Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps you've missed the developing trend. With the evolution of new manufacturing processes. Bombardier (Canada) and Honda (Japan) retraction and consolidation of operations to home territory.

Don't miss out the bit about Japan also having a better import tariff into the EU because they are bigger and have a better bargaining position, a trend that will continue in ALL our trade deals.

So not only are we losing manufacturing, but there is going to be no reason why anyone would want to build here to replace them & it's going to end up costing us more money in the end.

I like your posts, they always give a good reason to stay in the EU.

Arklight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps you've missed the developing trend. With the evolution of new manufacturing processes. Bombardier (Canada) and Honda (Japan) retraction and consolidation of operations to home territory.

Great, our home territory is the EU.

SouthLondonUser

waamo wrote: »

I do like the bit in the Express that says "reading between the lines...."

Is that newspeak for "we made this up"?

The Express making things up? The thing (I cannot call it a newspaper) which "asked" if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy? https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/817651/london-fire-grenfell-tower-block-cladding-latest-updates-european-union-regulations Of course there was no proof whatsoever, but we all know that truth is optional for the Express and its readers. By the way, may I ask what Brexiters think of that title? Morally repugnant, unfounded insinuations? Or is anything acceptable in the Brexit debate, no matter how false?


Back on topic. I don't have the time to read all 200+ pages of that document. Can anyone who has read it summarise it for me? Because I am sure that all the Brexiters who mention it have read it and understood it, right? They don't just mention it because the Express did so, right?


I did skim through the first 20 pages or so. I must say I love the bit on page 6, question 4:

Would our international influence be affected?
Yes, it would be strengthened.

Which is what I, and most remainers, have always been saying.


The other pages I read simply mention the obvious, ie that if the UK enters into a treaty it will be bound by that treaty. I fail to see what is so shocking about that.


Any kind of interaction between countries involves giving up a bit of sovereignty. That's totally normal, unless you want to be a hermit country like North Korea. Which brings me to my other previous question, on which the Brexiters' silence has been defeaning: why do Brexiters fail to see that being part of a larger group gives us strength in negotiations with the other superpowers? Do you think that the UK, going it alone, would be able to tell no to the US to the same things the EU, as a larger block, has been able to? Is that not an important part of sovereignty? Or do you think that being 'free' from Bruxelles but then being practically forced to accept clorinated chicken etc etc would be a big win for sovereignty? Brexiters, please enlighten me.

SouthLondonUser

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps you've missed the developing trend. With the evolution of new manufacturing processes. Bombardier (Canada) and Honda (Japan) retraction and consolidation of operations to home territory.

I don't understand what you mean.



Can you please be so kind as to answer my extremely simple question: what kind of bargaining power do you think the UK would have in trade deals, eg with the US? Would it not have much less power than the EU, a much larger counterparty? Would it still be able to deny the US all the things the EU has been able to deny, from chlorinated chicken to a dismantling of the NHS (American drug companies are certainly not happy about the centralised buying and price-setting of the NHS)? If we were forced to accept chlorinated chicken etc etc, would that not be, in fact, a much greater loss of sovereignty?


It's a simple question - why did you not answer it?

gfplux

A Brexit Bonus?
QUOTE
Burberry has scrapped plans for a new factory to produce its trademark trenchcoats in Leeds. The site had been the centrepiece of a vaunted £50m investment in its British manufacturing base.

The luxury brand announced the ambitious plan in 2015 but has now confirmed that the 4-hectare (10-acre) site in Leeds is to be sold off after several years of stalling in the wake of the Brexit vote. The scheme was the brainchild of Burberry’s last chief executive, Christopher Bailey.
END QUOTE
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/04/burberry-scraps-plans-to-build-factory-in-leeds

buglawton

Chilly today. Must be because of Brexit.

Zero_Gravitas

buglawton wrote: »

Chilly today. Must be because of Brexit.

If you’re a brexit supporter, there’s definitely a chill wind blowing

SouthLondonUser

I'd still love to know what Brexiters think about the Express "asking" if EU rules were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy

LHW99

I'd still love to know what Brexiters think about the Express "asking" if EU rules were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy

Certainly the standards involved are now EU rather than British standards. Industry has to adopt them, but the committees are Brussels based, and input from UK owned companies tends to be minimal as only the largest (global) corporations are likely to be asked to contribute. The standards define the tests required for new materials, and the equipment used to carry them out.

Arklight

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean.



Can you please be so kind as to answer my extremely simple question: what kind of bargaining power do you think the UK would have in trade deals, eg with the US? Would it not have much less power than the EU, a much larger counterparty? Would it still be able to deny the US all the things the EU has been able to deny, from chlorinated chicken to a dismantling of the NHS (American drug companies are certainly not happy about the centralised buying and price-setting of the NHS)? If we were forced to accept chlorinated chicken etc etc, would that not be, in fact, a much greater loss of sovereignty?


It's a simple question - why did you not answer it?

Every time a factory closes, a product line is shifted, or a headquarters is moved he says it has nothing to do with Brexit but is due to companies locating where their biggest markets are to save transport costs, usually in Asia. Ignoring the fact that our biggest market is in Europe. The trade bloc on our doorstep he wants to leave.

He also likes to simultaneously argue that the world is Britain's oyster and we'll now have access to Asian markets we somehow didn't before,to export our plucky British goods thousands of miles where they can't possibly be made in situ.

It's a Brexit axiom that I think came from UKIP back when Brexiters liked UKIP. None of them appear to realise how contradictory these positions are. He's been called out on it numerous times and never once replied.