So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[JackCarter]

 

 

try

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-industry-merkel-idUSKBN1502CY

 

the uk could see a boost as uk built cars would be cheaper, along with the 10000's of banking jobs due to move to the uk, its a win win

Why? They have to buy and import steel (probably from China or India) in Dollars, and all the component parts from all over Europe in Euros, and probably the electrical components from Germany and Japan. Just because labour has got a bit cheaper due to the weak pound doesn't mean the overall cost of manufacturing has gone down much as they're not sourcing most of the raw materials in the weak Sterling zone but from markets that are trading high against Sterling.

 

Another flawed outbreak of Brexit myopia.

You don't have much idea how international business and currency trading works. You can't have it both ways. If the owners are foreign, reporting their financials in their own country then the only effect on them would be the cheaper British labour and other UK added value elements for as long as those remain cheaper. Any factors from outside the UK would be exactly neutral - converted to sterling and then back from sterling into their own currency.

That's what I said. You really aren't that clever are you? The only cost saving, as I said, would only largely be on the labour, which is a small part of the manufacturing process. So how would a car be made that much cheaper when you're buying your components everywhere but the UK and even importing your plant and machinery?

 

The only argument then is on tariffs and Trump "might" bring those in but let's face it they will be in order that car production moves to the US (to create US jobs). That's the only reason to bring domestic tariffs in. Not so that a few Minis and Nissan Micras (which are too small for the US market anyway) can be shipped in from the UK.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JackCarter

[mojomonkey]

Trumps want to make America great again by bringing manufacturing back to the country. The simple strategy for that appears to be taxing imports to a point where it only makes sense for the manufacturer to actually manufacture in America. As far as I can see his mentioned import taxes have not been mentioned again since he took power, but it's early days and the budget is still awaited. If he is serious about such strategy I can't see why he would pick and choose which countries it applied to, although I doubt the likes of Bhutan import much to the US.

 

The car manufacturing sector is interesting though as the vast majority of car sales in the US are for types of cars that aren't really manufactured outside of the US, ie. massive pickup trucks and very large SUVs. After those the majority of the rest comprises of Japanese hatchbacks and saloons. http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/07/usa-vehicle-sales-by-model-june-2016-first

[woody2]

"if" the uk gets a free trade deal and the eu has to pay 35% duty, of course it will make a difference to levels of sales.

 

also vw clearly don't want to lose sales to the uk

[woolley]

@ JackCarter: Totally missed the point as usual. You were saying that everything is going to be more expensive except for the labour. But for foreign owned and reporting car makers exporting to countries outside the UK, it is entirely neutral, except for the cheaper labour - i.e, nothing is more expensive.

[mojomonkey]

The news today is reporting that Ford is likely to reduce their workforce by 1160 to 600 by 2021 at their Bridgend plant in Wales. Was this always going to happen or it is in anyway connected to Brexit and/or Trump?

[woody2]

ford have been in trouble for years...

[Lxxx]

The news today is reporting that Ford is likely to reduce their workforce by 1160 to 600 by 2021 at their Bridgend plant in Wales. Was this always going to happen or it is in anyway connected to Brexit and/or Trump?

 

Of course it is. Anything negative that happens from here on in is attributable to at least one of those things you mentioned above. Probably both in the majority of cases.

[JackCarter]

@ JackCarter: Totally missed the point as usual. You were saying that everything is going to be more expensive except for the labour. But for foreign owned and reporting car makers exporting to countries outside the UK, it is entirely neutral, except for the cheaper labour - i.e, nothing is more expensive.

Only you missed the point as you clearly arent that clever.

[P.K.]

At this stage of the Brexit process, all these negative forecasts are imprecise and purely speculative-- like describing it as "intangible"; it is your subjective opinion and really carries less weight than you muster credit for. You can dress up the sour grapes how you like: use your piss-poor attempt at Private Eye-type satire to bolster your pompous derision toward those who voted to leave, it makes little difference does it?

 

Carry on Private...

 

My my. One of the best attempts at an insult I've ever seen on here. Did you have to run it past your svengali first by chance?

 

So tell me, how do you tell it's not my sense of humour, irony etc etc and one I'm trying to copy from that august organ Private Eye?

 

Let me help you here. A charge frequently levelled at PE is that it is "Public School" humour.

 

Good luck with that one....

 

So let's see here. If you believed all the nonsense spouted by the likes of Farage, Gove, Johnson, The Daily Wail etc etc and then you went and voted for a lower standard of living then as far as I'm concerned you're a complete and utter moron who shouldn't be allowed out unless accompanied by an adult.

 

Cornwall is a good case in point. They currently get £60m pa in grants from the EU. This will be lost on Brexit. The other day one of their councillors was whining that central government is only going to grant them £18m over three years (iirc). Cornwall voted Brexit. Well here's an idea to get hold of doombrain, don't bite the hand that feeds you!

 

I for one would be very upset if my (lowered) VAT payments went to prop up some self-harming west country knuckle-draggers.

 

ETA - found the link on the Cornwall faux pas:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cornwall-lose-eu-funding-uk-government-replace-brexit-latest-dclg-request-down-julian-german-a7603921.html

Edited March 1, 2017 by P.K.

[woolley]

@ PK: Well it's better than usual. A point raised and presented without too much hysterics and abuse. I'm impressed.

 

OK. So if we take your figure that Cornwall receives £60m from the EU. Given that the UK has to pay three times whatever it gets back from the Union and then jump through bureaucratic hoops to get it, Cornwall's £60m is costing the UK £180m + administration costs to process through Brussels. Sensible?

 

Now your point may be a reasonable advocacy for a different allocation of resources within the UK, but a winning argument for a supranational bureaucracy? I don't think so; rather the opposite. As for the hand that feeds you, I don't think you thought that through.

[mojomonkey]

@ PK: Well it's better than usual. A point raised and presented without too much hysterics and abuse. I'm impressed.

 

OK. So if we take your figure that Cornwall receives £60m from the EU. Given that the UK has to pay three times whatever it gets back from the Union and then jump through bureaucratic hoops to get it, Cornwall's £60m is costing the UK £180m + administration costs to process through Brussels. Sensible?

 

Now your point may be a reasonable advocacy for a different allocation of resources within the UK, but a winning argument for a supranational bureaucracy? I don't think so; rather the opposite. As for the hand that feeds you, I don't think you thought that through.

Do you honestly believe that the Government will use that money saved from not paying into the EU to give Cornwall £60m direct?

 

England is screwed, unless you live in London or the South East the Government couldn't care less about you.

[woolley]

 

@ PK: Well it's better than usual. A point raised and presented without too much hysterics and abuse. I'm impressed.

 

OK. So if we take your figure that Cornwall receives £60m from the EU. Given that the UK has to pay three times whatever it gets back from the Union and then jump through bureaucratic hoops to get it, Cornwall's £60m is costing the UK £180m + administration costs to process through Brussels. Sensible?

 

Now your point may be a reasonable advocacy for a different allocation of resources within the UK, but a winning argument for a supranational bureaucracy? I don't think so; rather the opposite. As for the hand that feeds you, I don't think you thought that through.

Do you honestly believe that the Government will use that money saved from not paying into the EU to give Cornwall £60m direct?

 

England is screwed, unless you live in London or the South East the Government couldn't care less about you.

 

I prefer the allocation of funds to be decided in the UK, answerable to the electorate than by unelected officials abroad at three times the cost. That's all.

[mojomonkey]

 

 

@ PK: Well it's better than usual. A point raised and presented without too much hysterics and abuse. I'm impressed.

 

OK. So if we take your figure that Cornwall receives £60m from the EU. Given that the UK has to pay three times whatever it gets back from the Union and then jump through bureaucratic hoops to get it, Cornwall's £60m is costing the UK £180m + administration costs to process through Brussels. Sensible?

 

Now your point may be a reasonable advocacy for a different allocation of resources within the UK, but a winning argument for a supranational bureaucracy? I don't think so; rather the opposite. As for the hand that feeds you, I don't think you thought that through.

Do you honestly believe that the Government will use that money saved from not paying into the EU to give Cornwall £60m direct?

 

England is screwed, unless you live in London or the South East the Government couldn't care less about you.

I prefer the allocation of funds to be decided in the UK, answerable to the electorate than by unelected officials abroad at three times the cost. That's all.

I understand and accept that, but could you answer the question I actually posed? Do you think Cornwall will get £60m direct from Government?

[Lxxx]

 

@ PK: Well it's better than usual. A point raised and presented without too much hysterics and abuse. I'm impressed.

 

OK. So if we take your figure that Cornwall receives £60m from the EU. Given that the UK has to pay three times whatever it gets back from the Union and then jump through bureaucratic hoops to get it, Cornwall's £60m is costing the UK £180m + administration costs to process through Brussels. Sensible?

 

Now your point may be a reasonable advocacy for a different allocation of resources within the UK, but a winning argument for a supranational bureaucracy? I don't think so; rather the opposite. As for the hand that feeds you, I don't think you thought that through.

Do you honestly believe that the Government will use that money saved from not paying into the EU to give Cornwall £60m direct?

 

England is screwed, unless you live in London or the South East the Government couldn't care less about you.

 

 

But that's a whole different argument and one to be had by elected representatives on behalf of constituents to other elected representatives.

Which, judging by the facts that half of the well heeled population of London has a second home in Cornwall, I think there would be more than a favourable case hearing.

[mojomonkey]

It's not just Cornwall though, it's whole regions of the UK. I doubt many well heeled Londoners have second homes in the North East or North West.

 

Ok, it's not entirely an EU related issue but I think it's fair comment that Government only cares about London and the South East.