|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 8:44:58 GMT
UK loses foreign investment crown to France after two decades at top Callum Jones, Trade Correspondent Thursday May 28 2020, 12.01am, The Times France attracted 1,197 foreign investment projects, beating the UK (1,109) into second place France attracted 1,197 foreign investment projects, beating the UK (1,109) into second place MICHEL EULER/ASSOCIATED PRESS The UK has lost its crown as Europe’s top destination for foreign investment for the first time in more than two decades after being overtaken by France. However, it attracted almost a third of all overseas digital technology investments across Europe last year, more than France and Germany combined, as the country’s status as a hub for innovation generated a “spectacular” surge in activity. The United States superseded the European Union last year as the UK’s biggest source of foreign investment, as Brexit transforms global economic ties, according to EY’s annual attractiveness survey. London recorded its highest share of domestic foreign investment since the survey was first launched in 1997, with almost half of all projects taking place in the capital — 16 times as ....rest is behind a paywall... Bit selective with the old facts there, Drunken...
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 8:46:34 GMT
Looks like some Italians are still unhappy with the EU linkSome might say the Italians don't like government full stop, given the rate their change their own!
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jun 1, 2020 8:49:01 GMT
Bit selective with the old facts there, Drunken... Indeed you were, Sadsack. It was odd how you left it out, hence me helping you out
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 8:51:34 GMT
Bit selective with the old facts there, Drunken... Indeed you were, Sadsack. It was odd how you left it out, hence me helping you out And straight into the abuse, quelle surprise... I assume the digital investments part feeds into the total investments...! So, great that the digital investments is doing well, not so great that overall things are drifting away. Let's hope that's not a sign of the direction of travel generally...
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jun 1, 2020 8:56:43 GMT
Abuse! There's a bloody winky smiley face at the end you big tart (Look, there's another!)
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 1, 2020 9:00:35 GMT
I'd like the UK to have it's own car industry, own it's own steel industry, reinvest in manufacturing instead of concentrating on the service industry, promote and develop fishing, as an island race we don't make the most of it, and fish is more envirommentally friendly than meat, I'd like us to create a future for our young, create jobs and I'd state own a basic infrastructure of utilities/ services( but not in the short sighted, protectionist way that the traditional left have tried)and I'd like us to assist and try to help other poorer countries to develop through aid and trade. Just for a start. And none of this can be done whilst tied to the eu None of this will happen in our out.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 9:02:35 GMT
Abuse! There's a bloody winky smiley face at the end you big tart (Look, there's another!) Of course, it was just a joke...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 1, 2020 9:30:43 GMT
In which case they have secured their advantageous position as part of the EU, they aren't daft are they...If our aim is foreign investment we need to do more to attract foreign investment....I don't think that is necessarily the b all and end all....perhaps we should be developing entrepreneurship, a fairer society, endeavour, innovation ( I was looking for that word!) self reliance....For example I don't particularly want the French supplying our energy infrastructure, the Chinese supplying our internet/ it systems/ steel, Saudia Arabian/Middle East/ Russian / Japanese ( rich individuals or government) buying our land/ property/ " real estate" I wouldn't disagree. In which case surely the question is why have the Germans and French managed to hold onto significant portions of their manufacturing bases while we have sold all ours off through various privatisations over the years? None of which has anything to do with the EU and being a reason for leaving, they're internal domestic policies obviously, although you might wish to tell wagastokie that Bad policies, not everything has to solely do with the EU but when we have surrendered so much sovereignty to the bureaucratic institution and were on a path to giving more up, it does not make it easy/ possible to make real significant decisions simply and wholly in our best self interest. In my opinion democracy is best franchised to the lowest level possible, dependent on the type of decision being made. People claim to be so interested in scrutiny but have not got a clue nor interest in how we scrutinise the EU decision makers.....as long as the mantra is " the UK is not good enough". It's a joke, a folly and a great deception.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 9:36:09 GMT
I wouldn't disagree. In which case surely the question is why have the Germans and French managed to hold onto significant portions of their manufacturing bases while we have sold all ours off through various privatisations over the years? None of which has anything to do with the EU and being a reason for leaving, they're internal domestic policies obviously, although you might wish to tell wagastokie that Bad policies, not everything has to solely do with the EU but when we have surrendered so much sovereignty to the bureaucratic institution and were on a path to giving more up, it does not make it easy/ possible to make real significant decisions simply and wholly in our best self interest. In my opinion democracy is best franchised to the lowest level possible, dependent on the type of decision being made. People claim to be so interested in scrutiny but have not got a clue nor interest in how we scrutinise the EU decision makers.....as long as the mantra is " the UK is not good enough". It's a joke, a folly and a great deception. Ironically, since joining the single market, at Margaret Thatcher's instigation, no country has profited more than the UK. And yet we've still chosen to flog off all our national industries... ...anyway, it's another glorious day, I'm off to sit in the sun...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 1, 2020 10:12:48 GMT
Bad policies, not everything has to solely do with the EU but when we have surrendered so much sovereignty to the bureaucratic institution and were on a path to giving more up, it does not make it easy/ possible to make real significant decisions simply and wholly in our best self interest. In my opinion democracy is best franchised to the lowest level possible, dependent on the type of decision being made. People claim to be so interested in scrutiny but have not got a clue nor interest in how we scrutinise the EU decision makers.....as long as the mantra is " the UK is not good enough". It's a joke, a folly and a great deception. Ironically, since joining the single market, at Margaret Thatcher's instigation, no country has profited more than the UK. And yet we've still chosen to flog off all our national industries... ...anyway, it's another glorious day, I'm off to sit in the sun... That's debatable. What isn't debatable is that almost 4 years ago we decided to leave. We need to move on. I'm already in the sun.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 1, 2020 11:04:18 GMT
And none of this can be done whilst tied to the eu Why can't it? Because of the level playing field the eu is so fond of Fundamental change needs the freedom to manoeuvre to use state aid where necessary Flexibility to make laws that suit us
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 1, 2020 11:44:40 GMT
In which case they have secured their advantageous position as part of the EU, they aren't daft are they...If our aim is foreign investment we need to do more to attract foreign investment....I don't think that is necessarily the b all and end all....perhaps we should be developing entrepreneurship, a fairer society, endeavour, innovation ( I was looking for that word!) self reliance....For example I don't particularly want the French supplying our energy infrastructure, the Chinese supplying our internet/ it systems/ steel, Saudia Arabian/Middle East/ Russian / Japanese ( rich individuals or government) buying our land/ property/ " real estate" I wouldn't disagree. In which case surely the question is why have the Germans and French managed to hold onto significant portions of their manufacturing bases while we have sold all ours off through various privatisations over the years? None of which has anything to do with the EU and being a reason for leaving, they're internal domestic policies obviously, although you might wish to tell wagastokie that I think you are wrong to say "none" We have lost our traditional heavy industrial base largely due to our own fault. The reasons are almost endless; We Brits are prepared to buy best, cheapest, best value, where ever it comes from, other nations are more patriotic. We are prepared to sell businesses to foreign companies, whereas other countries are not, or make it impractical by protecting workers employment rights, we are not prepared to invest for the long term, etc. Conversely during my dealings with French, German, and Dutch industry I have found: 1. They protect their industry by subsidising, cartels, etc. often in total contravention of EU rules, 2. They do not follow EU rules like we do on matters like CE marking. 3. They do not implement regulations as vigilantly as we do, most notably health and safety regulations. When Brussels talks about a level playing field, I lol. I have given numerous examples of these in my previous posts. On the other side of the coin, we have moved on to more advanced commerce, such as renewable energy, IT, luxury goods, high tech products like pharmaceuticals, finance, etc. As countries like China and India grow, and Pacific rim, and 3rd world countries build their positions in the world economy, we are right to move ahead of the game and not try and compete in those activities where we are clearly disadvantaged by labour costs and energy costs/usage.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 11:57:06 GMT
Because of the level playing field the eu is so fond of Fundamental change needs the freedom to manoeuvre to use state aid where necessary Flexibility to make laws that suit us You know WTO rules also include state aid restrictions? (Although they're called subsidies). Taken from the HoC Library last year: "The absence of the EU state aid framework is not expected to translate into higher levels of direct support to businesses in the UK as successive governments have supported rigorous state aid controls and have avoided subsidising particular industries or companies"... If you look at the level of 'state aid' applied in the UK compared to the EU28, ours is much lower. There's no reason for this other than our own governments applying strict free market policies. It's nothing to do with being punished or penalised by the evil EU!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2020 12:00:34 GMT
I wouldn't disagree. In which case surely the question is why have the Germans and French managed to hold onto significant portions of their manufacturing bases while we have sold all ours off through various privatisations over the years? None of which has anything to do with the EU and being a reason for leaving, they're internal domestic policies obviously, although you might wish to tell wagastokie that I think you are wrong to say "none" We have lost our traditional heavy industrial base largely due to our own fault. The reasons are almost endless; We Brits are prepared to buy best, cheapest, best value, where ever it comes from, other nations are more patriotic. We are prepared to sell businesses to foreign companies, whereas other countries are not, or make it impractical by protecting workers employment rights, we are not prepared to invest for the long term, etc. Conversely during my dealings with French, German, and Dutch industry I have found: 1. They protect their industry by subsidising, cartels, etc. often in total contravention of EU rules, 2. They do not follow EU rules like we do on matters like CE marking. 3. They do not implement regulations as vigilantly as we do, most notably health and safety regulations. When Brussels talks about a level playing field, I lol. I have given numerous examples of these in my previous posts. On the other side of the coin, we have moved on to more advanced commerce, such as renewable energy, IT, luxury goods, high tech products like pharmaceuticals, finance, etc. As countries like China and India grow, and Pacific rim, and 3rd world countries build their positions in the world economy, we are right to move ahead of the game and not try and compete in those activities where we are clearly disadvantaged by labour costs and energy costs/usage. Forgive me, Mr Coke, I'll have to see independent evidence of 1, 2 and 3. If you can supply that, I'll happily concede your point.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 1, 2020 17:02:48 GMT
I think you are wrong to say "none" We have lost our traditional heavy industrial base largely due to our own fault. The reasons are almost endless; We Brits are prepared to buy best, cheapest, best value, where ever it comes from, other nations are more patriotic. We are prepared to sell businesses to foreign companies, whereas other countries are not, or make it impractical by protecting workers employment rights, we are not prepared to invest for the long term, etc. Conversely during my dealings with French, German, and Dutch industry I have found: 1. They protect their industry by subsidising, cartels, etc. often in total contravention of EU rules, 2. They do not follow EU rules like we do on matters like CE marking. 3. They do not implement regulations as vigilantly as we do, most notably health and safety regulations. When Brussels talks about a level playing field, I lol. I have given numerous examples of these in my previous posts. On the other side of the coin, we have moved on to more advanced commerce, such as renewable energy, IT, luxury goods, high tech products like pharmaceuticals, finance, etc. As countries like China and India grow, and Pacific rim, and 3rd world countries build their positions in the world economy, we are right to move ahead of the game and not try and compete in those activities where we are clearly disadvantaged by labour costs and energy costs/usage. Forgive me, Mr Coke, I'll have to see independent evidence of 1, 2 and 3. If you can supply that, I'll happily concede your point. 1. The French support their industry via government owned banks. The Italians and Irish have consistently propped up their steel industries with loans to keep them going. (Irony of ironies the present government is propping up British Steel at Scunthorpe till it is sold to China. This is the first time I have known this in decades, when the industry was nationalised.) The Dutch give huge grants (up to 50%) to their industry to meet environmental regulations. The reason they give is to protect their water table. There is a coke plant in Germany built by a collaberation of coal, steel, and energy companies for their mutual benefit and avoid competition and ensure economic security for a generation. It was given approval by the German government after another huge German plant was dismantled and rebuilt in China, so as to protect German industry. 2. A German engineer wanted us to buy an excellant piece of German equipment for a plant I managed in Co.Durham. We said we could not buy it because it was not CE marked. The German engineer laughed and said that was only legislation the British slavishly follow. I have seen French plants blatantly ignoring safety legislation and was once asked by a French boss I had to cheat environmental legislation; I refused. I assume he was used to doing it on French plants as he got quite upset and threatened to sack me 3. UK regulations on machine guarding, electrical regulations, building regulations are far more onerous than many EU countries including France and Germany, putting our industry at a huge disadvantage. I once had a mobile plant delivered to the UK from a French works, but we could not use it because it did not remotely comply with UK safety legislation. It was sent back to France to return to work there.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 1, 2020 20:55:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Jun 1, 2020 21:23:57 GMT
Excellent news. We can use that to fund the red tape of the Irish Sea/Border checks. Cannot wait for Corona to be finished so the good times can roll on in.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 1, 2020 21:30:30 GMT
Excellent news. We can use that to fund the red tape of the Irish Sea/Border checks. Cannot wait for Corona to be finished so the good times can roll on in. Yes ,it is good news.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 3, 2020 6:33:40 GMT
Forgive me, Mr Coke, I'll have to see independent evidence of 1, 2 and 3. If you can supply that, I'll happily concede your point. 1. The French support their industry via government owned banks. The Italians and Irish have consistently propped up their steel industries with loans to keep them going. (Irony of ironies the present government is propping up British Steel at Scunthorpe till it is sold to China. This is the first time I have known this in decades, when the industry was nationalised.) The Dutch give huge grants (up to 50%) to their industry to meet environmental regulations. The reason they give is to protect their water table. There is a coke plant in Germany built by a collaberation of coal, steel, and energy companies for their mutual benefit and avoid competition and ensure economic security for a generation. It was given approval by the German government after another huge German plant was dismantled and rebuilt in China, so as to protect German industry. 2. A German engineer wanted us to buy an excellant piece of German equipment for a plant I managed in Co.Durham. We said we could not buy it because it was not CE marked. The German engineer laughed and said that was only legislation the British slavishly follow. I have seen French plants blatantly ignoring safety legislation and was once asked by a French boss I had to cheat environmental legislation; I refused. I assume he was used to doing it on French plants as he got quite upset and threatened to sack me 3. UK regulations on machine guarding, electrical regulations, building regulations are far more onerous than many EU countries including France and Germany, putting our industry at a huge disadvantage. I once had a mobile plant delivered to the UK from a French works, but we could not use it because it did not remotely comply with UK safety legislation. It was sent back to France to return to work there. Forgive me, I didn't ask for your experience, I asked for independent evidence of what you allege takes place. I'm not saying your experiences are not valid, but I think we'd both agree that an independently verified analysis carries more weight than what one individual claims. After all, you could've made all of that up. Something like this for example: www.bruegel.org/2016/05/brexit-debate-ignores-uks-privileged-position-in-europe/ I looked into it myself after my reply to you. All EU countries have numerous infringements against them, us included. France and Germany, the two you singled out, pretty much in the middle of the pack overall. In reality, in terms of special treatment, the UK has benefited from more dispensations and subsidiarity than most other EU countries.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 3, 2020 6:44:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 6:49:09 GMT
1. The French support their industry via government owned banks. The Italians and Irish have consistently propped up their steel industries with loans to keep them going. (Irony of ironies the present government is propping up British Steel at Scunthorpe till it is sold to China. This is the first time I have known this in decades, when the industry was nationalised.) The Dutch give huge grants (up to 50%) to their industry to meet environmental regulations. The reason they give is to protect their water table. There is a coke plant in Germany built by a collaberation of coal, steel, and energy companies for their mutual benefit and avoid competition and ensure economic security for a generation. It was given approval by the German government after another huge German plant was dismantled and rebuilt in China, so as to protect German industry. 2. A German engineer wanted us to buy an excellant piece of German equipment for a plant I managed in Co.Durham. We said we could not buy it because it was not CE marked. The German engineer laughed and said that was only legislation the British slavishly follow. I have seen French plants blatantly ignoring safety legislation and was once asked by a French boss I had to cheat environmental legislation; I refused. I assume he was used to doing it on French plants as he got quite upset and threatened to sack me 3. UK regulations on machine guarding, electrical regulations, building regulations are far more onerous than many EU countries including France and Germany, putting our industry at a huge disadvantage. I once had a mobile plant delivered to the UK from a French works, but we could not use it because it did not remotely comply with UK safety legislation. It was sent back to France to return to work there. Forgive me, I didn't ask for your experience, I asked for independent evidence of what you allege takes place. I'm not saying your experiences are not valid, but I think we'd both agree that an independently verified analysis carries more weight than what one individual claims. After all, you could've made all of that up. I looked into it myself after my reply to you. All EU countries have numerous infringements against them, us included. France and Germany, the two you singled out, pretty much in the middle of the pack overall. In reality, in terms of special treatment, the UK has benefited from more dispensations and subsidiarity than most other EU countries. It is best not to need subsiddiarity and concessions from a " superior" antidemocratic organisation to whom a country has ceded sovereignty. It is better to be an independent country, a bit like the minor countries of Australia and New Zealand for example. Amazingly they also trade. The very fact that we need to discuss the issue shows the problem. Anyway ,I'm pleased that the majority of the electorate that voted, given the opportunity, chose independence from the EU. Indeed the accountability for all decisions will clearly lie at Westminster going forward, no ambiguity....much easier to scrutinise than the EU administrators.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 7:07:00 GMT
Every business in the world that trades will be subject to the ever changing trading environment and trading agreements. Trade has always been subject to risk, entrepreneurs realise this. Businesses, such as British Leyland, have gone to the wall whilst we were in the EU, the surviving parts now foreign owned. Nissan was certainly weaponized to try to force the electorate to do as it is told. The strategic decision to close Spain clearly shows that to be in the EU does not guarantee security, neither does being outside. It remains to be seen what arrangements we have when we actually leave the transition period. Nissan may indeed be in trouble due to normal competition with competitors....but that have already made the decision to favour Sunderland rather than Spain....there is no guarantee of success though....the Nissan management are perhaps understandably trying to agitate for a ' deal' in their interest ( which business would not want to avoid 10% tariffs, I'd imagine Fiat and BMWetc want the equivalent)....the media and project fear will love it as they love the understandable difficulties of the Northern Irish border. Irrespective of our past arrangements we need to forge our own future.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 3, 2020 7:19:57 GMT
Every business in the world that trades will be subject to the ever changing trading environment and trading agreements. Trade has always been subject to risk, entrepreneurs realise this. Businesses, such as British Leyland, have gone to the wall whilst we were in the EU, the surviving parts now foreign owned. Nissan was certainly weaponized to try to force the electorate to do as it is told. The strategic decision to close Spain clearly shows that to be in the EU does not guarantee security, neither does being outside. It remains to be seen what arrangements we have when we actually leave the transition period. Nissan may indeed be in trouble due to normal competition with competitors....but that have already made the decision to favour Sunderland rather than Spain....there is no guarantee of success though....the Nissan management are perhaps understandably trying to agitate for a ' deal' in their interest ( which business would not want to avoid 10% tariffs, I'd imagine Fiat and BMWetc want the equivalent)....the media and project fear will love it as they love the understandable difficulties of the Northern Irish border. Irrespective of our past arrangements we need to forge our own future. I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 7:36:12 GMT
Every business in the world that trades will be subject to the ever changing trading environment and trading agreements. Trade has always been subject to risk, entrepreneurs realise this. Businesses, such as British Leyland, have gone to the wall whilst we were in the EU, the surviving parts now foreign owned. Nissan was certainly weaponized to try to force the electorate to do as it is told. The strategic decision to close Spain clearly shows that to be in the EU does not guarantee security, neither does being outside. It remains to be seen what arrangements we have when we actually leave the transition period. Nissan may indeed be in trouble due to normal competition with competitors....but that have already made the decision to favour Sunderland rather than Spain....there is no guarantee of success though....the Nissan management are perhaps understandably trying to agitate for a ' deal' in their interest ( which business would not want to avoid 10% tariffs, I'd imagine Fiat and BMWetc want the equivalent)....the media and project fear will love it as they love the understandable difficulties of the Northern Irish border. Irrespective of our past arrangements we need to forge our own future. I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay... You can't blame any overseas trading business being concerned in the current climate, any climate.Im sure that the UK government wants a good deal for its own industry as would French , German industry etc. I don't see anything wrong in supporting what is important to you , if it is long term viable, whatever terminology is used. Much industry has been attracted to Eastern Europe through incentives. I can remember when areas bid for the location of Toyota, incentives ( bribes?) in terms of infrastructure were promised. It only seems to be an issue if it can be used in the argument " we should not have left the EU" ...alongside the perpetual looking for things that are going wrong for the UK, usually welcomed enthusiastically by those who can't come to terms with the fact that we chose to be independent.....4 years ago this month.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 8:15:34 GMT
Every business in the world that trades will be subject to the ever changing trading environment and trading agreements. Trade has always been subject to risk, entrepreneurs realise this. Businesses, such as British Leyland, have gone to the wall whilst we were in the EU, the surviving parts now foreign owned. Nissan was certainly weaponized to try to force the electorate to do as it is told. The strategic decision to close Spain clearly shows that to be in the EU does not guarantee security, neither does being outside. It remains to be seen what arrangements we have when we actually leave the transition period. Nissan may indeed be in trouble due to normal competition with competitors....but that have already made the decision to favour Sunderland rather than Spain....there is no guarantee of success though....the Nissan management are perhaps understandably trying to agitate for a ' deal' in their interest ( which business would not want to avoid 10% tariffs, I'd imagine Fiat and BMWetc want the equivalent)....the media and project fear will love it as they love the understandable difficulties of the Northern Irish border. Irrespective of our past arrangements we need to forge our own future. I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay... Here's a little bit of support by the EU for the " regions" www.euractiv.com/section/all/short_news/varhelyi-heralds-major-investments-in-western-balkans/
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 8:29:26 GMT
I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay... You can't blame any overseas trading business being concerned in the current climate, any climate.Im sure that the UK government wants a good deal for its own industry as would French , German industry etc. I don't see anything wrong in supporting what is important to you , if it is long term viable, whatever terminology is used. Much industry has been attracted to Eastern Europe through incentives. I can remember when areas bid for the location of Toyota, incentives ( bribes?) in terms of infrastructure were promised. It only seems to be an issue if it can be used in the argument " we should not have left the EU" ...alongside the perpetual looking for things that are going wrong for the UK, usually welcomed enthusiastically by those who can't come to terms with the fact that we chose to be independent.....4 years ago this month. It will be interesting to see how " ever closer union " pans out, economically and politically. I'm glad we are not paying for " incentices"( bribes) for the candidate countries and I'm glad we are not too involved in their political and economic issues.....and potentially conflict......this emotionally, uncritical attachment to the EU , which actually isn't a country, is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 3, 2020 8:55:18 GMT
I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay... You can't blame any overseas trading business being concerned in the current climate, any climate.Im sure that the UK government wants a good deal for its own industry as would French , German industry etc. I don't see anything wrong in supporting what is important to you , if it is long term viable, whatever terminology is used. Much industry has been attracted to Eastern Europe through incentives. I can remember when areas bid for the location of Toyota, incentives ( bribes?) in terms of infrastructure were promised. It only seems to be an issue if it can be used in the argument " we should not have left the EU" ...alongside the perpetual looking for things that are going wrong for the UK, usually welcomed enthusiastically by those who can't come to terms with the fact that we chose to be independent.....4 years ago this month. Of course not, but if those overseas trading businesses are after guarantees that Brexit won't affect them negatively, to the point that the government is having to offer promises (bribes) that it won't to get them to committing to stay, that does somewhat indicate that Brexit is not a great idea for these businesses. Not that this should be a surprise since it's been said from the beginning. It's just more evident when a company receives a written guarantee from the government that they'll underwrite any fallout.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 3, 2020 8:58:31 GMT
I think Nissan are just after a sequel to the original letter guaranteeing them no hardship from Brexit. I suspect that the original letter indicated that a deal would be agreed and that our government would protect them from any ill effects of that deal. Nissan is clearly getting twitchy about the prospect of no deal and is sabre rattling for more guarantees. For guarantees read bribes to stay... Here's a little bit of support by the EU for the " regions" www.euractiv.com/section/all/short_news/varhelyi-heralds-major-investments-in-western-balkans/The EU has always distributed investment towards poorer regions, much like it has in this country too, aid which will no longer be available to places like Cornwall, the North-east and, presumably, Stoke-on-Trent. What's wrong with helping out poorer places? One might almost call it, "levelling up"
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 9:04:14 GMT
You can't blame any overseas trading business being concerned in the current climate, any climate.Im sure that the UK government wants a good deal for its own industry as would French , German industry etc. I don't see anything wrong in supporting what is important to you , if it is long term viable, whatever terminology is used. Much industry has been attracted to Eastern Europe through incentives. I can remember when areas bid for the location of Toyota, incentives ( bribes?) in terms of infrastructure were promised. It only seems to be an issue if it can be used in the argument " we should not have left the EU" ...alongside the perpetual looking for things that are going wrong for the UK, usually welcomed enthusiastically by those who can't come to terms with the fact that we chose to be independent.....4 years ago this month. Of course not, but if those overseas trading businesses are after guarantees that Brexit won't affect them negatively, to the point that the government is having to offer promises (bribes) that it won't to get them to committing to stay, that does somewhat indicate that Brexit is not a great idea for these businesses. Not that this should be a surprise since it's been said from the beginning. It's just more evident when a company receives a written guarantee from the government that they'll underwrite any fallout. Aye, it might be a good idea to encourage businesses to stay in a changing world. I'm sure every country would do the same. It isn't compulsory to be in the EU and it is possible to trade....its now up to the EU and UK to decide how....let's hope that the EU come to terms with the fact that they are dealing with an independent country and give us that respect.....or would you still prefer the safety ofthe jurisdiction of the Court of Justice( what a name....straight out of the propaganda guide)....let's leave it to "them" , they'll do their best for the UK..... Anyway it has been done before.....For better or for worse....we have left....we now need to do the best we can for the UK, don't you agree? I've never had a " left winger" or Remainer comment on the Trotskyist Fox....what do you think of the video.....try 12 minutes onwards if it is too much....the left could learn a lot from her. What do you think of the EU enlargement programme in the Balkans and Turkey remaining a candidate country?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2020 9:06:34 GMT
The EU has always distributed investment towards poorer regions, much like it has in this country too, aid which will no longer be available to places like Cornwall, the North-east and, presumably, Stoke-on-Trent. What's wrong with helping out poorer places? One might almost call it, "levelling up" Those regions are not members. We can distribute our own money....outside of the Euro there is no such thing as Eiropean.money it's out money, we are capable of distributing it.....of course now we have left, they can crack.on with the distribution/ bribes
|
|