FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Brexit - a solution to the problems in the car industry

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK

Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.

If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Wow.

You have written all of that and said nothing.

I'd respond, but there is nothing to actually work with.

Not even the source.

Top quartile post right there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...

but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again

and it actually doesn't say a single thing

i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....

so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think what this says is that we can offset the impact of pulling out of the eu by throwing taxpayers money at the problem, something we can't do under the EU (think there are R&D tax reliefs already tho)

Sounds protectionist to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over."

Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.

Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars..."

Electric probably can't power planes reliability.

It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.

Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.

Solar is better for the national grid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.

Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...

Electric probably can't power planes reliability.

It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.

Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.

Solar is better for the national grid."

If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.

Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.

Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.

The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK

Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.

If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem."

copied and pasted.you are a weak man

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.

Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...

Electric probably can't power planes reliability.

It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.

Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.

Solar is better for the national grid.

If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.

Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.

Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.

The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else."

Kind of disagree on cars going fully electric in the next decade.

A big issue is driving down the cost. Part of this is in the market accessibility of them - electronic cars suffer bad PR regarding battery duration, this makes people less eager to buy something that is already expensive. A limiting factor of the cells are rare earth metals available. These need to become cheaper.

In the long term yes, over the next decade, I think hydrogen is more implementable.

I'm interested about the shipping point you raised, any references I can Google? Everything nice heard says that there are too many variables for solar and wind to be viable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.

A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.

Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.

We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.

Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...

Electric probably can't power planes reliability.

It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.

Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.

Solar is better for the national grid.

If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.

Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.

Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.

The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else.

Kind of disagree on cars going fully electric in the next decade.

A big issue is driving down the cost. Part of this is in the market accessibility of them - electronic cars suffer bad PR regarding battery duration, this makes people less eager to buy something that is already expensive. A limiting factor of the cells are rare earth metals available. These need to become cheaper.

In the long term yes, over the next decade, I think hydrogen is more implementable.

I'm interested about the shipping point you raised, any references I can Google? Everything nice heard says that there are too many variables for solar and wind to be viable."

I don't think there is any logic in developing one set of infrastructure and technology and then replacing it with another.

There is some logic in having electric cars for domestic use, as the infrastructure already exists everywhere and a more limited, parallel hydrogen one that can be based in depots for lorries, buses and train yards.

Marine hydrogen:

Race for Water

Powercell Sweden

Fiskerstrand

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Brexit is bad for the majority of the people in the UK

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Wow.

You have written all of that and said nothing.

I'd respond, but there is nothing to actually work with.

Not even the source.

Top quartile post right there "
That must be good news then as if the post says nothing it allows you to put your time to more productive use though I note that you still choose to type out a few comments .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...

but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again

and it actually doesn't say a single thing

i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....

so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... "
Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...

but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again

and it actually doesn't say a single thing

i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....

so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it . "
october 31st.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...

but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again

and it actually doesn't say a single thing

i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....

so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it . october 31st. "
Good answer and hopefully with Boris as pm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obletonMan
over a year ago

A Home Among The Woodland Creatures


"The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK

Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.

If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem."

This was a very similar kind of plan to the ideas being put forward by John Mills.

Things is John Mills is pretty left wing, and I can't see anyone with any left wing ideas like these getting close enough to government to pull them off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obletonMan
over a year ago

A Home Among The Woodland Creatures

Other thoughts:

The article calls for "a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy", "better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping", "Skills policies", "R&D credits" and government intervention in currency markets to maintain a competitive exchange rate.

In other words the article calls for much much MUCH more government involvement in the market in order to make brexit a success for the SMMT and the industrial sector in general.

Boris wants "free market capitalism" in other words less government involement in the market - possibly zero involvement if Boris is as keen on the Minford plan as the ERG are.

So what Boris wants and what the SMMT want are polar opposites of each other.

What the SMMT wants is much closer to what the leavers in the Labour party are calling for.

If you want what the SMMT want then vote labour.

If you want Boris, then don't expect to get what this article calls for - expect to be dissapointed instead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adame 2SwordsWoman
over a year ago

Victoria, London

I went into a betting shop the other day to see if I could bet on a time when some stupid politician would announce the revival of Leyland!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Other thoughts:

The article calls for "a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy", "better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping", "Skills policies", "R&D credits" and government intervention in currency markets to maintain a competitive exchange rate.

In other words the article calls for much much MUCH more government involvement in the market in order to make brexit a success for the SMMT and the industrial sector in general.

Boris wants "free market capitalism" in other words less government involement in the market - possibly zero involvement if Boris is as keen on the Minford plan as the ERG are.

So what Boris wants and what the SMMT want are polar opposites of each other.

What the SMMT wants is much closer to what the leavers in the Labour party are calling for.

If you want what the SMMT want then vote labour.

If you want Boris, then don't expect to get what this article calls for - expect to be dissapointed instead.

"

Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.

If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obletonMan
over a year ago

A Home Among The Woodland Creatures


"

Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.

If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now."

Yes - I took that context as read.

There is a certain irony don't you think to a right wing boris supporting brexiter posting an article which advocates strongly for what can only be described as a left wing vision of brexit, and one that any idiot could see would never ever ever happen if his man got in.

Likewise I suspect that most right wing boris supporting brexiters would be utterly horrified if the ERG's preferred vision for brexit - the Minford plan, which advocates for complete deregulation of border controls - came to fruition.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"

Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.

If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now.

Yes - I took that context as read.

There is a certain irony don't you think to a right wing boris supporting brexiter posting an article which advocates strongly for what can only be described as a left wing vision of brexit, and one that any idiot could see would never ever ever happen if his man got in.

Likewise I suspect that most right wing boris supporting brexiters would be utterly horrified if the ERG's preferred vision for brexit - the Minford plan, which advocates for complete deregulation of border controls - came to fruition."

Cognitive dissonance.

It's the phrase that just keeps giving.

As does the Dunning-Krueger effect

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top