Nissan to build a new plant.

Filo25

michaels wrote: »

But upgraded to max 600k cars per year from 500k - 100k cars per year is not a small 'factory' in its own right.

The cynic in me wonders how much we taxpayers are paying (or garanteeing) for the priviledge of Renault-Nissan boosting their profits.

We'll probably get an idea soon enough, no doubt other major manufacturers are likely to have their hands out as well.

As long as the overall deal makes economic sense though I don't have a huge issue with it in the present circumstances

Mortgagefreeman

steampowered wrote: »

Really? No negative impact?

This is what has happened to the value of the pound (120 day and 5 year graphs):

Great news for our exports.:beer:

Graham_Devon

It seems that some now seem to believe that we've never incentivised business in the UK. That somehow the Nissan pledge is a new thing and no other business in the UK has revived incentives to do business in the UK.

They also seem to assume that countries within the EU would not also offer incentives to locate in a particular country.

Either that - or it's the very last chance saloon of barrel scrapping "proving" that somehow, we've been diddled and it's all brexit voters fault....again.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

Great news for our exports.:beer:

But bad news for our imports.

And we import more than we export.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But bad news for our imports.

And we import more than we export.

Precisely the problem, too much reliance on imports. I want prices to go to force us to think more carefully before buying. Many UK firms are filling the space left by costly imports.


Our services exports have no import cost.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But bad news for our imports.

And we import more than we export.

Are you suggesting it's better for a country to rely on other countries for imports than it is for a country to manufacture exports?

redux

Conrad wrote: »

We always argued we Brits are not stupid and would take steps to ensure Brexit is a success. This is a crucial point endlessly dismissed by the gloom-brigade that always said bad stuff will happen and we will just sit there and take it.


EU rules make Government supporting of industry harder as it is deemed unfair. Free of the EU we can incentivise business however we so wish


Again we are not weak petitioners when it comes to the EU negotiation, we have all sorts of aces and plans up our sleeve. Hence why the remaoner assertion we have no aces and 'will be punished' was always so impotent

You personally have argued that imports will become 20% cheaper.

You base this odd supposition on your persistent misinformation that all imports from non-EU countries will have duty removed. In actual fact plenty of such imports already do not suffer duty charges.

Now you argue here that we can subsidise some of our industries if we want to.

Sure, but that would cause difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU, and alsom
with plenty of other countries around the world, who would complain we were unfairly subsidising things to dump cheap product (ironically a complaint that some are sometimes making against China).

What a failure is this, that you seem to be specifying more state support for industries that hitherto didn't seem to need it.

It is even counter to some of your previous assertions that our exports can become more competitive.

Fortunately our Brexit negotiations will be in the hands of civil servants who will show rather more consistency.

Perhaps all the reassurances that Nissan needed was that they will still be able to sell into the EU, on no worse terms than at present.

Shakethedisease

redux wrote: »

Perhaps all the reassurances that Nissan needed was that they will still be able to sell into the EU, on no worse terms than at present.

It looks like they've been told the whole Brexit plan.



..before Parliament has.

Thrugelmir

mayonnaise wrote: »

By shielding business against the negative impact of brexit. :rotfl:

Mr. Carlos Ghosn has a word with Theresa and a week later he announces continued investment in Sunderland thanks to "support and assurances" from the government.
Do you ever wonder what these "support and assurances" entail?

Are you not cynical about all political/business relationships?

Goldman Sachs has hired the former head of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso to help it through the fallout from the UK’s shock decision to quit the EU.

:whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle:

https://www.ft.com/content/9d29a55c-44f1-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d

steampowered

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

Great news for our exports.:beer:

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You really need to read more and then begin to understand the benefits of a lower £.
LOADS has been written recently; are you determined to ignore it all?
Here's just one to start you off:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1882/economics/winners-and-losers-from-weak-pound/

Of course there are benefits to having a lower pound, but pretending that it is 100% positive and that there is no negative impact is just ridiculous.

The value of the pound simply reflects what the international investment community believe the British economy is worth. Your salary, for example, is now worth significantly less than what it was worth a few months ago.

Like it or not we do have to import things and buy things denominated in foreign currency - such as fuel, petrol, technology, computer software, holidays, cars, bananas and countless other things. Those are all going to be more expensive.

Saying the drop in the value of the pound is great news is essentially the same thing as saying that it would be good for everyone to have their wages reduced to improve the competitiveness of our exports and boost productivity. Yes that would be true, and it is also true that as a country our productivity is low and wage bill is high. But there is an obvious negative impact on people's living standards if you reduce their wages (this is essentially exactly what has happened, as the real value of a £ wage has dropped).