Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by Pierre

Is it down to Brexit?

Or is it down to the FTA Japan just signed with the EU which means they no longer have to have a presence in the EU to sell their cars tariff free. So they can take their manufacturing back to the UK reduce costs, employ Japanese workers and boost their own economy.

In Free Trade Globalisation, there are winners and losers.

This would have happened regardless of Brexit.

We still, for one month, have better connections with the EU than Japan do now. Not only tariff free but the same market, they can move cars and parts across the EU as easily as we can move them from Glasgow to Cardiff. We're also much closer, Just put the goods on a lorry and it can be in France in no time.

Yes in a globalised market we're competing with other countries and this might have happened anyway but we have just given away a massive advantage we had.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

We still, for one month, have better connections with the EU than Japan do now. Not only tariff free but the same market, they can move cars and parts across the EU as easily as we can move them from Glasgow to Cardiff. We're also much closer, Just put the goods on a lorry and it can be in France in no time.

Yes in a globalised market we're competing with other countries and this might have happened anyway but we have just given away a massive advantage we had.

We have given away nothing. The EU may have done so if the free trade deal now makes it more profitable for Japan to manufacture "in house".

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Depends on how long and complex the JIT supply chain. I doubt very much they will be using EU manufacturers for their supply chain. Most likely "in house" as they used to or in Japan.

Nope. There is an engine plant in Swindon too. To qualify for trade deals, a car must be of 55% local content At the moment, local content means EU.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Depends on how long and complex the JIT supply chain. I doubt very much they will be using EU manufacturers for their supply chain. Most likely "in house" as they used to or in Japan.

Won't bother the EU though as they don't need the UK and Brexit won't lead to EU job losses.Sarcasm.

The EU-Japan FTA's tariff reduction on cars is phased over 8-years. From 10%; 8.8% (this year); 7.5%; 6.3%; 5.0% (Swindon closure); 3.8%; 2.5%; 1.3%; 0.0%(yr 2026).

Shipping vehicles across the world even without tariffs is cripplingly expensive, you can just about justify it for high margin vehicles - very difficult with low margin family cars. Even just the cost of "capital on the water" runs in to the hundreds of millions. 6 week shipping time from Japan is nearly £1/4 billion of capital tied up on boats.

[pip08456]

hmis post

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Is it down to Brexit?

Or is it down to the FTA Japan just signed with the EU which means they no longer have to have a presence in the EU to sell their cars tariff free. So they can take their manufacturing back to the UK reduce costs, employ Japanese workers and boost their own economy.

In Free Trade Globalisation, there are winners and losers.

This would have happened regardless of Brexit.

If the UK had voted Remain, the chances are high that Honda would not be closing down. The UK is a far cheaper country to make cars in, has a great labour supply and has access to a market of 500m on its doorstep and free trade deals with Japan and Korea. Closing down is a loss of honour.

Theresa May seems to be undoing all the good investment that Margaret Thatcher brought into the country. Let's hope she doesn't do a deal with Jeremy Corbyn to bring pack secondary picketing in return for his support on Brexit.

[Sephiroth]

As a Leave supporter, I am deeply disappointed by the current state of affairs. With just 5 weeks to go, British exporters to Europe don't even know how to label their products nor what the tariffs might be. Just imagine that - the ad-hoc labelling business will have a Brexit fuelled boom whilst British business is left in turmoil.

This stems directly from TM's position as a Remainer, jabbed from the side by the arch-Remain Chancellor. It's only short of criminal negligence because there are no laws to cover this kind of negligence of office.

Our day 1 position entering the A50 era should have been on a no deal basis and then see what could have been done to "improve" on this position. Businesses would not too eventually have taken this as the certainty that they require; the guvmin could have instituted a tax-friendly scheme to cover businesses that met the no-deal preparation criteria should their expenditure have become nugatory as the result of any deal.

Some Remainers in this thread have pointed out that the EU could only be expected to negotiate with their interests first and that the Leavers should not be castigating the EU for being unreasonable. Whilst I have seen this sometimes as being apologist for the EU, the truth is that the Remainers have been right in this regard.

It is thus a great pity that the UK guvmin didn't take the same hard line approach. The EU had it's "ever closer union" mantra and the "4 pillars" to follow, so discouraging other would be defectors; the UK had £39 billion and a market of 65 million to wave in front of the EU's federalist eyes.

The ultimate insult, and which makes us a laughing stock, is to have allowed the perfidious Irish Varadkar to wave the GFA in front of us whereas his true intent was to protect the Irish economy. Sure, he would see that as a duty to Ireland - protect his country first; but our politicians never called him out for that perfidy. Talk about the tail wagging the dog and getting away with it, perhaps.

As to our Parliament - the breakaway Labour 7 are arch-Remainers who have mixed disillusionment with Labour's stance on Brexit with institutional anti-Semitism in the party and Corbyn in particular. Likewise, the likes of Dominic Grieve in the Conservative Party who have set out to thwart the Referendum result by use of parliamentary devices have only served to weaken our position in negotiating with the EU; they are the enemy within. Just imagine, those idiots in Parliament have voted against "no deal"; May had the opportunity of waving the £39 billion in front of the EU taken away as a credible threat because the EU will just call her bluff having made their assessment of what the UK Parliament could do to Brexit.

The ultimate irony would be if Brexit is stopped by a small parliamentary majority (for that is what it would be). The Remain bleaters pray in aid the margin narrowness the 52/48 Referendum result (1 million majority); they'll hypocritically hail as a democratic victory a parliamentary majority of 5 or 10 to Remain or water down Brexit.

And it's all TM's fault.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

As a Leave supporter, I am deeply disappointed by the current state of affairs. With just 5 weeks to go, British exporters to Europe don't even know how to label their products nor what the tariffs might be. Just imagine that - the ad-hoc labelling business will have a Brexit fuelled boom whilst British business is left in turmoil.

This stems directly from TM's position as a Remainer, jabbed from the side by the arch-Remain Chancellor. It's only short of criminal negligence because there are no laws to cover this kind of negligence of office.

Our day 1 position entering the A50 era should have been on a no deal basis and then see what could have been done to "improve" on this position. Businesses would not too eventually have taken this as the certainty that they require; the guvmin could have instituted a tax-friendly scheme to cover businesses that met the no-deal preparation criteria should their expenditure have become nugatory as the result of any deal.

Some Remainers in this thread have pointed out that the EU could only be expected to negotiate with their interests first and that the Leavers should not be castigating the EU for being unreasonable. Whilst I have seen this sometimes as being apologist for the EU, the truth is that the Remainers have been right in this regard.

It is thus a great pity that the UK guvmin didn't take the same hard line approach. The EU had it's "ever closer union" mantra and the "4 pillars" to follow, so discouraging other would be defectors; the UK had £39 billion and a market of 65 million to wave in front of the EU's federalist eyes.

The ultimate insult, and which makes us a laughing stock, is to have allowed the perfidious Irish Varadkar to wave the GFA in front of us whereas his true intent was to protect the Irish economy. Sure, he would see that as a duty to Ireland - protect his country first; but our politicians never called him out for that perfidy. Talk about the tail wagging the dog and getting away with it, perhaps.

As to our Parliament - the breakaway Labour 7 are arch-Remainers who have mixed disillusionment with Labour's stance on Brexit with institutional anti-Semitism in the party and Corbyn in particular. Likewise, the likes of Dominic Grieve in the Conservative Party who have set out to thwart the Referendum result by use of parliamentary devices have only served to weaken our position in negotiating with the EU; they are the enemy within. Just imagine, those idiots in Parliament have voted against "no deal"; May had the opportunity of waving the £39 billion in front of the EU taken away as a credible threat because the EU will just call her bluff having made their assessment of what the UK Parliament could do to Brexit.

The ultimate irony would be if Brexit is stopped by a small parliamentary majority (for that is what it would be). The Remain bleaters pray in aid the margin narrowness the 52/48 Referendum result (1 million majority); they'll hypocritically hail as a democratic victory a parliamentary majority of 5 or 10 to Remain or water down Brexit.

And it's all TM's fault.

It stems from May trying to do everything without consulting parliament. Starting with holding a GE. Then keeping things secret, not sharing information with parliament, such as the impact assessment of Brexit.

So you have the blinkered leading the deliberately blinded. There is never going to be a good outcome in those circumstances. May has embraced Leaving the EU with the fervour of the converted. If she truly were still a Remainer at heart, she would have been looking at ways to stop leaving, which would be a public vote on the deal, with the inclusion of remain as an option.

Instead she will see the split in Labour as a victory, with possibly losing a few Tory MPs as a price worth paying for the Tory parties future cohesion based on leaving the EU regardless.

I think the bigger problem is the lack of unity. The result was the worst difficult one from an implementation perspective: A narrow win for the change option which the government and Parliament didn't want.

At the start Brexiters should have thought: This was a narrow win, we need to take the other side with us and Remainers thought 'we need to stop this'. There was no attempt to work it out.

I think May did what she thought was best after the election. The conference speech before it with 'citizen of nowhere' was the worst possible tone though and only done because she thought she needed to compensate for having supported Remain and went too far.

But think of how difficult this situation is for Parliament. A population divided down the middle want to vastly different outcomes.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the bigger problem is the lack of unity. The result was the worst difficult one from an implementation perspective: A narrow win for the change option which the government and Parliament didn't want.

At the start Brexiters should have thought: This was a narrow win, we need to take the other side with us and Remainers thought 'we need to stop this'. There was no attempt to work it out.

I think May did what she thought was best after the election. The conference speech before it with 'citizen of nowhere' was the worst possible tone though and only done because she thought she needed to compensate for having supported Remain and went too far.

But think of how difficult this situation is for Parliament. A population divided down the middle want to vastly different outcomes.

That's pretty much my thoughts, I do wonder what will happen when brexit doesn't solve the issues of globalisation or the feeling of being left behind many experienced.

[nomadking]

The margin of the referendum result was more than a MILLION.

The Remain side are insisting on at least "freedom of movement" and a Customs Union. Those are completely at odds with the Leave side. What compromises have the Remain side offered?

The Remain side should've accepted the DEMOCRATIC result and tried make things happen better and easier, instead of try to sabotage it. The time and effort having to be spent on defending from anti-democratic attacks, would've been better spent on preparing plans for a hard Brexit. Then where the EU were prepared to do a deal on an aspect, that part of the plan could be crossed out or amended accordingly.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If the UK had voted Remain, the chances are high that Honda would not be closing down. The UK is a far cheaper country to make cars in, has a great labour supply and has access to a market of 500m on its doorstep and free trade deals with Japan and Korea.

Well not according to Honda’s most senior guy in Europe, just been speaking on R4. Brexit
Has nothing to do with the decision . It’s about the death of the internal combustion engine and volumes.

You say they have access to a market of 500m, but they only sold 140,000 units last year, whereas their sales from their US and China sales topped more than 2million.

There’s the reason

[pip08456]

Honda Civic production moving to N. American and Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47291378

Brexit: UK will apply food tariffs in case of no deal

Environment Secretary Michael Gove has promised that the government will apply tariffs to food imports in the event of a no-deal Brexit, to provide "specific and robust protections" for farmers.

His remarks come as the government is poised to release details of tariffs (taxes on imports) that would apply to thousands of products coming in from around the world, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Many supporters of Brexit argue that tariffs on food and other items should be scrapped in order to lower prices for consumers. But farmers fear that cheap imports and lower standards would destroy many parts of British agriculture.

"Your concerns have absolutely been heard," Mr Gove told a conference of the National Farmers' Union (NFU). "It will not be the case that we will have zero-rate tariffs on food products.

"There will be protections for sensitive sections of agriculture and food production."

He added that an announcement on a no-deal tariff schedule "should be made later this week".

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...hael-gove-says

In a keynote speech to the NFU, Gove also warned that British farmers could be locked out of the EU from 30 March in the event of no deal and that checks at Calais on food exports would “fur up” the arteries of trade, contrary to claims by the French port that there would not be delays.

“We can expect, at least in the short term, that those delays in Calais will impede the loading of ferries, constricting supply routes back into Britain and furring up the arteries of commerce on which we all rely,” said Gove.

The NFU recently warned that health and safety audits required on individual food processing plans required by the EU could take up to six months to complete, effectively locking British farming exporters out of the bloc.

On Tuesday Gove confirmed this by pointing out the EU had not yet classified the UK as a “third country”, which will only happen after health and safety audits are complete.

“The EU still have not listed the UK as a full third country … As I speak there is no absolute guarantee we will continue to be able to export to the EU,” he told farmers.

Gove also said that the dangers of no deal would not be removed if, in future, a trade deal was sealed between the UK and the EU.

Once tariffs are imposed by the EU on British exports “it will be difficult to re-establish that market access even if tariffs reduced in the future”.

Contrary to claims by Calais authorities, Gove said there will be delays at the port because of mandatory sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks on any food or animal products exported to the bloc from Britain.

[1andrew1]

Pretty clear that Brexit was one of the factors leading to the closure of Honda Swindon. Like FlyBMI, it is unlikely to be the only reason but it can well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

David Bailey, an economics professor at Aston University has said “I think we’re seeing a collision between Brexit uncertainty making investment difficult, just as the industry is transforming itself. Honda came to the UK because it offered a launchpad into the single market. There’s a lot of bewilderment in Japan about Brexit because what we offered them has been taken away. We’re not upholding our side of the deal so they don’t need to either. There may have been more of a chance of the UK being a centre of electric vehicle production if we stayed in the single market and if we had a more supportive industrial strategy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-close-in-2021