply just pack up your expensive robotic platforms and put them somewhere else.

You're really not talking about industries that have huge issues with mobility anymore.

Most of them also run multiple competing production locations too. So, if the UK plants become uncompetitive, the production just gets shifted elsewhere.

15-01-2018 5:33pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

Why would you very much doubt that?
They're multinational companies that run on tight margins and if the UK becomes a less financially attractive location to produce in, they simply will move.

Because it would cost hundreds of millions and take years to achieve.

Honda have had to spend £200m to tool up Swindon to manufacture the new Civic, for example.

Skedaddle wrote: »

In reality, a car plant is just a production line that's heavily automated and sits in a big shed.
If you can get workers who are competent enough to operate all of that gear (and there are plenty of those in many countries) you simply just pack up your expensive robotic platforms and put them somewhere else.

You've never worked in a factory, have you?

For starters, you are talking about shutting down production for a period of time, in an industry that produces up to 1000 cars per day. So if a move takes an unbelievably short time of just a couple of months, your are still talking 60,000 cars.

but in reality, it would be more like six months, so it would be cheaper and easier to just replace all the robots and stuff, which would cost hundreds of millions.

listermint · 15-01-2018 5:35pm

Aegir wrote: »

Because it would cost hundreds of millions and take years to achieve.

Honda have had to spend £200m to tool up Swindon to manufacture the new Civic, for example.

You've never worked in a factory, have you?

For starters, you are talking about shutting down production for a period of time, in an industry that produces up to 1000 cars per day. So if a move takes an unbelievably short time of just a couple of months, your are still talking 60,000 cars.

but in reality, it would be more like six months, so it would be cheaper and easier to just replace all the robots and stuff, which would cost hundreds of millions.

In reality they run competing plants.... Which is what most Car manufacturers do.

Wind down in one wind up in the other.

15-01-2018 5:40pm

listermint wrote: »

In reality they run competing plants.... Which is what most Car manufacturers do.

Wind down in one wind up in the other.

they would, which would cost hundreds of millions.

listermint · 15-01-2018 5:41pm

Aegir wrote: »

they would, which would cost hundreds of millions.

It doesnt cost hundreds of millions to wind up and wind down in competing plants. Thats the point of competing plants.....

Skedaddle · 15-01-2018 5:45pm

Actually not only that but you could find that because of changed regulatory environments, they could also walk away from certain employment contracts by just winding up subsidiaries entirely.

They're providing companies with a lot of excuses for just dumping plants.

15-01-2018 5:48pm

listermint wrote: »

It doesnt cost hundreds of millions to wind up and wind down in competing plants. Thats the point of competing plants.....

its costing Honda £200m to tool up Swindon for the new Civic.

To tool up another factory would cost the same, would it not? and that is presuming they have capacity and don't have to purchase new High pressure die casting machines, presses, injection moulding machines, robotic welding machines.......

it would cost hundreds of millions

listermint · 15-01-2018 5:53pm

Aegir wrote: »

its costing Honda £200m to tool up Swindon for the new Civic.

To tool up another factory would cost the same, would it not? and that is presuming they have capacity and don't have to purchase new High pressure die casting machines, presses, injection moulding machines, robotic welding machines.......

it would cost hundreds of millions

Have you read the term competing....

not new

not tooling up

15-01-2018 6:06pm

listermint wrote: »

Have you read the term competing....

not new

not tooling up

Please stop.

You can't suddenly produce a Qashqai in a factory that makes Micras. The factory would need tooling up to do that and the car companies don't often produce the same car in more than one plant in europe.

LiamaDelta · 15-01-2018 6:31pm

listermint wrote: »

In reality they run competing plants.... Which is what most Car manufacturers do.

Wind down in one wind up in the other.

In reality manufacturers very rarely run 'competing plants', such is the expense of building them. Manufacturers do run multiple plants and multiple lines within plants but rarely do they compete within a company - duplication costs a lot of money.
Sometimes various plants 'compete' for the investment in a certain production line. This is common across many industries and multinational companies. Intel Ireland for example, often pitches itself against other plants to secure the investment for production of a certain chip. They are then the main producer of said product.

murphaph · 15-01-2018 7:23pm

listermint wrote: »

In reality they run competing plants.... Which is what most Car manufacturers do.

Wind down in one wind up in the other.

Just like ford did with Dagenham and Cologne. Dagenham still has engines but nothing else.

The UK car industry will be left producing old models for the domestic market if hard Brexit happens.

Sam Russell · 15-01-2018 7:52pm

murphaph wrote: »

Just like ford did with Dagenham and Cologne. Dagenham still has engines but nothing else.

The UK car industry will be left producing old models for the domestic market if hard Brexit happens.

I think you might see a model survival like the BMC Mini which continued in production hardly altered from 1969 to 2000.

The Morris Oxford (series III) became the Hindustan Ambassador which was manufactured by Hindustan Motors of India. It was in production from 1958 to 2014 with few improvements and changes over its production lifetime. The Morris Oxford series III was first made by Morris Motors at Cowley, from 1956 to 1959.

I think the current models might continue in the UK longer than anywhere else with badge engineering to give the other marques a model to sell. The Nissan Qashqai would be sold as a Renault. Already the Vauxhall/Opel Luton factory makes a van badged in various versions as a Vauxhall, Opel, Renault, and presumably soon to be a Peugeot and Citroen.

Already some cars are not made RHD for some time after launch in LHD.

BonnieSituation · 15-01-2018 8:12pm

That's an interesting vista for the Irish car market as well.

We're already screwed for models and we have the UK in the EU, but it will be interesting.

Imagine now when it's only Ireland, Malta and Cyprus that remain as RHD.

listermint · 15-01-2018 8:23pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's an interesting vista for the Irish car market as well.

We're already screwed for models and we have the UK in the EU, but it will be interesting.

Imagine now when it's only Ireland, Malta and Cyprus that remain as RHD.

And India and Australia..

......

Vronsky · 15-01-2018 8:27pm

listermint wrote: »

And India and Australia..

......

Last time I checked neither were in the EU.

Sam Russell · 15-01-2018 8:49pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's an interesting vista for the Irish car market as well.

We're already screwed for models and we have the UK in the EU, but it will be interesting.

Imagine now when it's only Ireland, Malta and Cyprus that remain as RHD.

Both Malta and Cyprus could convert to RHD easily enough. Might be a bit more tricky for us, as we have just built a network of Motorways.

Nody · 15-01-2018 9:14pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both Malta and Cyprus could convert to RHD easily enough. Might be a bit more tricky for us, as we have just built a network of Motorways.

But as time goes on there will only be a bigger network of motorways to deal with if such a switch was to be done in the future so might as well bite the bullet and try to coax some EU Brexit money out of it all (along with changing the electrical plugs to EU normal for new houses) and paint it all as Ireland aligning with EU and get some money (probably more money due to Brexit) in the process. Honestly I think one of the bigger problems beyond motorways would be the NI border area (since you'd need to re-route all traffic at the border) but a hard Brexit would sort out that issue. From a mid/long term perspective it would open up Ireland for better selection of imports, easier for tourists to drive, no need for special plugs (either going to Europe mainland or importing consumer goods from EU) and show Ireland shaking of one of the few remaining UK legacies as well. Not that I expect either to happen but I do see it as a bit of a lost opportunity to get it done, bite the bullet and do it as cheap as possible (due to the additional money from EU due to the Brexit concerns and showing solidarity etc.)

ambro25 · 15-01-2018 9:18pm

The problem with the "it cost Honda £200m to tool up for the new Civic in the UK" argument, as a point intended to apply to all UK-based manufacturing operations, is that this investment was started not so long ago at all, and was very probably in the budgeting/forecasting/deciding for a long time, without factoring Brexit in, never mind a hard Brexit with custom rates and FUBAR'd JIT supply lines made up of lorries queuing for days in Calais and elsewhere [and reciprocally on the return leg].

Tooling does cost an arm and a leg, sure. But the headline investment costs soon starts to fade into insignificance when the multifarious effects of regulatory and procedural delays on the plant's input and output (across the board, in terms of cars made per day) are taken into account over the lifetime of that investment: any flavour of Brexit upends the returns economic model, and brings forward the cut-off level at which ever diminishing returns are reached, relative to the EU/SM status quo -which happens to be that maintained by plants across the EU27. No flavour more so, than the 'no deal hard' Brexit variant and, last I checked, that is still the flavour pursued by the UK government, whether by design or by omission.

In that context, competition between manufacturers' plants does play a role, the same it always did, and likely always will do: whoever sits on their investing thumb longest, is likely to lose the cost reduction and profitability race first.

volchitsa · 15-01-2018 9:37pm

I visited Mongolia a few years back and it was funny to see cars randomly right or left hand drive depending on where they'd been imported from. They all drove on the right, but for some it was like being an Irish/British driver on the continent. Only it was all the time.

Point is, could that be an precursory step to changing sides? Or is that the least of the problems involved?

15-01-2018 9:38pm

murphaph wrote: »

Just like ford did with Dagenham and Cologne. Dagenham still has engines but nothing else.

The UK car industry will be left producing old models for the domestic market if hard Brexit happens.

which was the result of a long term (like 20 year) strategic decision. it was also due to ford having massive over capacity in europe, something Honda (who only have one plant) Nissan and Toyota don't have.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you might see a model survival like the BMC Mini which continued in production hardly altered from 1969 to 2000.

The Morris Oxford (series III) became the Hindustan Ambassador which was manufactured by Hindustan Motors of India. It was in production from 1958 to 2014 with few improvements and changes over its production lifetime. The Morris Oxford series III was first made by Morris Motors at Cowley, from 1956 to 1959.

I think the current models might continue in the UK longer than anywhere else with badge engineering to give the other marques a model to sell. The Nissan Qashqai would be sold as a Renault. Already the Vauxhall/Opel Luton factory makes a van badged in various versions as a Vauxhall, Opel, Renault, and presumably soon to be a Peugeot and Citroen.

Already some cars are not made RHD for some time after launch in LHD.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain daft. Why would the manufacturers not want to make cars for the UK market anymore?

And can you give an example of non niche cars that are not produced in RHD for some time after launch? Bearing in mind, of course, that half the world drives RHD cars.

15-01-2018 9:42pm

Nody wrote: »

But as time goes on there will only be a bigger network of motorways to deal with if such a switch was to be done in the future so might as well bite the bullet and try to coax some EU Brexit money out of it all (along with changing the electrical plugs to EU normal for new houses) and paint it all as Ireland aligning with EU and get some money (probably more money due to Brexit) in the process. Honestly I think one of the bigger problems beyond motorways would be the NI border area (since you'd need to re-route all traffic at the border) but a hard Brexit would sort out that issue. From a mid/long term perspective it would open up Ireland for better selection of imports, easier for tourists to drive, no need for special plugs (either going to Europe mainland or importing consumer goods from EU) and show Ireland shaking of one of the few remaining UK legacies as well. Not that I expect either to happen but I do see it as a bit of a lost opportunity to get it done, bite the bullet and do it as cheap as possible (due to the additional money from EU due to the Brexit concerns and showing solidarity etc.)

we could give up English as well and all start speaking French, just to really show our european credentials

BonnieSituation · 15-01-2018 10:01pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I visited Mongolia a few years back and it was funny to see cars randomly right or left hand drive depending on where they'd been imported from. They all drove on the right, but for some it was like being an Irish/British driver on the continent. Only it was all the time.

Point is, could that be an precursory step to changing sides? Or is that the least of the problems involved?

So many more things to be done before we do that I was just making an observation about what remaining EU countries would be RHD.

Sweden is the last country to change over in (mainland) Europe in 1967. Was a lot easier to do in the 1960s than now.
Iceland changed in 1968.

Aegir wrote: »

Bearing in mind, of course, that half the world drives RHD cars.

HALF?

LHD: 163 countries/territories
RHD: 76 countries/territories

Samaris · 15-01-2018 10:06pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So many more things to be done before we do that I was just making an observation about what remaining EU countries would be RHD.

Sweden is the last country to change over in (mainland) Europe in 1967. Was a lot easier to do in the 1960s than now.
Iceland changed in 1968.

HALF?

LHD: 163 countries/territories
RHD: 76 countries/territories

One of those countries is India though! Not half, about a third drive on the left by number of drivers.

I don't see any real point making the change now. I think driverless cars will be the next big thing, and that would take an awful lot of the difficulty out of the human aspect of the changeover.

Nody · 15-01-2018 10:14pm

Samaris wrote: »

One of those countries is India though! Not half, about a third drive on the left by number of drivers.

I give you China as counter point though along with Russia and the USA.

In terms of numbers the only quotations I've found don't give source stating 65% RHD - 35% LHD population. Looking at the map in general though I'd not be surprised if for example some of the African countries would go over eventually for example due to the leader seeing it as being more business friendly (larger selection of import countries for cars).

I don't see any real point making the change now. I think driverless cars will be the next big thing, and that would take an awful lot of the difficulty out of the human aspect of the changeover.

That is quite a bit away and I'd argue would make it harder for the simple fact without 100% driveless traffic only you're risking silly software issues to pop up instead (like the yard to meter conversion fiasco for was it the Mars satellite?). And 100% driverless traffic is way off.

ancapailldorcha · 15-01-2018 10:17pm

Mod: Please take this topic to another forum and move back on topic. Thanks.

Nody · 15-01-2018 10:23pm

Well on another note then Macron is coming over to London to get May to accept more immigrants but also to pay "tens of millions" more for the border security in France as he renegotiates the Le Touquet accords this week. This would be on top of the 140 million invested in the last three years in Calai border security and fences. Of course the Telegraph comment section should keep you entertained no matter which side you are on the topic but there appear to be a general opinion that May will agree to any payments (valid or not) however.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-01-2018 11:01pm

Hard Brexit 'would cost Scots £12.7bn' ie 8.5% of GDP if it's back to WTO terms
Canada Plus is £9Bn down
Staying in the single market would be only £4Bn down

Scottish govt has done a thing with numbers and stuff, like wot the London one ain't.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2018/01/3823

Capt'n Midnight · 15-01-2018 11:09pm

Jeremy Corbyn: I'm not calling for second EU referendum

The party leader reiterated his call for MPs to have a "meaningful vote" on the final Brexit deal.

Insane. How can they have a "meaningful vote" when the only choices are accepting a deal negotiated by Tories or having the UK adrift on WTO terms ?

Sand · 15-01-2018 11:57pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Insane. How can they have a "meaningful vote" when the only choices are accepting a deal negotiated by Tories or having the UK adrift on WTO terms ?

Its not entirely insane. Labour have to say *something* when the topic of Brexit comes up. Calls for a vote sounds like a policy, it divides the Tories and it doesn't mean anything that going to offend anyone.

BonnieSituation · 16-01-2018 12:23am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Hard Brexit 'would cost Scots £12.7bn' ie 8.5% of GDP if it's back to WTO terms
Canada Plus is £9Bn down
Staying in the single market would be only £4Bn down

Scottish govt has done a thing with numbers and stuff, like wot the London one ain't.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2018/01/3823

Those pesky Scots have an awful habit of doing things like that.

Independence White Paper: http://www.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

Peregrinus · 16-01-2018 2:45am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn: I'm not calling for second EU referendum

Insane. How can they have a "meaningful vote" when the only choices are accepting a deal negotiated by Tories or having the UK adrift on WTO terms ?

If those would be the only choices open to Parliament, then they would also be the only choices open to the voters in a second referendum. Parliament cannot give the voters the power to make a choice which Parliament cannot make for itself.

Enzokk · 16-01-2018 10:01am

Seems that negotiations with the EU will get very complicated (who knew?) in the coming months. Norway is keeping a beady eye on the negotiations and if the UK gets a bespoke and favourable deal they will probably have a debate on their own status. They are paying more to the EU per capita than the UK and have to accept the four freedoms and accept EU rulings.

This is a wrinkle that the UK may not have been expecting and it will make it tougher for the UK. It is what has been warned though by the EU when they mentioned that they will be constrained by current third country deals on what they can offer the UK. It seems that if the EU doesn't want to complicate their current deals they will offer the UK one of the deals already out there. That way each country understands what is being offered and what is being accepted. They cannot ask for more if the UK gets exactly the same as everyone else.

May faces tougher transition stance from EU amid Norway pressure

Theresa May has been hit with a double Brexit blow as the EU toughened up its terms for a transition period and Norway privately warned Brussels that giving in to the UK’s demands for a “special” trade deal could force it to rip up its own agreements with the bloc.

listermint · 16-01-2018 10:25am

Well they also wont like the news of the strength of the Euro this week and the powering EU economy.

The EU doesnt have to play friendly with the UK, but can choose to.Looking very bleak for the UK. Nothing left in its arsenal to offer.

Enzokk · 16-01-2018 10:26am

And here is a reality for the UK that it will have to confront. It had a bespoke deal with the EU when it was a member, asking for one again will not work.

Still, it is jarring for EU leaders to hear Britain ask for special deals when its membership package was the most bespoke of the lot: outside the euro; outside the Schengen border-free zone; treaty opt-outs on social protection and criminal justice; a budget rebate. Those concessions were won from a seat in the room. Once on the outside, the question is not what new favours are available, but how much it costs to restore old privileges.

Brexit Britain will have to get used to life as a ‘third country’

FreudianSlippers · 16-01-2018 10:29am

Water John wrote: »

The car I drive, was made in Japan. All materials had to be shipped in to Japan and cars exported across to world to here. I wouldn't over simplify and would access each project, on its merits. I think many trends, have become self fullfiling prophecies. Often triggered by a temporary advantage.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I wouldnt oversimplify either, I work in manufacturing. We need to get things in from europe regularly. The shipping costs us, not just the price of the item particularly the time taken to deliver when we are against a clock.

Japan has some advantages that we do not. Huge population with a depth of knowledge, the japanese own that car company, they own all the IP and Patents, they have been doing the design work for years. The real high value stuff.

I visited a toyota factory in Japan a few years ago and saw the actual production line. Very much of it is fairly simple assembly work, with JIT component delivery to the line. Not the type of stuff that we should be aiming for as far as i can see.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Your Japanese car was shipped fully assembled in a giant purpose built ship. The engine would be Japanese, as would most of the components.

If we were to make cars in high volume, we would have to import everything because we currently make very few, if any, of the components that go into cars.

We are good at dairy, meat, and wheat. Let us concentrate of Kerrygold, cheese, grass fed beef, and the like.

And hope the tourists keep coming.

Even Toyota has a massive international manufacturing presence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_manufacturing_facilities

Leroy42 · 16-01-2018 10:50am

It seems to me that the UK, or at least some commentators and politicians, are of the view that whilst Brexit may hurt UK in the short term, it will also hurt the EU in short and longer term. It seems, on my reading, that the short terms negatives will be overcome in the medium terms and lead to greater results after that. EU will be stuck dealing with the shortfall.

Part of that is of course simply because a country as important as the UK leaving a group is always going to have a negative impact, even in terms of the standing of that group. The effects are lessened somewhat by the fact the UK were not part of the Euro. But an impact it will certainly have.

Much has been made of the budget shortfall that the EU will face due to the loss of the contributions for the UK, and this is correct. The UK is a net contributor, a very large one, and what are the EU planning to do without these funds? We have heard little from the EU or our own government on the effects that this will have. Will it lead to a reduction in Agri subsidies, funding for projects etc?

Most of the discussion on here seem to revolve around the negative effects on the UK but little in terms of the effects on the EU, and naturally on Ireland. Comments have been made that Ireland should receive additional funding to help us overcome the effects, but where does this money come from?

So we have two sides which seem to think that their current position places more negatives on the other side, and they are betting that the other side will crack.

16-01-2018 11:01am

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems to me that the UK, or at least some commentators and politicians, are of the view that whilst Brexit may hurt UK in the short term, it will also hurt the EU in short and longer term. It seems, on my reading, that the short terms negatives will be overcome in the medium terms and lead to greater results after that. EU will be stuck dealing with the shortfall.

Part of that is of course simply because a country as important as the UK leaving a group is always going to have a negative impact, even in terms of the standing of that group. The effects are lessened somewhat by the fact the UK were not part of the Euro. But an impact it will certainly have.

Much has been made of the budget shortfall that the EU will face due to the loss of the contributions for the UK, and this is correct. The UK is a net contributor, a very large one, and what are the EU planning to do without these funds? We have heard little from the EU or our own government on the effects that this will have. Will it lead to a reduction in Agri subsidies, funding for projects etc?

Most of the discussion on here seem to revolve around the negative effects on the UK but little in terms of the effects on the EU, and naturally on Ireland. Comments have been made that Ireland should receive additional funding to help us overcome the effects, but where does this money come from?

So we have two sides which seem to think that their current position places more negatives on the other side, and they are betting that the other side will crack.

There is a game of "Who will blink first" going on at the moment and neither side will give in.

In reality though, both parties need each other, they are each the other's biggest trading partner and when push comes to shove, they will sit down and thrash out a deal that is mutually beneficial.

First Up · 16-01-2018 11:01am

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems to me that the UK, or at least some commentators and politicians, are of the view that whilst Brexit may hurt UK in the short term, it will also hurt the EU in short and longer term. It seems, on my reading, that the short terms negatives will be overcome in the medium terms and lead to greater results after that. EU will be stuck dealing with the shortfall.

Part of that is of course simply because a country as important as the UK leaving a group is always going to have a negative impact, even in terms of the standing of that group. The effects are lessened somewhat by the fact the UK were not part of the Euro. But an impact it will certainly have.

Much has been made of the budget shortfall that the EU will face due to the loss of the contributions for the UK, and this is correct. The UK is a net contributor, a very large one, and what are the EU planning to do without these funds? We have heard little from the EU or our own government on the effects that this will have. Will it lead to a reduction in Agri subsidies, funding for projects etc?

Most of the discussion on here seem to revolve around the negative effects on the UK but little in terms of the effects on the EU, and naturally on Ireland. Comments have been made that Ireland should receive additional funding to help us overcome the effects, but where does this money come from?

So we have two sides which seem to think that their current position places more negatives on the other side, and they are betting that the other side will crack.

It is widely accepted that Brexit hurts everyone - stupid decisions usually do.

The real issue is who is better equipped to deal with and recover from the negative impacts. The EU as a whole is vastly better positioned for that, although individual components (countries, regions, industries) have varying challenges.

The concentration needs to be on how to adapt to the new circumstances in the way that minimises the downsides and fully exploits the opportunities. Ireland's strategy should be (and is) along those lines.

Zubeneschamali · 16-01-2018 11:02am

Leroy42 wrote: »

So we have two sides which seem to think that their current position places more negatives on the other side, and they are betting that the other side will crack.

The EU's ideal outcome would be for the UK to call the whole Brexit thing off, but they are not betting on that. They are in fact preparing for the worst - a hard Brexit. If the UK pick some less harmful option like a Canada or Norway deal, well and good.

The people doing the betting and the bluffing, the "clever" attempts to divide and conquer, and PR spin in the press are the UK. They are not doing this because anyone on the EU side of the table cares, they are doing it because the big disagreements about Brexit are inside the UK, inside the Tory party and inside the Government.

Tell me how · 16-01-2018 11:05am

I agree with the expectation of Brexit working, eventually, in some form. The UK is too big a market not to.

Aside from the losses which the EU are going to suffer, they will like have a continuous murmuring during national elections of other countries joining the UK outside the EU.

It remains to be seen how awkward the EU will try to make it continually for the UK so that the scenario is less appealing to others.

Think of a situation where there's another financial crash but now the UK don't care about bailing out Greece or Ireland or wherever, that's the EU problem and so they do it. There's some form of a terrorist attack soon after in a place like France just before national elections. Meanwhile, the UK is doing quite well at that point. This disturbingly perfect storm (but not entirely unlikely) could sweep Le Pen in who would likely start pushing to leave.

That's when Brussels would be getting very nervous.

listermint · 16-01-2018 11:09am

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree with the expectation of Brexit working, eventually, in some form. The UK is too big a market not to.

Aside from the losses which the EU are going to suffer, they will like have a continuous murmuring during national elections of other countries joining the UK outside the EU.

It remains to be seen how awkward the EU will try to make it continually for the UK so that the scenario is less appealing to others.

Think of a situation where there's another financial crash but now the UK don't care about bailing out Greece or Ireland or wherever, that's the EU problem and so they do it. There's some form of a terrorist attack soon after in a place like France just before national elections. Meanwhile, the UK is doing quite well at that point. This disturbingly perfect storm (but not entirely unlikely) could sweep Le Pen in who would likely start pushing to leave.

That's when Brussels would be getting very nervous.

Your scenarios are off the wall in the current context tbh.

And frankly le Pen and the rest of them were given the boat when people saw what Trump and May are like they saw straight to it.

Thanks America, Thanks Britain you put the frighteners up everyone else, very valuable.

Tell me how · 16-01-2018 11:22am

listermint wrote:

Your scenarios are off the wall in the current context tbh.

And frankly le Pen and the rest of them were given the boat when people saw what Trump and May are like they saw straight to it.

In the current context, yes, absolutely. But I'm talking about when the UK has gotten through the most difficult part of leaving the EU. Say, 5 - 10 years time.

As for Donald, frightening and all as it is, he's still there. The BBC went to 4 people who voted for him and asked them to rate his 1st year. He got 2 A's and 2 B's. Baffling as it is, there are plenty who still see his election and presidency as a good thing.

listermint · 16-01-2018 11:25am

Tell me how wrote: »

In the current context, yes, absolutely. But I'm talking about when the UK has gotten through the most difficult part of leaving the EU. Say, 5 - 10 years time.

As for Donald, frightening and all as it is, he's still there. The BBC went to 4 people who voted for him and asked them to rate his 1st year. He got 2 A's and 2 B's. Baffling as it is, there are plenty who still see his election and presidency as a good thing.

in 5 - 10 years time the UK will still be trying to gain its own traction on the global stage. Whilst the EU will be powering on having already got its own trade deals in place and a larger market for same.

There is no appetite for what you are saying and its not in line with any current events.

As for hard core trump supporters. I dont expect them to change its a cult not a political following. But i wouldnt see him get elected a second time tbh as the people who were apathatic last time out would just come out in force and vote against. There will always be his solid core of looneys who think he is the messiah.

Leroy42 · 16-01-2018 11:26am

But Tmh brings up a very valid point and one that is at the root of the problem for the EU and something the UK doesn't seem to have taken into account.

The latest murmerings from Norway being the example. In a ideal world, EU would give the best possible deal to the UK in order to minimise the negative effects and keep everything ticking along.

The issue, raised by Norway and alluded to in a slightly different aspect by Tmh, is that the deal won't exist in a bubble and will have consequences on other parties. If the UK, for example, gets a great deal then wouldn't Ireland look to leave the EU in the future?

So the EU have their hands tied to a large extent. Just as the UK seem to value sovereignty over financial costs, the EU must see it in the same light. The future of the union is surely worth more than any negative effect of a no deal with the UK.

listermint · 16-01-2018 11:28am

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Tmh brings up a very valid point and one that is at the root of the problem for the EU and something the UK doesn't seem to have taken into account.

The latest murmerings from Norway being the example. In a ideal world, EU would give the best possible deal to the UK in order to minimise the negative effects and keep everything ticking along.

The issue, raised by Norway and alluded to in a slightly different aspect by Tmh, is that the deal won't exist in a bubble and will have consequences on other parties. If the UK, for example, gets a great deal then wouldn't Ireland look to leave the EU in the future?

So the EU have their hands tied to a large extent. Just as the UK seem to value sovereignty over financial costs, the EU must see it in the same light. The future of the union is surely worth more than any negative effect of a no deal with the UK.

Im sorry, but where is this sudden news of the EU giving the UK a great deal, or any deal for that matter.

it goes against all current events.