Brexit discussion thread III

Vronsky

Nody wrote: »

I think EU will offer a deal; the question is how far the Brexit militant wing are going to go in blocking it. For example I could see May's final deal being voted down as not good enough (i.e. Labour's claim of same access as now, some Remainers going against the PM etc.) but without enough time to get a new PM in place to sign a deal (or the new PM being an hardcore Brexiteer refusing to sign it) making UK crash out without a deal and nothing can be done until next general election (and EU are not going to wait for 2 years).

That's the scary part; not that there is not a deal on the table (EU will make sure there is one) but that between May's failure of government and the Tory Militant Brexiteers that it is not signed in time to be effective and Corbyn has not exactly shown himself as a man of action who'd do something about it except complain.

I still expect that whatever deal they arrive at will get through Parliament, with cross party support if necessary.

Bigus

This is from the comments section of the Guardian article on JLR cutting production. The last line is the most telling.

Jaguar Land Rover to cut production at Halewood.

JLR's 1.4 billion euro project under construction in the Nitra region of Slovakia.
The plant will start producing the Land Rover Discovery crossover in late 2018.

PSA car manufacturer announces further cuts at Wirral site, where Astra is made, bringing total number of job losses to 650.

Toyota has announced a 368 million U.S. dollars investment in a new plant in France.
With the new investment, the world's second largest car maker aims to assemble 300,000 units per year in the future, compared with 240,000 currently.
"The French site of Toyota will become the European platform of the group."

Nody

Vronsky wrote: »

I still expect that whatever deal they arrive at will get through Parliament, with cross party support if necessary.

This is why I disagree with you on this; I don't think the UK politicans are smart enough to understand that point. Their approval is meaningless since they will not get a better deal but based on the questions raised to date, their interviews etc. they clearly are clueless on how the EU works (as a group) and I can easily see them vote no in the belief May will then somehow pull out a better deal.

Why? Because if not their vote would be meaningless (which it is) which they would never accept as a reality in the first place. Hence they vote no because the deal is not as good as they expected it to be and May should go off and get them the deal they will accept instead. This would also include the Remainers who want a Norway style deal instead (since May will present a Canada FTA style framework at best) and hence vote it down in expectations they can get their deal along with the Hardcore Brexiteers supported by vulture funds who have lucrative reasons not to want any deal (Chaos equals money after all). Add in Corbyn taking a stand "because the deal is not good enough" and you'll end up in the above scenario very quickly and that's what scares me more than anything; hard brexit due to incompetence.

ArmaniJeanss

MPs can't be seen to easily accept something which is clearly poorer than what they have at the moment.
The EU can't be seen to give a deal which is anywhere is good as what the UK have at the moment.

Its potentially akin to a Border#2 situation.

Bigus

Bigus wrote: »

This is from the comments section of the Guardian article on JLR cutting production. The last line is the most telling.

Jaguar Land Rover to cut production at Halewood.

JLR's 1.4 billion euro project under construction in the Nitra region of Slovakia.
The plant will start producing the Land Rover Discovery crossover in late 2018.

PSA car manufacturer announces further cuts at Wirral site, where Astra is made, bringing total number of job losses to 650.

Toyota has announced a 368 million U.S. dollars investment in a new plant in France.
With the new investment, the world's second largest car maker aims to assemble 300,000 units per year in the future, compared with 240,000 currently.
"The French site of Toyota will become the European platform of the group."

Why Ian it telling? What is it telling you?

Anthracite

Aegir wrote: »

Why Ian it telling? What is it telling you?

Future investment in future models will not be going to UK plants?

UK plants to wind down?

steddyeddy

Skedaddle wrote: »

At the end of the day, brands are brands. They can whip up all sorts of mythology around them for marketing purposes, regardless of where they're actually made. Most people don't care. They just want a Jaguar or a Range Rover because it's a Jaguar or a Range Rover, not necessarily because of it having been made in Britain.

I don't think made in the UK carries anything like the kind of branding anymore that Made in Germany does, even for those cars.

In general "Made in Britain" has been squandered as a concept due to short-term thinking in the UK and nobody really taking it all that seriously after the 1970s. It could have been a big deal, but that's not how it turned out.

I think they're kidding themselves if they think they've a brand anything like "Made in Germany" or "Made in Japan". They're simply not a high quality / high tech manufacturing economy with a reputation for quality. They've a few straggling car luxury car brands, and that's about it. They're not even brands that are owned in the UK anymore. They had a reputation for engineering, but you're talking about more than half a century ago. There are a few remnants of the legacy of engineering like Rolls Royce's aerospace engines etc but there aren't many and the ones they do have tend to rapidly get sold off e.g. the company behind the ARM microchip architecture which is used in mobile phone processors ranging from Qualcomm Snapdragon to Apple's iX chips. That's now owned by a Japanese company.

Take a look at British IT and telecoms equipment sectors : they'd loads of companies and products in the 1970s and 80s, and didn't seem to ever manage to get any global market share. All these old names huge infrastructural hardware vendors like GEC, English Electric, GPT, STC, Marconi, Plessey, etc etc are all gone and that's down to how things are run in business in the UK, not anything to do with the EU. Transportation manufactures like BREL and so on are all gone.

The present day UK's mostly about services industries and trade, not actually making things.

I remain totally unconvinced by the very stretched notion that the UK can somehow reinvent its industrial glory days. It's up against huge and far more competent and established competition with a global presence and I don't really see how it's possible to roll the clock back to 1958. There was absolutely nothing stopping the UK being as industrially successful as Germany, in fact the EU structures would have seriously helped it to be, if it had used any of them.

So, outside the EU they're hardly going to do any better than inside it. It just makes absolutely no sense.

It's like throwing away all the stuff you're good at and deciding that you're going to make a career out of something you're pretty mediocre or even bad at and in an area where you've limited skills. It's not likely to work out.

In britain's defense they do have some of the best universities in the world. On the reverse of that, they just made a big push towards killing that forever by severing ties with the EU science community and its funding.

Peregrinus

Vronsky wrote: »

I think a lot of people here are bringing their own pro-european feelings into the debate and somewhat confusing matters. While their is little chance of the UK getting a wonderful deal (benefits without obligations), there is also little chance of there not being a basic Brexit deal to keep the show in the road - this is mutually beneficial for both The UK and the EU.

When the alternative is no deal at all, Parliament will vote through whatever is arrived at.

A no-deal Brexit would be really bad for both sides, and it's in the interests of both sides to avoid it.

However the scope for a deal is now limited by what the parties have already agreed in phase 1, with regard to the exit payment, the Irish border, EU citizens in the UK. It is now all but impossible for the EU to sign up to any Brexit deal which does not contain at least what has already been agreed in relation to those three elements.

Therefore, if the UK walks away from any of these commitments, there will be a no-deal brexit. It is hard to see how this could be avoided.

Since that would be a disaster for the UK, the UK will not walk away from phase 1.

There is still some scope for argument around the margins of what exactly has been agreed in phase 1 - e.g. what degree of "full regulatory alignment" is needed to support "the all-island economy"? We are about to have that argument. Based both on the strategic positions of the two parties and on the pattern of arguments to date, the argument will probably be resolved largely in the EU's favour.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

This is why I disagree with you on this; I don't think the UK politicans are smart enough to understand that point. Their approval is meaningless since they will not get a better deal but based on the questions raised to date, their interviews etc. they clearly are clueless on how the EU works (as a group) and I can easily see them vote no in the belief May will then somehow pull out a better deal.

I doubt this.

If all goes to plan, the UK government and the EU Commission will have agreed the terms of the Brexit deal by October 2018. The deal will come before Parliament quite soon after that. (If all does not go to plan, any deal will obviously come before Parliament at some point later than October 2018.)

Nobody, at that stage, can possibly delude themselves into imagining that if the deal is voted down, May can negotiate any alternative and better deal by March 2019. If anybody does suggest that, the EU Commission will publicly and unambiguously disabuse them of the notion. May will also say this.

When the Brexit deal comes before Parliament, the options will be (a) approve the deal, or (b) reject the deal, and go for a no-deal Brexit (or at best bare-bones deal Brexit; just enough agreed to keep planes flying, etc), or possibly (c) reject the deal and seek to revoke Art 50 notice - i.e. call off Brexit completely. There will be no option (d), negotiate a deal that is more favourable to the UK. Everybody will understand this.

Bigus

Anthracite wrote: »

Future investment in future models will not be going to UK plants?

UK plants to wind down?

Yes , It's telling me that a manufacting industry like the Motor vehicle sector which was quintessentially British and old school labour intensive can switch easily to Anywhere in the EU.

Not only can it switch, it is already loaded on the juggernaut for relocation to numerous EU countries , what chance has Britain to attract newer more mobile manufacturing, or FDI, after Brexit ?

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt this.

If all goes to plan, the UK government and the EU Commission will have agreed the terms of the Brexit deal by October 2018. The deal will come before Parliament quite soon after that. (If all does not go to plan, any deal will obviously come before Parliament at some point later than October 2018.)

Nobody, at that stage, can possibly delude themselves into imagining that if the deal is voted down, May can negotiate any alternative and better deal by March 2019. If anybody does suggest that, the EU Commission will publicly and unambiguously disabuse them of the notion. May will also say this.

Except the MPs think differently:

Asked if there would be a majority to vote down the deal this autumn, Ms Soubry said: “If she is not careful – yes. There is a real shift.”

She added: “If this Government does not get this right, it will end up in a position whereby the majority of Members of Parliament – putting their constituents first – will find themselves unable to vote for a withdrawal agreement.”

Ms Soubry said her talks in Brussels had convinced her, and other pro-EU MPs, that the EU was ready to let Britain think again, if Parliament rejected the Prime Minister’s exit terms.

Peregrinus

Soubry's a remainer, and still thinks - or, at any rate, hopes - that Brexit can be reversed. Her aim in urging Parliament to reject a Brexit deal would not be to try to get an even Brexitier deal; it would be to get Brexit called off (which is possible at least in theory - the EU would definitely look on this with a kindly eye) or at least to get withdrawal from the SM and the CU called off (which would be more difficult to pull off, but the EU would again be not opposed). What I think is absolutely impossible is that Parliament could reject May's deal in the hope of getting a more have-cake-and-eat-it deal.

Harika

The Institute of Free Trade, that is owned by Hannan and endorsed by Boris had to remove the institute out of its name.
When reading their homepage you find the list of opportunities for Britain post Brexit: http://ifreetrade.org/article/britains_post_brexit_opportunities_in_asia

I am just missing the opportunities that are blocked by the EU but will be unleased after Brexit in this article.

Peregrinus

Harika wrote: »

The Institute of Free Trade, that is owned by Hannan and endorsed by Boris had to remove the institute out of its name.
When reading their homepage you find the list of opportunities for Britain post Brexit: http://ifreetrade.org/article/britains_post_brexit_opportunities_in_asia

I am just missing the opportunities that are blocked by the EU but will be unleased after Brexit in this article.

What I'm missing is how an outfit that now bills itself as the "Initiative for Free Trade" can back the UK's withdrawal from the largest and deepest free trade arrangement the world has ever known.

They seem to have a bizarre blind spot about this. They tell us that "the last major regional trade deals were ASEAN and NAFTA, agreed in the early 1990s." Hello? European Single Market, 1993, not ringing any bells?

Bunch of space cadets.

Anthracite

Anthracite wrote: »

Future investment in future models will not be going to UK plants?

UK plants to wind down?

Not at all.

Some of the reduction in production at JLR is Brexit related, as previously discussed, but the investment in France has nothing to do with Brexit and is purely to increase production of the Yaris, not the Auris which is made in Derby. Toyotas invested £240m in that plant last year

Bigus wrote: »

Yes , It's telling me that a manufacting industry like the Motor vehicle sector which was quintessentially British and old school labour intensive can switch easily to Anywhere in the EU.

Not only can it switch, it is already loaded on the juggernaut for relocation to numerous EU countries , what chance has Britain to attract newer more mobile manufacturing, or FDI, after Brexit ?

No one is relocating. The JLR Slovakia plant has been on the cards for several years. Long before the referendum and is needed to increase capacity

https://www.ft.com/content/4ec6972c-73db-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I'm missing is how an outfit that now bills itself as the "Initiative for Free Trade" can back the UK's withdrawal from the largest and deepest free trade arrangement the world has ever known.

They seem to have a bizarre blind spot about this. They tell us that "the last major regional trade deals were ASEAN and NAFTA, agreed in the early 1990s." Hello? European Single Market, 1993, not ringing any bells?

Bunch of space cadets.

the argument is that the eu only promotes free trade within the eu and actually stifles it elsewhere, as it is constantly trying to keep everyone happy and ends up protecting small parts of the overall economy, to the detriment of larger exporters. The Canada deal being blocked by Belgian farmers for example.

There is also the argument that it makes exporters lazy. Ironically, just as Irish exporters are being told not to depend on the UK market and to look for sales elsewhere in the EU, British exporters are told don't just look in the eu, look elsewhere.

That's the argument, not saying I agree with it, but I can see their point

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I'm missing is how an outfit that now bills itself as the "Initiative for Free Trade" can back the UK's withdrawal from the largest and deepest free trade arrangement the world has ever known.

They seem to have a bizarre blind spot about this. They tell us that "the last major regional trade deals were ASEAN and NAFTA, agreed in the early 1990s." Hello? European Single Market, 1993, not ringing any bells?

Bunch of space cadets.

Boris should listen to the CBI. But he won't.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

The argument is that the eu only promotes free trade within the eu and actually stifles it elsewhere, as it is constantly trying to keep everyone happy and ends up protecting small parts of the overall economy, to the detriment of larger exporters. The Canada deal being blocked by Belgian farmers for example.

There is also the argument that it makes exporters lazy. Ironically, just as Irish exporters are being told not to depend on the UK market and to look for sales elsewhere in the EU, British exporters are told don't just look in the eu, look elsewhere.

That's the argument, not saying I agree with it, but I can see their point

It's an argument, as you say, but it's not a very good argument. The EU has a large network of trade deals with third countries; about 70, at the current count. Brexit means that the UK (a) drops out of the single market that it currently participates in with 27 other countries, and (b) drops out of the free trade deals that it currently has with about 70 third countries. Between those two, that covers 65-70% of the UK's foreign trade. They then have to try and construct a new network of trade deals, from scratch, which will more than compensate for this loss. And they have to do this with much less economic muscle and bargaining power than the EU has. And they have to do it when they have tied one hand behind their backs with red lines which mean that their most important trade deal, the one with the EU, which covers 50% of their foreign trade, must be significant less free than the one they have now.

I have seen no serious reasoned attempt to argue that this is possible.
All the pro-free trade guff that I have seem from Brexity quarters simply ignores the free trade benefits of participation in the EU (like the IFT does).

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Not at all.

No one is relocating. The JLR Slovakia plant has been on the cards for several years. Long before the referendum and is needed to increase capacity

Sounds rather like the Dell factory that was built in Poland a few years ago while Limerick was still operating.

No one was talking about closing Limerick then either.

Leroy42

Aegir you keep arguing that car plants are years in the planning and can't simply be moved, and that is very true.

But then you argue that none of the reductions are because of Brexit, again I agree in part with you (I think some of it is but no idea what portion).

But the point you seem to miss is that since they are long term we really won't see the full effects for many years. All we can do is look at the past, and what any changes in the future will likely mean.

In terms of the past, just as plants were set up in the UK, there is no reason why they cannot be moved, over time, to other locations. But then why would they do this? Because of the increased costs from tariffs and the increased costs from additional logistical issues such as additional paperwork, travel time etc.

I have yet to see how this can lead to a lowering of costs for a UK plant. These operations are run pretty tightly and as such even a 5% tariff will set them UK plant at a major disadvantage. So how to negate that and keep the plant running. Either lower other costs, increase efficiencies or increase prices. Why would a consumer (outside the UK) want to pay more just for the car to be made in the UK?

Reducing costs will normally land on the employees. Either reductions on OT, benefits, shifts are just less workers. ANy of these is a reduction in the standard of living. So where is the win here?

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Sounds rather like the Dell factory that was built in Poland a few years ago while Limerick was still operating.

No one was talking about closing Limerick then either.

and that had nothing to do with Brexit, but lots to do with globalisation, which is a different discussion entirely.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aegir you keep arguing that car plants are years in the planning and can't simply be moved, and that is very true.

But then you argue that none of the reductions are because of Brexit, again I agree in part with you (I think some of it is but no idea what portion).

I didn't argue that at all, as you well know. Brexit has caused uncertainty and in uncertain times, people tend to hold off on expensive purchases, like cars.

But, as already discussed, the industry is also cyclical and there is a massive issue over the future of diesal engines at the moment.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the point you seem to miss is that since they are long term we really won't see the full effects for many years. All we can do is look at the past, and what any changes in the future will likely mean.

In terms of the past, just as plants were set up in the UK, there is no reason why they cannot be moved, over time, to other locations. But then why would they do this? Because of the increased costs from tariffs and the increased costs from additional logistical issues such as additional paperwork, travel time etc.

I have yet to see how this can lead to a lowering of costs for a UK plant. These operations are run pretty tightly and as such even a 5% tariff will set them UK plant at a major disadvantage. So how to negate that and keep the plant running. Either lower other costs, increase efficiencies or increase prices. Why would a consumer (outside the UK) want to pay more just for the car to be made in the UK?

Reducing costs will normally land on the employees. Either reductions on OT, benefits, shifts are just less workers. ANy of these is a reduction in the standard of living. So where is the win here?

of course, but there are loads of factors in that and not just Brexit. The above example of the Limerick Dell factory, for example.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of the past, just as plants were set up in the UK, there is no reason why they cannot be moved, over time, to other locations.

The Japanese specifically set up plants in the UK because:

1) It was in the EU
2) There was a pool of car workers from the days of Leyland etc.
3) The UK market was less hostile to Japanese cars than the Continent, where Germany/France/Italy have their own car industries to protect.

2) and 3) still apply, there are skilled workers and a local market.

But 1) is going away, and the long term trading relationship is unknown.

Such investments are long term - for now, I would expect car manufacturers to be holding off decisions rather than dashing for the doors. If the UK blunders into a customs union type arrangement, it will be business as usual.

If they crash out to WTO rules, future investments will not be in the UK, and as new models launch, they will increasingly be built in Poland, Czechia, Austria and so on.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aegir you keep arguing that car plants are years in the planning and can't simply be moved, and that is very true.

But then you argue that none of the reductions are because of Brexit, again I agree in part with you (I think some of it is but no idea what portion).

But the point you seem to miss is that since they are long term we really won't see the full effects for many years. All we can do is look at the past, and what any changes in the future will likely mean.

In terms of the past, just as plants were set up in the UK, there is no reason why they cannot be moved, over time, to other locations. But then why would they do this? Because of the increased costs from tariffs and the increased costs from additional logistical issues such as additional paperwork, travel time etc.

I have yet to see how this can lead to a lowering of costs for a UK plant. These operations are run pretty tightly and as such even a 5% tariff will set them UK plant at a major disadvantage. So how to negate that and keep the plant running. Either lower other costs, increase efficiencies or increase prices. Why would a consumer (outside the UK) want to pay more just for the car to be made in the UK?

Reducing costs will normally land on the employees. Either reductions on OT, benefits, shifts are just less workers. ANy of these is a reduction in the standard of living. So where is the win here?

I think one needs to think like multi nationals do. Manufacturing plants these days do not compete with plants from other manufacturers but plants of the same manufacturers in other territories. For example a plant in the UK for Opel/Vauxhall making Astras will bid for the new version of Astra due for launch in three years time, say. It will bid against another plant in, say Hungary and perhaps another in Slovenia which might be new build with local Gov support.

If the costs and logistics do not stack up for the UK plant, the business leaves the UK. Now they may continue with the current model (for RHD markets say) in the UK while they ramp up production in the new location, but they will then downgrade the factory to making, say Astra derived vans, or close completely. Now further complicating this, Opel/Vauxhall have recently been taken over by PSA, so long term loyalty is reset to nought. Bleak outlook for that particular plant - they are already shedding employees.

Logistics will bring huge costs to the UK operation if the customs paperwork and inspections delay shipments as JIT production (Just in Time) is fully implemented in assembly plants. Inventories will need to cover delays, but also storage of these inventories and multi handling of these inventories will cause major costs to be added. Add tariffs and it just becomes impossible to justify using a UK assembly plant.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

and that had nothing to do with Brexit, but lots to do with globalisation, which is a different discussion entirely.

Well, no. The EU is an attempt to manage globalisation so that it is less harmful to less developed countries by investing in their economies. The Leave vote blames the EU for many things which are actually being caused by globalisation. Sure, the government can cut EU migration if it wants and colour passports whatever they please but it isn't going to revive old industry towns like Derby and mining communities.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think one needs to think like multi nationals do. Manufacturing plants these days do not compete with plants from other manufacturers but plants of the same manufacturers in other territories. For example a plant in the UK for Opel/Vauxhall making Astras will bid for the new version of Astra due for launch in three years time, say. It will bid against another plant in, say Hungary and perhaps another in Slovenia which might be new build with local Gov support.

yes and no. A plant in Slovakia making small cars, simply may not have the ability to build larger cars without major retooling. It may also not have the capacity to produce another model. Take the Toyota factory in France, for example, there is no way Derby could take on builidng the Yaris,because they are already full up building the Auris. You also have to remember that it is a very global business, so it isn't just Slovakia or Poland in the mix, it is South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, China etc.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the costs and logistics do not stack up for the UK plant, the business leaves the UK. Now they may continue with the current model (for RHD markets say) in the UK while they ramp up production in the new location, but they will then downgrade the factory to making, say Astra derived vans, or close completely. Now further complicating this, Opel/Vauxhall have recently been taken over by PSA, so long term loyalty is reset to nought. Bleak outlook for that particular plant - they are already shedding employees.

True, but PSA are making job cuts all over and have recently closed a factory in Paris. Brexit or no Brexit, people don't buy crap overpriced cars. Except the French of course, who will only buy French overpriced crap cars.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, no. The EU is an attempt to manage globalisation so that it is less harmful to less developed countries by investing in their economies. The Leave vote blames the EU for many things which are actually being caused by globalisation. Sure, the government can cut EU migration if it wants and colour passports whatever they please but it isn't going to revive old industry towns like Derby and mining communities.

you could quite easily argue it facilitates it as well.

It allows a company to exploit cheap labour in one country, sell to a more wealthy one with no tariffs or additional paper work and channel money through a third country with convenient tax laws to avoid paying the full whack of tax. Add in, of course, that the wealthy countries are also paying for the improved infrastructure in the low cost country to help this all happen, then it is difficult to argue otherwise, i believe.

Great if you're Poland, Handy for Luxembourg, ****ing awesome if you are Michael Dell, **** for 10,000 people in Limerick.

Skedaddle

It's also brought up the standards of living in all of those countries EXTREMELY rapidly and does so within a balanced system. Ultimately (within 25 years) they have become very serious consumer markets and expanded the EU internal market enormously.

It just depends on how small a picture you want to consider. You could equally argue that the North of England is unfair competition for the South with its higbwage costs and thus there should be a tarrif barrier at the M25.

The EU basically provides a safe, cooperative, structured system and a scale of economy for countries that would otherwise be minnows being bounced around by large counties like the USA and China and being unable to deal with market speculation on their currencies and economies.

The Eastern members seem to be very keen to go back to being Russia's play thing and I think if that's what they ultimately decide to do, well good luck to them. Nobody forced them into the EU.

Likewise, the UK now faces a future of being bounced by markers and being the US' "special friend" who does what it's told or being played by China.

Nody

Aegir wrote: »

you could quite easily argue it facilitates it as well.

It allows a company to exploit cheap labour in one country, sell to a more wealthy one with no tariffs or additional paper work and channel money through a third country with convenient tax laws to avoid paying the full whack of tax. Add in, of course, that the wealthy countries are also paying for the improved infrastructure in the low cost country to help this all happen, then it is difficult to argue otherwise, i believe.

Great if you're Poland, Handy for Luxembourg, ****ing awesome if you are Michael Dell, **** for 10,000 people in Limerick.

The flaw in your argument is that Dell would not have bothered with a factory in Ireland if they could not sell them to the rest of EU in the first place. Hence the complaint is that Ireland benefited from being in EU but when the shoe is on the other foot it's suddenly a bad thing.

devnull

Typical brexit debate on Sky News with Chuka Umunna and Andrew Rosindell, with the former trying to take the later to task and the later only answering in the same old rhetoric without actually answering anything

Chuka just asked Andrew if he was prepared to sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland and a hard border to leave the customs union and Rosindell replied that there was a very easy way to deal with the Northern Ireland issue and it was a red herring brought up by the EU.

Swiftly without backing his remarks up, Rosindell then changed topics and started spouting the usual Brexiteer rhetroic about the customs union and the single market and trade deals and the fact that Brexit is going to be a huge success for everyone and the usual soundbites about freedom from bureaucrats, making our own laws and being sovereign nation without actually answering any question, as per usual.

This speaks volumes about the Brexiteers and the road they are leading the country down, always full on rhetoric and soundbites and saying things are simple and easy but absloutely zero substance to any of it, about how or backing up their views and points, no wonder they can't decide what they want.

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

Brexit or no Brexit, people don't buy crap overpriced cars. Except the French of course, who will only buy French overpriced crap cars.

And even they are beginning to see sense! :pac:

Anyway, enough about cars - Boris says the future is organic carrots! :rolleyes:

He also says that post-Brexit, nobody will ever again say that Britain's problems are the fault of Brussels. :eek:

And promulgated one of the favourie Brexiteer incoherent arguments: Britain's exports to non-EU countries have increased magnificently in recent times - while Britain was part of the EU - so going it alone is guaranteed to bring bigger, brighter, more beautiful opportunities.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

The flaw in your argument is that Dell would not have bothered with a factory in Ireland if they could not sell them to the rest of EU in the first place. Hence the complaint is that Ireland benefited from being in EU but when the shoe is on the other foot it's suddenly a bad thing.

No, they would have built it in Germany, France or the UK, where their biggest markets are, but instead they took full advantage of IDA grants and sweeteners to build it in Ireland, so the French, British or Germans could quite easily argue they lost out.

what is certain though, is that in all of this, by far the biggest winner is the large multinationals who take full advantage of this.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

yes and no. A plant in Slovakia making small cars, simply may not have the ability to build larger cars without major retooling. It may also not have the capacity to produce another model. Take the Toyota factory in France, for example, there is no way Derby could take on builidng the Yaris,because they are already full up building the Auris. You also have to remember that it is a very global business, so it isn't just Slovakia or Poland in the mix, it is South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, China etc.

It is an internal bidding process within the multinational. For the UK plant to win the bid it has to be better from a cost point, and from a logistics point. If a new plant in Eastern Europe beats it, then the production moves. Multinationals do not have much by way of loyalty.

True, but PSA are making job cuts all over and have recently closed a factory in Paris. Brexit or no Brexit, people don't buy crap overpriced cars. Except the French of course, who will only buy French overpriced crap cars.

VW bought both Seat and Skoda - neither well known prior to the purchase of being fantastic model ranges. Both now make variations of VW/Audi cars that compete successfully on cost, quality, reliability with their VW Audi models.

PSA will produce better cars or they will go out of business. Unfortunately they missed out on the Saab marque.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Multinationals do not have much by way of loyalty.

I work in a multinational manufacturing industry and totally agree. It can be dog eat dog between different manufacturing sites in the same company.

For mass high volume manufacturers these people are trying to plan 2,5 and even 10 years ahead.

THey like stability. Hearing about them "delaying decisions" would certainly not give me any comfort if i worked in the british car industry.


A car factory probably will not close over night due to the intricate supply chain but it may find other plants getting newer models and their plant getting gradually quieter and quieter.

Hurrache

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Czechia,

Off topic, but you're the first person I've come across in the wild to use that name since they introduced it.

Harika

CelticRambler wrote: »

He also says that post-Brexit, nobody will ever again say that Britain's problems are the fault of Brussels. :eek:

We should create a pool how many days or hours it will take after the end of the transition period, until someone starts to blame the EU

CelticRambler wrote: »

And promulgated one of the favourie Brexiteer incoherent arguments: Britain's exports to non-EU countries have increased magnificently in recent times - while Britain was part of the EU - so going it alone is guaranteed to bring bigger, brighter, more beautiful opportunities.

Those are facts, and they are in the way of the narrative that if only unleashed the UK will export 100 times more than now.

BTW: PSA was doing quite well last year http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180116/ANE/180119781/suvs-help-psa-to-15-growth-in-2017-vehicle-sales

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

you could quite easily argue it facilitates it as well.

It allows a company to exploit cheap labour in one country, sell to a more wealthy one with no tariffs or additional paper work and channel money through a third country with convenient tax laws to avoid paying the full whack of tax. Add in, of course, that the wealthy countries are also paying for the improved infrastructure in the low cost country to help this all happen, then it is difficult to argue otherwise, i believe.

Great if you're Poland, Handy for Luxembourg, ****ing awesome if you are Michael Dell, **** for 10,000 people in Limerick.

I fail to see how. Globalisation is inevitable. The best that can be done is that it is managed properly. Brexit won't change this.

Harika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I fail to see how. Globalisation is inevitable. The best that can be done is that it is managed properly. Brexit won't change this.

The EU, influenced Thailands fishing rules, so that the big fishing trawlers would stay away from the coast and only small fishing boats are allowed there. That helped the big companies as the fish regenerated better, the small fishermen as they were not fished empty by the trawlers and it made it easier for them to make a living, and the fish as they were not over fished anymore. That's one of the examples where the EU influences local politics with their economic power, cause without this changes the import of Thai Fish would have stopped.

Leroy42

devnull wrote: »

Typical brexit debate on Sky News with Chuka Umunna and Andrew Rosindell, with the former trying to take the later to task and the later only answering in the same old rhetoric without actually answering anything

Chuka just asked Andrew if he was prepared to sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland and a hard border to leave the customs union and Rosindell replied that there was a very easy way to deal with the Northern Ireland issue and it was a red herring brought up by the EU.

Swiftly without backing his remarks up, Rosindell then changed topics and started spouting the usual Brexiteer rhetroic about the customs union and the single market and trade deals and the fact that Brexit is going to be a huge success for everyone and the usual soundbites about freedom from bureaucrats, making our own laws and being sovereign nation without actually answering any question, as per usual.

This speaks volumes about the Brexiteers and the road they are leading the country down, always full on rhetoric and soundbites and saying things are simple and easy but absloutely zero substance to any of it, about how or backing up their views and points, no wonder they can't decide what they want.

I actually see this as a terrible failure on the part of the remainers (both now and during the campaign). They let the leave side completely drive the agenda. Umumma should have taken the other person to task. Ask for specifics. The time for hope and thinking is well past at any Brexiteer at this stage (well in all honesty it should have been before the vote) should be able to give specifics.

The media, and the remain side, have allowed this narrative of "telling you anything is actually going to damage us" nonsense. Like they have some new secret that letting the rest of the world know would be bad for the UK.

"If faced with open borders or lose NI, which would you take, as based on Phase 1 it seems May is willing to make a choice". "What is the easy way and why have we gone on since last year with the EU when the solution is so easy?"

Water John

Boris's speech totally underwhelming, as many predicted here. I was giving them some opportunity to set out a clear road. But this is, as a Lib Dem MP said, 'back of a fag box' speech.
Absolutely nothing in it. A variation of TM waffle.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

Boris's speech totally underwhelming, as many predicted here. I was giving them some opportunity to set out a clear road. But this is, as a Lib Dem MP said, 'back of a fag box' speech.
Absolutely nothing in it. A variation of TM waffle.

Oh, I disagree. There is plenty in it, just not what people want to hear.

They are going for a hard brexit, this speech repeatedly referenced TM herself, possibly reminding her, or boxing her in, to that position.

Whether through her own decision or through pressure from the Brexiteers, it is clear (this speech was in effect part of government policy) this speech clearly sets out that the government is heading towards hard Brexit.

What it did lack is any sense of what that will actually mean, but then Boris has never shown any inclincing to that type of speech.

UK are leaving both the SM and the CU, the only decisions left is when and how much the EU are prepared work with the UK on that basis.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

UK are leaving both the SM and the CU, the only decisions left is when and how much the EU are prepared work with the UK on that basis.

EU already stated thatwhich is a Canada FTA with very limited, if any, services included. The problem is UK don't want to accept that and want more.

Leroy42

Yes Nody, I completely agree. But I responding to the post that stated that his speech said nothing, when IMO, it was screaming out the message.

The trouble, and I include myself in this, is that we see that route as damaging for the UK, Ireland and the EU as a whole and therefore don't want to believe that this is where we are heading. But this speech clearly signals that it is the choice the government have made.

The argument is over. People seem to want to believe, based on the image that Boris has cultivated for himself, that somehow this is yet another Boris off-piste solo run when it clearly isn't. This is part of a planned campaign to culminate in TM speech.

The only way to avoid a hard brexit is to give the UK everything they want, FTA, free movement, services etc etc, without any of the responsibilities. As your image shows, that is simply not possible.

One of the key lines is that Boris claimed the EU was heading for a super state. This shows the antagonism towards the EU from the UK and shows clearly how they see the EU. They want out, they want out as soon as possible.

It really broders and wishful thinking for the EU and particularly Ireland to continue to operate on the basis that a negotiated position is possible. We need to prepare (and perhaps we are behind the scenes) for a hard brexit.

Skedaddle

One of the issues that I'm encountering a lot in England is centrist people who just have no notion that this could actually impact them and think it's all 'a big fuss about nothing' and that it will be 'fine'.

In most cases they voted to remain, but they're just happy to go along with whatever it is because they feel it's all a big storm in a teacup or just politicians being politicians and that it will have absolutely no bearing on them whatsoever.

It's also permeated business, where there's a general sort of glazing-over type effect when anyone discusses Brexit and a notion that it will all somehow just come together at the last minute and, sure maybe Brexit won't even happen at a all, so make no contingencies and change nothing.

The PR push to tar anyone providing statistical facts about the risks of Brexit as "project fear" has also caused a lot fo companies to go silent on contingency planning that they are doing and some companies don't want to be seen to be talking down their own business / looking like they have risks or talking down the general economy. I'm aware of companies that are making pretty frightening contingencies, which include relocating large chunks of their operations, should tariff barriers be a problem.

All in all, the impression I get in England is that the average punter is either living in a total bubble or thinks all this stuff is just either funny, or totally irrelevant.

One of the biggest issues is that many the things that the EU does or facilitates are just taken for granted as they're not the kinds of things that you notice, anymore than you really pay attention to the electrical wiring in your house, or the sewage and water systems, until it breaks down.

irishash

Going to have a bit of a rant now, brought on by the non-speech that was delivered by BoJo today. I have just had enough.
It has been over a year and a half now since the referendum result and in all honesty can anybody really say that progress has been made? I realise that “phase one” was completed but mere days after this agreement, several leading members of the UK government started to rubbish the agreements made during the completion of that phase.

Teresa May has delivered multiple speeches on what brexit means and it’s roadmap, but beyond the cringe worthy and downright insulting sound bites (brexit means brexit) she has never put forward anything resembling a policy or solution to any of the problems associated with exit. It is beyond a f**king joke now. At the beginning I was laughing at them, the incompetence of Davis, Fox, Leadsom, etc, but now I am horrified by what is going on. Sending out different factions to spin a “vision of brexit” without any substance…..AGAIN!!!

Johnson said today that the vote was not a V-sign from the cliffs of Dover but – “the expression of legitimate and natural desire to self-govern of the people". If you took his words at face value you would swear that the British were the most oppressed people in Europe. His words compare his fully independent, self-governing country (which, let’s not kid ourselves, was that way already before the stupid ref) to the likes of Ireland prior to 1921, or India prior to 1948, or Egypt prior to 1922, or Malta prior to 1964, or South Africa prior to 1910, or the United States prior to 1783. This is just plain insulting.

He also said the benefits of being in the single market and customs union were "nothing like as conspicuous or irrefutable" claiming other countries were able to trade with the EU without paying membership fees. This is yet another blatant mis-truth like the 350 million bus crap. Canada has a trade deal with the EU but it is not a benefit in kind deal. Canada does not and will not get all the benefits of membership through the trade deal.

Finally he arguing for independence on setting regulations for businesses, he said British people should not have laws affecting them "imposed from abroad" when they have no power to elect or remove the people making them. Of course this is another mis-truth. British people elect MEP’s who in turn vote on the commission. The UK has a veto which can stop any number of laws it does not want imposed on them. God forbid UK politicians would want to protect workers, consumers, gender equality, the LBGTQ community and the disabled, all of whom are protected in the UK by EU directives and regulations in relation to business alone.

I think at the beginning of all this, right after the vote in June 2016 and then after Article 50 was activated, the vast majority of people in Europe were of the opinion that the EU should be firm with the UK but still assist with the process, come to a decent agreement and lets move on. Now there is anger, mystification and bemusement over the attitude of the UK deal makers. A no deal scenario would be seen as just deserts for the UK. There is no love lost anymore thanks to the lies, incompetence and deception of the UK government let by TM. And we here will pay a huge price for this in the form of a hard border we do not want, do not need and, in my opinion, should not tolerate.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I fail to see how. Globalisation is inevitable. The best that can be done is that it is managed properly. Brexit won't change this.

it was by no means my intention to imply that it would.

irishash wrote: »

And we here will pay a huge price for this in the form of a hard border we do not want, do not need and, in my opinion, should not tolerate.

the hard border will be the least of Ireland's worries to be honest. The economy will tank over night and the last recession will look like a minor hiccup.

irishash

Aegir wrote: »

the hard border will be the least of Ireland's worries to be honest. The economy will tank over night and the last recession will look like a minor hiccup.

And if that does happen - just like it will happen to the UK - at least we will have the support of 26 other countries in the EU. I say this fully expecting posts back to say Ireland would be abandoned faster than Julian Assange running from a police summons.

Will the UK have this support?

The UK greatest ally in the EU right now is Ireland - they should seek to avoid a scenario where we turn our backs on them.

Water John

If it's being played, as a poker game, then allow them their non speeches over the next few weeks. Then the EU produce a critique of what message is being delivered to them, in plain language. Then go hard ball, and call out the total contradictions contained in their wishes/ambition.
I am a patient person but there is a time to call it as it is and that is, now. That may be, in the form of a summit, where TM is told a few truths over two days.

Skedaddle

and there go the prospects of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, and with it any prospect of any kind of sensible solution for the UK-EU border. The talks apparently have collapsed with Arlene Foster calling for direct rule from London over a squabble over the Irish language act.

You can be sure this will be seen by in most EU countries' governments, and the EU institutions itself, where minority languages tend to be taken very seriously, as absolutely regressive nonsense.

www.thejournal.ie/dup-arlene-foster-no-deal-3851980-Feb2018/

It clearly suits the DUP to control NI indirectly by controlling the extremely weak and wobbly Theresa May.

PeadarCo

Aegir wrote:

the hard border will be the least of Ireland's worries to be honest. The economy will tank over night and the last recession will look like a minor hiccup.

What is your basis for this assumption? It will hurt but I've heard nothing with forecasts as bad as that. I know Goodbody were saying before Christmas it would have a neutral impact on Ireland (even though they admitted there would very big differences on how different regions were affected Dublin benefiting and rural Ireland suffering).

And the really big question is would a hard Brexit be worse than the impact of getting rid of the common market and customs Union. (that's the only way for the EU to meet the UK red lines)

irishash

Skedaddle wrote: »

and there go the prospects of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, and with it any prospect of any kind of sensible solution for the UK-EU border. The talks apparently have collapsed with Arlene Foster calling for direct rule from London over a squabble over the Irish language act.

You can be sure this will be seen by in most EU countries' governments, and the EU institutions itself, where minority languages tend to be taken very seriously, as absolutely regressive nonsense.

www.thejournal.ie/dup-arlene-foster-no-deal-3851980-Feb2018/

This could actually be a good thing in relation to sorting the border issue out. With Devolved government in place, the DUP would be a major pain in the neck in regard to the only reasonable solution (a sea border). but with direct rule, the DUP numbers would be swamped by the MP's who would recognise this as the best way to deal with NI and the border. The DUP's influence would be diminished. Sure they could withdraw confidence and supply deal, but another party, such as lib dems, could support the government as long as a favourable EU deal was made.

EDIT - LIB DEM supporting government a huge leap, but in this crazy world.....

Water John

Lib Dems and SNP are the least likely to prop up TM. Both are pro EU. Neither want any Brexit.