Brexit discussion thread III

Samaris

The foreign secretary will call on remain and leave voters to unite, insisting that Britain can take advantage of the referendum vote for economic gain but only if it is ready to diverge on regulations.

Well, if Johnson gets in, we can all say hello again to Phase 1.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

The term refers to Boris Johnson's repeated statement that that "I am pro-having cake, and pro-eating it".

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Well, if Johnson gets in, we can all say hello again to Phase 1.

The EU will not revisit phase 1; I don't really see how they could. Simple self-respect would prevent it.

If, under a new Prime Minister, the UK won't work with what was agreed in phase 1, that's it; it's a no-deal hard Brexit.

Samaris

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU will not revisit phase 1; I don't really see how they could. Simple self-respect would prevent it.

If, under a new Prime Minister, the UK won't work with what was agreed in phase 1, that's it; it's a no-deal hard Brexit.

True, but I think phase 1 will still be revisited. The British government still hasn't put the agreement into law and are showing no signs of it while the loon wing are out in force. Tbh, if that happens, it will be Britain that looks bad rather than the EU, which has been impressively patient throughout the nonsense.

What will happen when the EU finally shrugs and gives up will be a national meltdown though.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

True, but I think phase 1 will still be revisited. The British government still hasn't put the agreement into law and are showing no signs of it while the loon wing are out in force. Tbh, if that happens, it will be Britain that looks bad rather than the EU, which has been impressively patient throughout the nonsense.

It was never going to be "put into law" until the Brexit deal was signed, sealed and delivered. What phase 1 was about was "making progress" on priority items that would be addressed in the Brexit deal, but they won't actually be addressed in the Brexit deal until there is an actual Brexit deal, which won't enter into force until actual Brexit.

And it's not going to be the UK "putting them into law". The first draft of the Brexit agreement is currently being drafted by the EU, and it will of course reflect the EU's interpretation of what the UK has agreed to in relation to the phase 1 issues. In due course the draft will be presented to the UK for discussion, finalisation and hopefully agreement.

Samaris wrote: »

What will happen when the EU finally shrugs and gives up will be a national meltdown though.

The EU won't "shrug and give up". The EU, remember, presents the draft treaty to the UK. The UK either (a) accepts the draft, or (b) seeks to negotiate changes in the draft and then accepts the altered draft, or (c) seeks to negotiate changes in the draft but rejects the draft when it can't get changes that it regards as necessary, or (d) just rejects the draft without any attempt to get changes. Both of the breakdown scenarios there involve the UK being the one that pulls the plug. I think that's much more likely than the EU being the one to call a halt.

Of those four outcomes, I think (a) accepting the draft without alteration, and (d) rejecting the draft without any attempt to negotiate changes, and not very likely. Almost certainly there will be discussions over aspects of the draft agreement, some changes will be made, other changes will be sought but not made, and eventually the UK will either accept the package or reject it.

For what it's worth, I'm still of the view that the UK is more likely to accept the package, whatever it is, than reject it. That's what they've done at every point up to now.

May's strategy may be that she will in the end take whatever deal she can get from the EU, but she will string this out so that only happens very late in the piece. This would give the hard Brexiters a dilemma; at that point the option of a different deal would no longer be even a theoretical possibility, so if they shaft May they would have to do so on a platform of proceeding with a no-deal Brexit, and furthermore of burning the UK's diplomatic credibility by having the UK denounce a deal which it has freely signed. That's pretty extreme. While no doubt there are hard Brexiters who would sign up to this platform, I doubt that they could command a majority in the Tory party.

Samaris

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was never going to be "put into law" until the Brexit deal was signed, sealed and delivered. What phase 1 was about was "making progress" on priority items that would be addressed in the Brexit deal, but they won't actually be addressed in the Brexit deal until there is an actual Brexit deal, which won't enter into force until actual Brexit.

And it's not going to be the UK "putting them into law". The first draft of the Brexit agreement is currently being drafted by the EU, and it will of course reflect the EU's interpretation of what the UK has agreed to in relation to the phase 1 issues. In due course the draft will be presented to the UK for discussion, finalisation and hopefully agreement.


The EU won't "shrug and give up". The EU, remember, presents the draft treaty to the UK. The UK either (a) accepts the draft, or (b) seeks to negotiate changes in the draft and then accepts the altered draft, or (c) seeks to negotiate changes in the draft but rejects the draft when it can't get changes that it regards as necessary, or (d) just rejects the draft without any attempt to get changes. Both of the breakdown scenarios there involve the UK being the one that pulls the plug. I think that's much more likely than the EU being the one to call a halt.

Of those four outcomes, I think (a) accepting the draft without alteration, and (d) rejecting the draft without any attempt to negotiate changes, and not very likely. Almost certainly there will be discussions over aspects of the draft agreement, some changes will be made, other changes will be sought but not made, and eventually the UK will either accept the package or reject it.

For what it's worth, I'm still of the view that the UK is more likely to accept the package, whatever it is, than reject it. That's what they've done at every point up to now.

May's strategy may be that she will in the end take whatever deal she can get from the EU, but she will string this out so that only happens very late in the piece. This would give the hard Brexiters a dilemma; at that point the option of a different deal would no longer be even a theoretical possibility, so if they shaft May they would have to do so on a platform of proceeding with a no-deal Brexit, and furthermore of burning the UK's diplomatic credibility by having the UK denounce a deal which it has freely signed. That's pretty extreme. While no doubt there are hard Brexiters who would sign up to this platform, I doubt that they could command a majority in the Tory party.

Well, the agreement from end of last year (which is the one I'm talking about) was supposed to be put into legalese in the new year to stop the Tories renaging on it (oops, I mean as an act of goodwill and concrete underpinnings to how this will work). This agreement shaped how the whole thing would look, (mostly shaped atound the border as it stands, but also divorce payment and citizens' rights.

It's now mid February.

While there will be signing offs required, the contents of the legal document for this part (end Phase 1) should not diverge notably from the agreement it is being drawn up to reflect.

Unless ofc the Tories were desperately saying anything to everyone to get into phase 2 and hoping no-one would notice if they just ignored it which I suspect was Davis' brilliant idea.

Tbh, I think the whole thing will collapse. Too many cooks at the Brexit broth and most of them are either deluded or lying through their teeth.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Well, the agreement from end of last year (which is the one I'm talking about) was supposed to be put into legalese in the new year to stop the Tories renaging on it (oops, I mean as an act of goodwill and concrete underpinnings to how this will work). This agreement shaped how the whole thing would look, (mostly shaped atound the border as it stands, but also divorce payment and citizens' rights.

This is the new year, and the agreement is being put into legalese as we speak, by the clever chaps in the EU Commission. They're expected to present a draft text to the UK within the next few weeks, but they have already been discussing with the UK what that draft text will look like.

The text they are currently working on will form part of the Brexit agreement. The other parts are still to be negotiated.

The text won't be legally binding (on either side) until it's signed and enters into force, which is expected to be on 29 March 2019. There was never any intention, or indeed possiblity, of the UK (or the EU) becoming bound by just a part of the text at any date before then.

Samaris wrote: »

While there will be signing offs required, the contents of the legal document for this part (end Phase 1) should not diverge notably from the agreement it is being drawn up to reflect.

It won't diverge from it, but it will differ from it, in the sense that it will be more detailed and specific.

In relation to the border, for instance, the phase 1 agreement lays out a couple of possibilities but says that, if nothing else is agreed, the UK will maintain "full regulatory alignment" necessary to support the all-island economy, yadda, yadda, yadda - you're familiar with the wording of the agreement, no doubt.

The legal text will go into more detail specifying what degree of regulatory alignment is necessary to support the all-island economy, etc, and specifying the mechanisms by which this degree of alignment will be assured. As we know, the Guardian recently ran a story saying that the legal text will require that NI must "in effect . . . remain in the customs union and the single market", and still subject to "a large expanse of customs union and single market [EU] legislation". In other words, if the Guardian is to be believed, this is how the legal text will provide for the agreed-upon level of regulatory alignment to be maintained.

Samaris wrote: »

Unless ofc the Tories were desperately saying anything to everyone to get into phase 2 and hoping no-one would notice if they just ignored it which I suspect was Davis' brilliant idea.

I wouldn't put anything past David Davis but, if this was his idea, it wasn't a very good idea. The phase 1 talks were always about agreeing in principle what the Brexit agreement would provide in relation to the financial settlement, the border and EU citizens in the UK. Whatever was agreed in outline in the phase 1 talks was always going to be reflected in detail in the text of the Brexit agreement.

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, I think the whole thing will collapse. Too many cooks at the Brexit broth and most of them are either deluded or lying through their teeth.

There's only two cooks, really; the EU and the UK. And one of them has all the utensils and all the ingredients.

The inability of the UK to decide what it wants in any coherent way has left the EU in charge of the process, in so far as anyone is in charge of it. Everything that has been agreed so far in this process - literally, everything - has resulted from the EU making a proposal which the UK eventually accepts with minimal change. We may come to a point where the EU makes a proposal which the UK rejects, but it's equally possible, as I suggest above, that May's strategy is to accept the best deal she can get from the EU, whatever its terms, but to defer doing this until it is too late for her opponents to challenge her. This would explain the consistent appearance of cluelessness and indecision on the UK side. They don't want to say what they're going to do until its too late to do anything else.

Harika

Peregrinus wrote: »

The inability of the UK to decide what it wants in any coherent way has left the EU in charge of the process, in so far as anyone is in charge of it. Everything that has been agreed so far in this process - literally, everything - has resulted from the EU making a proposal which the UK eventually accepts with minimal change. We may come to a point where the EU makes a proposal which the UK rejects, but it's equally possible, as I suggest above, that May's strategy is to accept the best deal she can get from the EU, whatever its terms, but to defer doing this until it is too late for her opponents to challenge her. This would explain the consistent appearance of cluelessness and indecision on the UK side. They don't want to say what they're going to do until its too late to do anything else.

WOW, if this is really her leadership style and the political landscape then the UK should be formally renamed to the Divided Kingdom. First of all, May would be so weak that as soon someone challenges her would have to resign anyway, so like Cameron who brought the UK in this mess and then said goodbye, the one who then fixated Brexit would also be gone very soon, what will lead to more instability.
It is Mays fault that she brought the Hardcore Brexiteer suicide bombers into her crew that are now constantly undermining her and continue to divide even their own party.

Skedaddle

Whatever happens, I think the EU needs to throw any attempts to blame Europe for this mess straight back to London.

The UK will just start stamping its feet yelling "it's soooooooooo unfair!" and name calling as it's currently being run by tabloid newspapers rather than a normal political system.

There's only so much stupid that can go on before this is going to collapse in a heap, on top of the UK and we really are approaching the point where the level of idiocy is so high that it will eventually spook investors and the markets. That's where you'll end up seeing reality checks coming from.

LuckyLloyd

J Mysterio wrote: »

May evidently thinks she can keep the rebels sweet and have them pass an eventual deal. It's very high stakes.

Isn’t democratic politics dreadful really? The most negative and conniving leverage of politics and media ‘freedom’ created a high stakes diplomatic crisis that could well cause millions of people to lose their jobs, their homes and - as is always the case during a deep recession - for a subset, their lives. And at the very moment they stand at the windswept cliff edge their leader is a weak politician who weakened her bargaining position with a calamitous election campaign; and is desperately focusing on clinging to power at all costs above all else.

None of the senior (or not so senior Brexit darling) Tory politicians in favour seem to have an ounce of duty or care about them. Everything is motivated by their self interest or belief in Brexit creating the kind of chaotic platform for dismantling of the NHS or social provision in the UK. Meanwhile, across the house, Achilles lies inactive in his tent paralysed by his own lifetime in opposition of the EU.

It’s the perfect storm for a dreadful outcome. And the problem is, the EU may be forced to leave them to their fate. I hate this entire process, it is ugly, illogical and dangerous.

Peregrinus

I'm not a fan of May's, by any means. But it does occur to me that her strategy all along - or, at any rate, since the May 2017 election - may have been to buy time by not making any decision, while all the time the cost of challenging her and replacing her with hardcore Brexiters gets higher and higher, and more and more obvious. The closer the UK gets to Brexit day and the more minds are concentrated, the less and less acceptable a no-deal Brexit will be seen to be, and therefore the harder and hard it will before for the hard Brexiters to get the Tory party/Parliament/the Country to buy into a no-deal platform. And thefore the longer May clings to office the greater the prospects of a softish, or at any rate less than fully hard, Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The O'Leary school of publicity is that all news coverage is free advertising so there's that.

But they have setup a UK subsidiary, and they aren't the only ones with a Plan B.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/02/ryanair-applies-uk-licence-airline-braces-hard-brexit

Business are making making hard contingency plans.

setting up a UK subsidiary and applying for an operators licence isn't exactly a "Hard" contingency plan. It must have taken someone in their legal department five minutes to do that.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

setting up a UK subsidiary and applying for an operators licence isn't exactly a "Hard" contingency plan. It must have taken someone in their legal department five minutes to do that.

But it is though as it's required should they exit the CU and SM


So yes it's a hard contingency plan...

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not a fan of May's, by any means. But it does occur to me that her strategy all along - or, at any rate, since the May 2017 election - may have been to buy time by not making any decision, while all the time the cost of challenging her and replacing her with hardcore Brexiters gets higher and higher, and more and more obvious. The closer the UK gets to Brexit day and the more minds are concentrated, the less and less acceptable a no-deal Brexit will be seen to be, and therefore the harder and hard it will before for the hard Brexiters to get the Tory party/Parliament/the Country to buy into a no-deal platform. And thefore the longer May clings to office the greater the prospects of a softish, or at any rate less than fully hard, Brexit.

There is the possibility of her ending this all by falling on her sword for the sake of the common good.

We have had the threats and debates about no deal being better than a bad deal so the possibility of no deal has been fully explored. Then there's leaving the CU and all the implications that has. All this has done is shut the hard line brexiteers up and show just how pathetic their bluster is.

At the end of the day, the best thing for the UK (other than staying in the eu) is a Norway type arrangement which I think most people in the UK would settle for, but is something that would be a massive u turn for May, so she would have no choice but to step down.

If this was the plan all along, then it was genius, but I'm pretty sure that at the start there was no plan, because no one, even the Brexit campaign, knew why people voted to leave and what people wanted.

Was it immigration, was it creating your own laws, was it fishing rights, was it the ability to trade freely with the rest of the world without having to check first with a farmer in Belgium that it was ok to do so?

Hell, I know a number of people who refuse to use Starbucks, Google and Amazon because of their tax dodging and blame the EU for creating the environment in which they can do this. They are ardent remainers though.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

But it is though as it's required should they exit the CU and SM


So yes it's a hard contingency plan...

if I said to was going to get dark tonight, would you argue otherwise?

buying premises, moving people, buying new aircraft, these are what i would call hard contingency plans.

Filling out a form isn't exactly a hard plan, it is a soft plana t best.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

In relation to the border, for instance, the phase 1 agreement lays out a couple of possibilities but says that, if nothing else is agreed, the UK will maintain "full regulatory alignment" necessary to support the all-island economy, yadda, yadda, yadda - you're familiar with the wording of the agreement, no doubt.

The legal text will go into more detail specifying what degree of regulatory alignment is necessary to support the all-island economy, etc, and specifying the mechanisms by which this degree of alignment will be assured.

It needs to be in a lot more detail than that. If NI is to maintain full regulatory alignment and the rest of the UK does not, then the UK needs to show how it will monitor and enforce the difference. That means an effective border between Britain and NI and I don't see the DUP buying that. (There is also the prospect of Scotland and Wales demanding the same status but that's a whole other can of worms.)

So its either the whole UK stays in full regulatory alignment or its a border somewhere. Better for us if that isn't where our goods land in the EU because nobody trusts the UK to operate an internal border.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

setting up a UK subsidiary and applying for an operators licence isn't exactly a "Hard" contingency plan. It must have taken someone in their legal department five minutes to do that.

Ryanair hasn't confirmed the cost of this move, but the corresponding move on Easyjet's part - setting up a subsidiary in Austria and obtaining an Air Operator Certificate for it - is costing them about ten million sterling. Ryanair are probably doing it for less, but it will still be significant. Aviation regulation is a serious and expensive business. It was reported that Ryanair considered simply abandoning its intra-UK routes rather than incur these costs.

Skedaddle

One issue that is being overlooked is the UK will be exposed to to global economic winds in a way that it hasn’t been since the 1970s. The result of this will be a much weakened military influence, especially in areas like China.

If you consider for example that the UK has been sailing military vessels close to Chinese disputed territories to assert international navigation rights and it’s also been very critical of China on the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong.

How exactly is it going to be able to maintain that kind of position when it is going to be be begging China for a trade deal?

Within the EU, the UK’s economic interests were pooled with a group of non controversial, but very wealthy economies. Nobody would pick a trade war with the EU over a military or foreign policy issue of one member state, largely because of the sheer scale of the EU economy.

However, now the UK can be picked off and targeted with soft trade sanctions by China and plenty of other emerging global powers. It’s going to have to play ball or face trade issues in a way it’s never experienced before.

I think this is something that the British establishment has completely overlooked. It could very much mean the end of the UK’s influence as a minor world power.

It’s not the 1950s, the British Empire is long gone and the power balance is more about trade than military might and we are seeing a big shift in power towards China.

The EU will remain a global economic power and that protects Europe enormously by giving it huge economic clout. The UK is opting to go it alone as a middle sized economy. That will be a huge shift to a status the UK really hasn’t ever experienced before.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

if I said to was going to get dark tonight, would you argue otherwise?

buying premises, moving people, buying new aircraft, these are what i would call hard contingency plans.

Filling out a form isn't exactly a hard plan, it is a soft plana t best.

But they don't need to do any of that for hard brexit , they do however need to setup a new entity.

Your context does not apply in this case for this company. It is their hard brexit plan in action.

And no nothing to do with the sun setting either...

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

It needs to be in a lot more detail than that. If NI is to maintain full regulatory alignment and the rest of the UK does not, then the UK needs to show how it will monitor and enforce the difference. That means an effective border between Britain and NI and I don't see the DUP buying that. (There is also the prospect of Scotland and Wales demanding the same status but that's a whole other can of worms.)

So its either the whole UK stays in full regulatory alignment or its a border somewhere. Better for us if that isn't where our goods land in the EU because nobody trusts the UK to operate an internal border.

The EU doesn't care whether the UK meets its obligations by keeping the whole of the UK in regulatory alignment, or by keeping NI in regulatory alignment and having a quasi-border between NI and GB, and the draft Brexit agreement will probably accommodate either approach. That is, in the end, an internal matter for the UK.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

There is the possibility of her ending this all by falling on her sword for the sake of the common good . . . .

I don't get the impression that she is minded to do that!

And, to be honest, if she did, I'm not sure that it would serve the common good. If she were to be replaced, in the present condition of the Tory party isn't she likely to be replaced by someone who would target a harder Brexit?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It needs to be in a lot more detail than that. If NI is to maintain full regulatory alignment and the rest of the UK does not, then the UK needs to show how it will monitor and enforce the difference. That means an effective border between Britain and NI and I don't see the DUP buying that. (There is also the prospect of Scotland and Wales demanding the same status but that's a whole other can of worms.)

So its either the whole UK stays in full regulatory alignment or its a border somewhere. Better for us if that isn't where our goods land in the EU because nobody trusts the UK to operate an internal border.

The EU doesn't care whether the UK meets its obligations by keeping the whole of the UK in regulatory alignment, or by keeping NI in regulatory alignment and having a quasi-border between NI and GB, and the draft Brexit agreement will probably accommodate either approach. That is, in the end, an internal matter for the UK.

It is nothing of the sort. Free movement across the Irish border, coupled with free movement between Britain and NI means that goods of British origin, plus goods imported into the UK can freely enter the ROI and therefore the EU.

While Brussels might turn a blind eye to what is going on in the domestic Irish market, it will not tolerate an unregulated back door into the rest of the EU via the island of Ireland.

That raises the serious risk of checks on everything from Ireland arriving in EU ports or airports, as I elaborated earlier.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ryanair hasn't confirmed the cost of this move, but the corresponding move on Easyjet's part - setting up a subsidiary in Austria and obtaining an Air Operator Certificate for it - is costing them about ten million sterling.

mainly for the cost of re-registering 110 planes.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't get the impression that she is minded to do that!

And, to be honest, if she did, I'm not sure that it would serve the common good. If she were to be replaced, in the present condition of the Tory party isn't she likely to be replaced by someone who would target a harder Brexit?

if the deal was delivered at the 11th hour, what choice would there be?

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

The text won't be legally binding (on either side) until it's signed and enters into force, which is expected to be on 29 March 2019. There was never any intention, or indeed possiblity, of the UK (or the EU) becoming bound by just a part of the text at any date before then.

This is not right. Patently both the EU and Ireland expect the UK to honour the commitment found in Phase 1.

Harika

Aegir wrote: »

if the deal was delivered at the 11th hour, what choice would there be?

Hard Brexit, there are enough madmen in there that would do that.

Harika

Harika wrote: »

Hard Brexit, there are enough madmen in there that would do that.

enough to get a new leader elected and to row back on an already agreed deal?

I doubt it.

Besides, TM stepping down would almost certainly result in a no confidence vote and a general election.

LuckyLloyd

Meanwhile, the press continue to poison hearts and minds:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/918117/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Michel-Barnier-Iain-Duncan-Smith-Theresa-May-news-latest-politics

(Brexit Day: Britain to be FREE of EU three months early)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/918157/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-Home-Office-overrules-mandarins-migration-transition-period

(More poo flinging at the treasonous civil servants)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/917865/EU-Barnier-UK-Brexit-Macron-Merke-tough-EU-stancel-Commission-Charles-Grant-punish

(The EU are CRACKING as they fail to row in behind Barnier's LUNACY)

And my personal favourite:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/917962/brexit-latest-irish-uk-government-committed-december-agreement-irish-border-leo-varadkar

(The Irish government demand free trade arrangement, essentially twisting our position to be a Brexit positive)

Imagine if you're only view on the world was the Express? You'd be a committed Leave advocate let me tell ya.

Professor Moriarty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meanwhile, the press continue to poison hearts and minds:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/918117/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Michel-Barnier-Iain-Duncan-Smith-Theresa-May-news-latest-politics

(Brexit Day: Britain to be FREE of EU three months early)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/918157/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-Home-Office-overrules-mandarins-migration-transition-period

(More poo flinging at the treasonous civil servants)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/917865/EU-Barnier-UK-Brexit-Macron-Merke-tough-EU-stancel-Commission-Charles-Grant-punish

(The EU are CRACKING as they fail to row in behind Barnier's LUNACY)

And my personal favourite:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/917962/brexit-latest-irish-uk-government-committed-december-agreement-irish-border-leo-varadkar

(The Irish government demand free trade arrangement, essentially twisting our position to be a Brexit positive)

Imagine if you're only view on the world was the Express? You'd be a committed Leave advocate let me tell ya.

And that's just one paper.

Patser

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And that's just one paper.

Which was recently bought out by the Mirror group, which is vehemently anti-brexit. Wonder how that'll change the Express's tune.

Chips Lovell

I'd be surprised if it did. At the end of the day, it's a business and the Express has been profitable in a difficult market, meaning its done quiet well from its current editorial line.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Tory press has done a good job though. A poll last August showed that 61% of Leave voters thought that significant damage to the economy is a price worth paying for Brexit and 39% of Leave voters would accept a member of their family losing their job.

If a member of every Leave family lost their job because of Brexit, there would be marches on Westminster with torches and pitchforks.

I think that the Leavers are responding this way to the survey because they do not believe the Project Fear projections that there will be job losses, and and just want to say they really, really support Leave. They think the "Even if you lose your job?" is a baseless threat trying to scare them, not a real question.

Bigus

I was talking to a clever enough Irish lad yesterday working in manufacturing directly for a big multi brand luxury, uk car manufacturer, and he maintains Brexit is causing a huge slowdown in demand , he was laughing (ironically) as he was telling me That it's laughable how they're running out of places to stockpile cars, and production plans are now being seriously curtailed for the near future. Being Irish he has options and his family circumstances make him mobile , so he's not losing sleep, but he KNOWS Brexit is a disaster for the UK.

Zubeneschamali

Skedaddle wrote: »

Whatever happens, I think the EU needs to throw any attempts to blame Europe for this mess straight back to London.

The Government and the Press lying to the British public about the EU is no longer the EUs concern. The EU will treat the UK as a third country according to written treaties and agreements - the UK public can believe whatever they like.

Bigus

Bigus wrote: »

I was talking to a clever enough Irish lad yesterday working in manufacturing directly for a big multi brand luxury, uk car manufacturer, and he maintains Brexit is causing a huge slowdown in demand , he was laughing (ironically) as he was telling me That it's laughable how they're running out of places to stockpile cars, and production plans are now being seriously curtailed for the near future. Being Irish he has options and his family circumstances make him mobile , so he's not losing sleep, but he KNOWS Brexit is a disaster for the UK.

The only luxury car maker in the UK is Jaguar Land Rover and they can't make cars quick enough at the moment. UK sales are down 5% for a number of reasons, including Brexit, the cyclical nature of car sales and concerns over the future of diesel engines, but all of the manufacturers are showing increases in sales

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/01/2017-uk-car-manufacturing-declines-3-still-second-biggest-output-since-turn-century/

Edit: Actually, wrong fogures, it is a 3% drop, but hardly earth shattering and still very very strong

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

The only luxury car maker in the UK is Jaguar Land Rover and they can't make cars quick enough at the moment. UK sales are down 5% for a number of reasons, including Brexit, the cyclical nature of car sales and concerns over the future of diesel engines, but all of the manufacturers are showing increases in sales

This doesn't make sense. Can you clarify what you meant.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. Can you clarify what you meant.

not all cars made in the UK are sold in the UK, similarly, not all cars sold in the UK are made in the UK.

The 3% reduction in car manufacturing in 2017 is negligible. Anyone in manufacturing knows that the Master Production schedule is always wrong and therefore enough flexibility is built in to the process to allow for variations between planned and actual, so if this 3% reduction in production means that a manufacturer is running out of space to store cars, then some production director somewhere needs taking out and shooting.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

Those are the 2016 figures. Search for more recent (i.e. Brexit influenced) figures.

Demand from British motorists for UK-built cars has gone off a cliff, plunging by more than a quarter as confusion over diesel and Brexit-related economic worries hit.

Official data on the number of cars rolling off production lines in Britain revealed a collapse in the amount destined for UK drivers, with the number falling by 28.1pc in November on a year-on-year basis.

And, of course, this is on very shaky ground:

The latest manufacturing data revealed the number of cars heading for foreign markets rose, up 1.3pc to 135,502. The rise underlines the importance of export sales to Britain’s car sector, with 85pc of cars built here now ending up abroad – five percentage points higher than at the same point a year ago.

From the well know Remoaner rag, the Telegraph.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those are the 2016 figures. Search for more recent (i.e. Brexit influenced) figures.

Demand from British motorists for UK-built cars has gone off a cliff, plunging by more than a quarter as confusion over diesel and Brexit-related economic worries hit.

Official data on the number of cars rolling off production lines in Britain revealed a collapse in the amount destined for UK drivers, with the number falling by 28.1pc in November on a year-on-year basis.

And, of course, this is on very shaky ground:

The latest manufacturing data revealed the number of cars heading for foreign markets rose, up 1.3pc to 135,502. The rise underlines the importance of export sales to Britain’s car sector, with 85pc of cars built here now ending up abroad – five percentage points higher than at the same point a year ago.

I know. I quoted the 2016 figures.

as pointed out earlier and as you have confirmed, not all cars made in the UK are sold in the UK.

Irish car sales, incidentally, were down 10% last year.

irishash

Aegir wrote: »

The only luxury car maker in the UK is Jaguar Land Rover and they can't make cars quick enough at the moment. UK sales are down 5% for a number of reasons, including Brexit, the cyclical nature of car sales and concerns over the future of diesel engines, but all of the manufacturers are showing increases in sales

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/01/2017-uk-car-manufacturing-declines-3-still-second-biggest-output-since-turn-century/

Edit: Actually, wrong fogures, it is a 3% drop, but hardly earth shattering and still very very strong

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

You are quoting manufacturing figures, where as sales, 2017 vs 2016, are down almost 6%. Also your link for a record year manufacturing wise is from the start of last year, so not up-to-date figures.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/

That is over 100,000 cars made vs sold in the UK. I would think a 6% drop in any product area, esp a costly item such as a car, would be a huge cause for concern.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

The only luxury car maker in the UK is Jaguar Land Rover and they can't make cars quick enough at the moment. UK sales are down 5% for a number of reasons, including Brexit, the cyclical nature of car sales and concerns over the future of diesel engines, but all of the manufacturers are showing increases in sales

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/01/2017-uk-car-manufacturing-declines-3-still-second-biggest-output-since-turn-century/

Edit: Actually, wrong fogures, it is a 3% drop, but hardly earth shattering and still very very strong

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

Interestingly, Jaguar Land Rover are owned by Tata Motors, an Indian company. There is also Rolls Royce which is owned by BMW, a German company.

irishash

irishash wrote: »

You are quoting manufacturing figures, where as sales, 2017 vs 2016, are down almost 6%. Also your link for a record year manufacturing wise is from the start of last year, so not up-to-date figures.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/

That is over 100,000 cars made vs sold in the UK. I would think a 6% drop in any product area, esp a costly item such as a car, would be a huge cause for concern.

UK sales figures are largely irrelevant when talking about an industry that exports the vast majority of its output.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, Jaguar Land Rover are owned by Tata Motors, an Indian company. There is also Rolls Royce which is owned by BMW, a German company.

and why is that interesting?

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

UK sales figures are largely irrelevant when talking about an industry that exports the vast majority of its output.



and why is that interesting?

I just think it is, don't you?

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

I know. I quoted the 2016 figures.

Since we are talking about brexit, the 2016 figures are rather irrelevant. The referendum only happened in June, Article 50 was not even triggered until 2017.

Leroy42

So you raised a point about UK car manufacturing and alluded to car sales in the domestic market going down. But that is ok because 85% of the output is for foreign markets, markets which many in the UK are actively hoping to get tariffs involved in.

Now whether production will actually move from a UK plant is a very complicated argument, but if tariffs are brought in then the pressure on costs will only be increased and, as per usual, that will mean less or no wage increases.

So even at such a top line level, I fail to see how that is considered good to the worker in that factory.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I just think it is, don't you?

why do you think it is? Plenty of companies are owned by global conglomerates.

Guinness is owned by an English company, Beamish by a Dutch company and Jameson by a French one, that's far more interesting.

irishash

Aegir wrote: »

UK sales figures are largely irrelevant when talking about an industry that exports the vast majority of its output.

But we are only talking about the cars that are produced, kept and sold in the UK. Cars exported and sold abroad have no consequence since brexit should not affect those sales.

If we are to look at only UK numbers, then the actual drop in production is 9.8%. Is that a big enough percentage to get worried about?

The car industry in the UK has deceased sales of almost 6% and a production decrease of 9.8%. This is a huge cause for concern of vehicle producers in the UK.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Since we are talking about brexit, the 2016 figures are rather irrelevant. The referendum only happened in June, Article 50 was not even triggered until 2017.

Brxit hasn't happened yet, did you not know?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you raised a point about UK car manufacturing and alluded to car sales in the domestic market going down. But that is ok because 85% of the output is for foreign markets, markets which many in the UK are actively hoping to get tariffs involved in.

Now whether production will actually move from a UK plant is a very complicated argument, but if tariffs are brought in then the pressure on costs will only be increased and, as per usual, that will mean less or no wage increases.

So even at such a top line level, I fail to see how that is considered good to the worker in that factory.

I didn't raise the point, i responded to yet another anecdotal story.

irishash

irishash wrote: »

But we are only talking about the cars that are produced, kept and sold in the UK. Cars exported and sold abroad have no consequence since brexit should not affect those sales.

Are we? I thought we were talking about a luxury manufacturer who has seen such a dramatic drop in sales they are struggling to find somewhere to store their cars?

irishash wrote: »

If we are to look at only UK numbers, then the actual drop in production is 9.8%. Is that a big enough percentage to get worried about?

The car industry in the UK has deceased sales of almost 6% and a production decrease of 9.8%. This is a huge cause for concern of vehicle producers in the UK.

oh FFS, just the SMMT report on it all.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/biggest-drop-in-uk-car-sales-financial-crisis-after-brexit-2018-1

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

why do you think it is? Plenty of companies are owned by global conglomerates.

Guinness is owned by an English company, Beamish by a Dutch company and Jameson by a French one, that's far more interesting.

Hmmm. So you mightn't see any issue with British car manufacturers being wholly owned by foreign companies as compared to, say, VW which is German owned, located and managed. No problem at all?