QuoteThat's why is said they were in your arguments AGAINST brexit ------ one too many of the yellow poison me thinks, stick another log on your croft farm open fire and another ice in your glass. Stove actually. Yes getting cold, more logs on!Yes, yes, yes, silly me, of course. The Tories will cancel numerous Labour laws, such as the working time directive etc etc, if we leave the EU.
That's why is said they were in your arguments AGAINST brexit ------ one too many of the yellow poison me thinks, stick another log on your croft farm open fire and another ice in your glass.
I thought that France has even worse labour laws ? and yet you want to be closer to them and you want to harmonise our laws ever more with them by being in the EU. Who has said workers rights would be diminished by brexit.
Wouldn't it be better for you and your trade union cause to be free of the EU and to be able to fully decide on our own laws/ legislation / workers rights that fully fits our needs.
By remaining in the EU you are further away from getting what you want regarding workers rights I would of thought.
Hasn't the working time directive been agreed by the EU and we have to implement it ?
hopefully with a few tweaks and a bit of cooperation from Brussels, May's deal will now get the approval of Parliament.
The dream of the Tory party is a zero hours low wage economy. QuoteHasn't the working time directive been agreed by the EU and we have to implement it ? We are the EU. The policy was negotiated with and agreed by the UK along with all the other member states. The EU is a democracy after all, and one which works on the principle of consensus.The Tories will of course aim to scrap the working time directive all with all the other EU work place legislation. Back in 2015 David Cameron tried to negotiate out of the working time directive. Mr Cameron also tried to scrap laws granting agency workers the same pay and rights as full time employees.
The people get the government they deserve.
We will have to abide by EU rules but have no say whatsoever in them.
We will no longer be the rule makers, we will simply become rule takers.
Trade Unionists are not by nature isolationist, we believe in rights for all, not just in the UK, not just across the EU, but ultimately common rights and standards across the globe.
You say that "The policy was negotiated with and agreed by the UK" but clearly the UK government did not fully agree with it but still we had to implement it ---- just like many of the other UK legislations that you like to point out were agreed by the UK when brexiteers say we dont like the EU legislation. Proof that we did not fully agree with it in your next sentence "Back in 2015 David Cameron tried to negotiate out of the working time directive." . Also brexiters have been saying that you can not negotiate with the EU as you have demonstrated.If you don't like the Tories then stop voting for them - I believe the phrase is
ive honestly yet to see an anti Brexit cartoon thats actually funny lol. now this on the other hand...
Mtread was pointing out the companies leaving and I asked why they came in the first place and he said because of slack labour laws so if you maintain that labour laws will be slacker after brexit then proof that they will not be is that the companies are choosing to leave that first came here because of slack laws.
Quote Mtread was pointing out the companies leaving and I asked why they came in the first place and he said because of slack labour laws so if you maintain that labour laws will be slacker after brexit then proof that they will not be is that the companies are choosing to leave that first came here because of slack laws. Quite clearly the main reason they are in the UK is because of our custom union and single market membership. Both of which you want us to lose.
But why choose the uk over any other countries.
A cast of the raw crankshaft – the part of the car that translates the movement of the pistons into the rotational motion required to move the vehicle – is made by a supplier based in France.From there it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape. When that job is complete, each crankshaft is then sent back across the Channel to Munich, where it inserted into the engine.From Munich, it is back to the Mini plant in Oxford, where the engine is then “married” with the car. If the car is to be sold on the continent then the crankshaft, inside the finished motor, will cross the Channel for a fourth time.
Same with the Triumph factory in Hinckley. Crankshaft blanks made in Spain, finished in Hinckley. Petrol tanks made in Italy, painted in Hinckley. Etc etc.Bikes crated up complete and shipped to the EU.All dependent on free movement and tariff free.
BTW have you seen the new Rocket 3?
The crankshaft of the BMW Mini, which is the bit which transmits the power of the engine to the wheels, crosses the English Channel three times while the car is being made. It is cast in France; it goes to a plant in Warwickshire to be milled and finished. It is then shipped to BMW’s plant in Germany where the engine is assembled and comes back as part of that whole unit to be fitted into the car at the BMW plant near Oxford. When it is exported to Europe, as very many of these cars are, it crosses the Channel for a fourth time. This is the reality of modern sophisticated manufacturing. Three channel crossings is actually quite modest for a component. Some go back and forth much more. You could tell a similar story about Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover or about the wings of the Airbus aircraft which are made here (though the plane as a whole is assembled in Toulouse) about much of the output of Rolls-Royce or Bae Systems, the pillar of the UK defence industry. We don’t have nearly enough world-class manufacturing to support our exports, but what we do have is heavily dependent on key components from the rest of the European Union. This business arrangement becomes totally uneconomic if we do not continue to have free trade but instead had to pay the common EU tariff of 10%. Most of the components industry operates on a profit margin of between 5% and 10% so it would become unprofitable overnight. And if a supplier upped prices to compensate for the tariff it would be uncompetitive. There would also be a huge additional cost in time and paperwork because the component would be subject to customs checks each time it crossed the border. Nissan’s Sunderland car plant produces two cars a minute and uses upwards of five million components a day on its production line. The whole exercise is done on a just-in-time basis, parts are not stored in warehouses, they go straight in their container to the position on the production line where they are needed. More crucially, to avoid congestion, they have to arrive hours and sometimes minutes before they are needed. So any delay at customs on any of the five million components, almost as trivial as an official coming late back from lunch or leaving early to collect his or her child from school, could easily bring production to a halt. Because this has the potential to destroy the profitability of the British car industry, there is brave talk about getting the components suppliers to set up plants in the UK, and the Government at one point seemed willing to subsidise such a move with taxpayers’ money. From a business point of view though it does not make sense. If more than half the components come from overseas, which they do, then it is cheaper and simpler to move the assembly factory out of Britain, not the component suppliers here. And that is not the only problem: a detailed investigation this year by The Guardian reported that only 41% of what goes into the cars made in Britain is sourced here. This complicates the trade deals which are supposed to provide an alternative to the EU when we leave because these normally demand that what we export is in fact made in this country. This is to prevent the UK trade deal being used as a Trojan horse by every other nation which could otherwise funnel their exports through us to gain access to these other markets. Thus the “rules of origin” for the EU’s deal with South Korea says specifically that 55% of the car parts must be sourced locally to qualify for free trade. A similar deal between us and South Korea would mean none of our cars were eligible. Given cars are one of the few products we do export, this presents a bit of a challenge for International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and his department, which supposedly exists to make the deals on which Britain’s future will depend. Some wag suggested the grand plan was to take the other side out to lunch and persuade them to pretend that the EU counts as part of the UK in terms of sourcing. Why the other side would want to do this or accept it is less clear. The brutal fact is that if we lose tariff-free access to the single market it will be disastrous for luxury British manufacturing. Business knows this; the EU knows this; the rest of the world knows this — which is why so many of them have shelved all future plans to invest in the UK. But does the Government get it? Prime Minister Theresa May does not seem to but that is probably because she has spent the past 12 months refusing to talk to anyone who does not already agree with her and share her Fifties worldview. In contrast, the ministers more closely involved with Brexit probably do get it, but don’t care or don’t want to admit it, because pointing out any of the disastrous consequences of Brexit will scupper their chances of being the next leader of the Conservative party. This is the real reason business leaders have such withering contempt for the Government and are in despair about the future of business in the next few years, however cheerful they try to appear in public. It takes more than last week’s publicity stunt of a meeting in Chevening to make a lasting impression on a Government where too many ministers appear willing to put self-interest and party interest before the national interest.
QuoteSo why did they choose the UK over any other EU state in the first place. The key thing for them was unrestricted single market access. No more import restrictions and no more tariffs. Other manufactures of course have chosen other EU countries. I don’t know precisely why they choose the UK, but I certainly welcome it. I do know we had skilled workers, and plenty of people in general looking for work. I would guess there would be government incentives. The stability of the pound would be attractive, and despite exporting much of the produce the strength of the pound, as a high proportion of the components are imported. Further the guarantee of single union agreements was key.What the Japanese did prove though without a doubt, was the problem with the old UK manufacturers was the management, not the workforce. But don’t think they are kidding when they say they will consider leaving if there is not a suitable BREXIT deal. Leave they will. And on top of the 10’s of thousands of jobs provided by these big manufacturers are 10’s of thousands of jobs in supporting industries.QuoteWhat is strange is that remainers seem to rejoice if a company says they are moving and if that move is damaging then better it is in their eyes.REMAINERS do not want to see these jobs go. The BREXITEERS however don’t give a shit. Read again the most optimistic of the very very few economists that think BREXIT is a good idea. Professor Minford states quite clearly that in the event of a NO DEAL BREXIT wage inequality will increase and UK manufacturing will all but cease to exist.QuoteWhat is strange is that remainers seem to rejoice if a company says they are moving and if that move is damaging then better it is in their eyes.So again, it’s what you want. The rest of us would like to keep our jobs and our wealth thanks.Or as I am begining to feel, the BREXITEERS don't have a fucking clue what they want, but they sure as fuck know how to get it.
So why did they choose the UK over any other EU state in the first place.
What is strange is that remainers seem to rejoice if a company says they are moving and if that move is damaging then better it is in their eyes.
More on the mini crankshaft;QuoteThe crankshaft of the BMW Mini, which is the bit which transmits the power of the engine to the wheels, crosses the English Channel three times while the car is being made. It is cast in France; it goes to a plant in Warwickshire to be milled and finished. It is then shipped to BMW’s plant in Germany where the engine is assembled and comes back as part of that whole unit to be fitted into the car at the BMW plant near Oxford. When it is exported to Europe, as very many of these cars are, it crosses the Channel for a fourth time. This is the reality of modern sophisticated manufacturing. Three channel crossings is actually quite modest for a component. Some go back and forth much more. You could tell a similar story about Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover or about the wings of the Airbus aircraft which are made here (though the plane as a whole is assembled in Toulouse) about much of the output of Rolls-Royce or Bae Systems, the pillar of the UK defence industry. We don’t have nearly enough world-class manufacturing to support our exports, but what we do have is heavily dependent on key components from the rest of the European Union. This business arrangement becomes totally uneconomic if we do not continue to have free trade but instead had to pay the common EU tariff of 10%. Most of the components industry operates on a profit margin of between 5% and 10% so it would become unprofitable overnight. And if a supplier upped prices to compensate for the tariff it would be uncompetitive. There would also be a huge additional cost in time and paperwork because the component would be subject to customs checks each time it crossed the border. Nissan’s Sunderland car plant produces two cars a minute and uses upwards of five million components a day on its production line. The whole exercise is done on a just-in-time basis, parts are not stored in warehouses, they go straight in their container to the position on the production line where they are needed. More crucially, to avoid congestion, they have to arrive hours and sometimes minutes before they are needed. So any delay at customs on any of the five million components, almost as trivial as an official coming late back from lunch or leaving early to collect his or her child from school, could easily bring production to a halt. Because this has the potential to destroy the profitability of the British car industry, there is brave talk about getting the components suppliers to set up plants in the UK, and the Government at one point seemed willing to subsidise such a move with taxpayers’ money. From a business point of view though it does not make sense. If more than half the components come from overseas, which they do, then it is cheaper and simpler to move the assembly factory out of Britain, not the component suppliers here. And that is not the only problem: a detailed investigation this year by The Guardian reported that only 41% of what goes into the cars made in Britain is sourced here. This complicates the trade deals which are supposed to provide an alternative to the EU when we leave because these normally demand that what we export is in fact made in this country. This is to prevent the UK trade deal being used as a Trojan horse by every other nation which could otherwise funnel their exports through us to gain access to these other markets. Thus the “rules of origin” for the EU’s deal with South Korea says specifically that 55% of the car parts must be sourced locally to qualify for free trade. A similar deal between us and South Korea would mean none of our cars were eligible. Given cars are one of the few products we do export, this presents a bit of a challenge for International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and his department, which supposedly exists to make the deals on which Britain’s future will depend. Some wag suggested the grand plan was to take the other side out to lunch and persuade them to pretend that the EU counts as part of the UK in terms of sourcing. Why the other side would want to do this or accept it is less clear. The brutal fact is that if we lose tariff-free access to the single market it will be disastrous for luxury British manufacturing. Business knows this; the EU knows this; the rest of the world knows this — which is why so many of them have shelved all future plans to invest in the UK. But does the Government get it? Prime Minister Theresa May does not seem to but that is probably because she has spent the past 12 months refusing to talk to anyone who does not already agree with her and share her Fifties worldview. In contrast, the ministers more closely involved with Brexit probably do get it, but don’t care or don’t want to admit it, because pointing out any of the disastrous consequences of Brexit will scupper their chances of being the next leader of the Conservative party. This is the real reason business leaders have such withering contempt for the Government and are in despair about the future of business in the next few years, however cheerful they try to appear in public. It takes more than last week’s publicity stunt of a meeting in Chevening to make a lasting impression on a Government where too many ministers appear willing to put self-interest and party interest before the national interest. https://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-why-brexit-will-sink-the-uk-s-car-industry-a3587236.html
Author
Topic: BREXIT (Read 227551 times)
