Bombardier blow

Filo25

mayonnaise wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bombardier-theresa-may-tory-dup-deal-northern-ireland-jobs-government-conservatives-tariff-boeing-a7970006.html

What motivation is there for the DUP to bring down the government though, they utterly despise Corbyn and McDonnell and aren't likely to take any action that is going to increase the likelihood of them getting into government anytime soon.

Of course that mightn't stop them coming with their hands out for an even better deal, the DUP are very good at that

Conrad

ewaste wrote: »

That would be a poor example as the UK Government, or any EU Government for that matter, can do as it wishes for military needs. Whether it chooses to or not for financial or political reasons is nothing much to do with the EU.

I cant be bothered to check but I have read many times that the EU places blocks on the UK commissioning ship building, something around procurement rules (Bob Crowe was always on about how this cost British jobs).


Point being there are many downsides of EU membership, to ignore this and proclaim we ought not to be an independent nation over a commercial dispute with Boeing / Trump is foolish and short sighted


Look at all the wasted opportunities the EU has had to do trade deals with big players

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Initially I agree it certainly does not look to good, but again all the hoo-ha is perhaps a little premature.

Firstly because this will only ever happen - next year BTW - if ruling in favour actually happens:

The Commerce Department’s penalty against Bombardier will only take effect if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) rules in Boeing’s favor in a final decision expected in 2018.

Then there is this:

To win its case before the ITC, Boeing must prove it was harmed by Bombardier’s sales practices, despite not using one of its own jets to compete for the Delta order, Dan Pearson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute think tank in Washington, said before Tuesday’s announcement.
“This (ITC case) cannot be a slam dunk,” said Pearson, a former ITC chairman. “I‘m having a hard time figuring out how Boeing was harmed by this.”

And this:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had put his government’s planned purchase of Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets on hold because of the trade dispute, saying it could not “do business with a company that’s busy trying to sue us and put our aerospace workers out of business.”

This:

Canada’s foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland said Bombardier CSeries components are supplied by American companies that support almost 23,000 jobs in U.S. states, including Connecticut, Florida and New Jersey.

And this:

Britain told U.S. planemaker Boeing on Wednesday that it could lose out on British defence contracts because of its dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier which has put 4,200 jobs at risk in Northern Ireland.

All the above might yet alter this application of "preliminary anti-subsidy duties".


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier/u-s-slaps-steep-duties-on-bombardier-jets-after-boeing-complaint-idUSKCN1C138W

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-boeing-bombardier-britain/britain-warns-boeing-it-might-lose-business-over-bombardier-row-idUKKCN1C20HB?il=0

ewaste

Conrad wrote: »

I cant be bothered to check but I have read many times that the EU places blocks on the UK commissioning ship building, something around procurement rules (Bob Crowe was always on about how this cost British jobs).

Which would be !!!!!!!! for political and financial purposes. The only real stumbling block being the procurement of vessels in Government service vs those in commercial service. The key exemption in relation to military procurement or in this case shipbuilding is outlined in Article 346 of the Lisbon Treaty:-

(b) any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

What constitutes ‘essential security interests’ remains the sole responsibility of Member States to define, with the prevailing definition seemingly including almost anything in Government service. That means anything from research vessels, Customs, Coastguard to the clear cut direct military use with the Royal Navy and RFA. (See Point-Class Sealift Vessel for something that arguably stretches a narrower definition)


The simple fact is the UK and Scottish Governments, as they operate their own fisheries protection, could sole source shipbuilding within the UK but instead choose not to for political and financial reasons. Instead the EU tends to be blamed as a misdirect when really the blame should be on the continuing failure to develop and industrial strategy that utilises shipbuilding capacity in a continuous rather than sporadic fashion. Political parties should either state that they are ideologically opposed to an industrial strategy and or paying above a reasonable market rate for shipbuilding.

kinger101

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

With thanks in advance to peachyprice I would like to include here a copy of their post from another thread elsewhere in these forums, since it does appear to be appropriate.
As such please do not thank me for posting it here; if you wish to you may thank the OP in post # 15 here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5718396

The simple answer is because the UK is gambling on some preferential treatment by the USA coming to a new trade agreement. Given this has happened largely because of a dispute with it's closest neighbour, it's pretty clear who'll be wearing the trousers in any treaty negotiations between the USA and UK. Corporate America.

Arklight

stator wrote: »

Given the amount of money the UK government gives Boeing yes, we have plenty of clout.
Cancel a few orders for Apache Holicopters and that'll get their attention

Yeah. The UK is definitely going to come out on top in a trade war with the United States.

Ballard

kinger101 wrote: »

The simple answer is because the UK is gambling on some preferential treatment by the USA coming to a new trade agreement. Given this has happened largely because of a dispute with it's closest neighbour, it's pretty clear who'll be wearing the trousers in any treaty negotiations between the USA and UK. Corporate America.

Exactly. How on earth can anyone not realise that although this dispute hasn’t been caused by Brexit the whole affair does put massive holes in the argument that the US will be banging our door down to sign trade deals with us once we’ve left? I dare say that a deal could well still be signed but it will be on Uncle Sams terms rather than ours.

It’s good to occasionally be reminded why I’ve put some people on my ignore list.

stator

Arklight wrote: »

Yeah. The UK is definitely going to come out on top in a trade war with the United States.

Cancelling a few helicopters hardly counts as a trade war. Boeing has enough US military money that it won't cause significant upset, I doubt the US government would even notice. But it will upset their profits a little for a short time. Will also be a signal that they might not be considered for future contracts. I doubt anybody would get seriously upset.

Arklight

stator wrote: »

Cancelling a few helicopters hardly counts as a trade war. Boeing has enough US military money that it won't cause significant upset, I doubt the US government would even notice. But it will upset their profits a little for a short time. Will also be a signal that they might not be considered for future contracts. I doubt anybody would get seriously upset.

Oh, they'll notice.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

"Why the Boeing-Bombardier fight is neither about Trump nor Brexit

Despite reprisal threats the case is a fairly normal high-stakes trade dispute"


https://www.ft.com/content/dd4dca8c-a747-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97




Of course, such logic still will not prevent dissenters.