UKC

A good News story about Sunderland, with battery making jobs arriving after the UK maintaining a competitive edge post the trade deal. It seems like its not all confiscated sandwiches and unsurprising extra payments on European postage:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55757930

In reply to cp123:

Great news but what’s it got to do with Brexit?

In reply to Tyler:

You didn't read as far as the title, nor the first sentence then....

In reply to cp123:

£80 million well spent... 

In reply to cp123:

The article appears to suggest they wouldn't have committed had we not left the EU without really explaining why. What's the rational basis for this? How does Brexit currently make Sunderland more competitive? Or is this assuming further changes to employment and environmental protections in the pipeline that we're not currently aware of?

In reply to cp123:

I read the whole thing. I interpreted “as a result of the trade” as meaning ‘when compared to no deal’. Are you interpreting it to mean ‘when compared to staying in the EU’?

In reply to Trevers:

It looks like Nissan had to onshore the batteries to ensure U.K. built cars met the terms of rules of origin. As long as cars are made in the U.K., 55% of value must come from the U.K. or the EU.

It’s hard to tell if this strengthens or weakens Sunderland in the long term. 

In reply to Trevers:

..and/or hard cash, tax breaks from UK gov as a sweetener that have yet to be announced....I think you and I are on the same cynics course. But the flipside is we need new tech manufacturing to be based here. 

In reply to Tyler:

nissan have a very strong base in the UK. They would almost certainly have left in the event of no-deal (ie tariffs). THey are basically now operating in a market where for them, everything is the same, except for the exchange rate, which has moved 15 - 20% in their favour over the last 5 years, as a result of brexit weakening the pound. Apart from the currency joys, its basically no change for them, so they can carry on with their investment plans.

In reply to Trevers:

I think it's because of a combination of factors: various estimated government bungs;  a highly productive work force; that we have a conditional EU free trade deal ; that the pound dropped because of brexit; a deal with their (electric car) battery manufacturer to licence production in the UK (to prevent EU tariffs kicking in); and being large meaning additional customs hassle is low cost.

In reply to cp123:

Imagine a commenter not taking the time to understand what they're commenting on.  At least  this poster isn't making an error of a factor of 7x when arguing that we should not take so many control measures against Covid.  Because that would be a really stupid thing to do.

In reply to thread:

"Brexit didn't wreck this particular applecart" is my take on it - it's not good news, it's an absence of catastrophic news, with Brexit putting the risk of that catastrophic news on the table.

Is this battery plant the BritishVolt plant, or another one?   I read that citing it here is nothing to do with Brexit, and is only possible because of the trade deal which replicates enough of the pre-Brexit arrangements to make this sensible.  I imagine this co-location would have been happening without Brexit.

In reply to wintertree:

Yep I admitted I got it wrong - you missed that bit I presume, or does it not fit your point.

A bit like when you admitted to not reading the graph correct, remember that, when you thought Nov 20, Dec 20 Jan 21 meant 20th Nov?

In reply to cp123:

Yes, but my mistake was a rather inconsequential mistake in that the larger point I was making - that you were cherry picking the extreme edge of the confidence interval of the extremal model.  With my mistake corrected, you were still really very wrong through being deliberately selective of the most extremal case and by comparing apples (modelling with no control measures) with oranges (reality with control measures) and by not actually understanding the temporal relationship between the measurable and the lag but gishgalloping it away.

Your mistake was underestimating the number of people who would be hospitalised and go on to die when advocating to reduce control measures by a factor of seven times.   Which sadly has been lost to The Pub but it does show how utterly ill informed the evidence base for your position is.  I misread a graph a bit, you fundamentally misunderstood the most critical point of your argument.

But still, you just won a point on the Internet which appears to be all you actually care about as a self confessed troll in this area.  I'm glad I don't look at the number of people dying in hospital today and feel guilt that this is but a shadow of what I have spent the last 6 months advocating for.

In reply to wintertree:

Actually your right, I should have done what you did and just told them to f**k off instead

Still, at least you've calmed down a little, no more caps locks 'blood on you hands' stuff going on.

EU buyers of our products would have had to pay more if there was no trade deal.   In the EU we paid more for products and components from non-EU countries.   Now we don't. 

In reply to cp123:

You and your repeat posting of misinformation designed to undermine control of covid are below my contempt.  

You present as a nasty piece of work who revels in gloating over what you do.

You have blood on your hands.  

I see your latest misinformation was posted to “Rocktalk” to try and get it a fresh audience.  It’s been shunted to The Pub.  Like many before it.

You think you are being clever.  I do not.  

In reply to cp123:

So a company who didn't leave, but got £80M to stay is a Brexit bonus? Yeah, of course it is. If you're an idiot.

Andy F

In reply to cp123:

What you should have done, if you wanted to be taken seriously, is answer my question. What is the relevance to Brexit other than it has not, in this case, made things worse?

In reply to David Riley:

Under what mechanism has that happened? I thought all deals with non-EU countries had rolled over

In reply to Tyler:

The EU required us (and Nissan) to pay import duty.   Now they cannot.

In reply to David Riley:

Sounds good, surprised we've not heard more of this. Which goods and countries does this apply to?

In reply to cp123:

It's a shame Nissan doesn't have the reputation for reliability it once had, after merging with Renault in the early noughties, I've heard mechanics say the earlier noughties Nissans are okay circa 2004, and they get worse as Renault's influence became more pronounced. 

In reply to Tyler:

EU members have to pay import duty on goods from non-EU countries.

In reply to David Riley:

Only for countries where we have a new trade deal and the EU does not, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are any.

In reply to David Riley:

Which countries and which goods? When I first replied it was before your edit and I thought you were talking about the business you work for but now you are saying this is in relation to Nissan and batteries. So which components are now cheaper than before?

Most deals we have are rolled over from the EU on the same terms, what you have said implies either:

1. We have a deal with a country that the EU doesn't, I'm not sire that's the case (unless the Faroe Isles have discovered lithium recently.

2. The EU have a formal deal with some countries that impasse a higher tariff on some goods than is set by the WTO.

Or have I missed something?

In reply to wynaptomos:

Now we have left the EU, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to say we have to charge import duty on anything. 

In reply to David Riley:

Can you categorically state that this Government has ELIMINATED import duty "on anything" since December 31st 2020, and if so can you provide us with a link or other information as to where the proof of your statement can be found ?

In reply to David Riley:

Now I really do feel an idiot. I can't believe I treated one of your posts on this subject seriously after years of you demonstrating a complete lack of understanding or else disingenuousness.

In reply to Tyler:

I don't know the current details. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can say.  But it was my understanding that import duties were set by the EU and we had to give them the money.  Which obviously no longer happens.

In reply to David Riley:

For once you are right, you don't know. People with more knowledge (everybody) has said already; your original statement is incorrect.

So we are back to my original question, which is what has this story got to do with Brexit other than it has not messed it up? The best we have so far is a suggestion that a deal which the govt are uncharacteristically quiet about might possibly breach state aid rules.

In reply to Tyler:

I don't believe my statements are wrong.  If they are I would very much like to learn how.  Please tell me.

In reply to Tyler:

I think this investment has been caused by Brexit for the reason I gave up thread. 
If the Leaf is assembled in the U.K. with Japanese (or US) built batteries, then it will fail the rules of origin requirements, and sales to the EU will incur import duties. If the batteries are built in then U.K. or the EU then they won’t.  
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/nissan-will-build-batterie...

In reply to stevieb:

The EU have insisted on the rules of origin to prevent import of goods and re-export to the EU, thus avoiding EU import duty.  So we win both ways.  No EU import duty, and production coming to UK.

In reply to David Riley:

We win while Nissan have the sunk costs of the current production line (and now the battery factory) in Sunderland. 
When they need to spend a huge amount of money on a new production line, it might benefit us, but the lack of flexibility may also count against us. 

In reply to stevieb:

I agree but that’s a benefit of having a deal vs. No deal not a benefit of Brexit over being in the EU. The title of the thread and the OPs posting history makes me certain he wanted this to look like a Brexit dividend rather than Brexit being slightly less of a catastrophe than it would be had we exited on WTO terms (something David Riley had previously spoken in favour of).

In reply to David Riley:

Read this https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm#:~:text=Mos...(MFN,for%20all%20other%20WTO%20members.

In reply to Tyler:

It’s not a benefit per se, but it looks like it is an investment in the U.K. which has been forced on Nissan by Brexit, which would probably not have happened without Brexit. Nissan have been forced to move manufacturing into Europe (and the Channel chaos has probably encouraged them to move it to the U.K. if that was in doubt)

In reply to David Riley:

So we’re back to this? Having said in your previous reply you don’t know you now think you do?

If there’s one thing you have proven over this and many other threads is that you have no interest in learning and I’ve no interest in trying to educate you. There’s enough clues above for the genuinely curious to work it out by themselves but maybe the place to start would be by going back to your original statement and trying to back it up with something more than your half arsed guesses. 

In reply to stevieb:

Ah I see now! Thank you, it seems my level of understanding was lacking as well so mea culpa!

In reply to David Riley:

We don't win at all.   The big picture, from the same BBC article:

"UK car investment has fallen sharply since the UK voted to leave the EU.

In the five years to 2016 it averaged £3.5bn per year. In the four years since it has averaged around £1bn - a fall of 71% at a time when the technology and map of car production are going through their biggest revolution since the car was invented."

If UK investment is falling by 71% at a time when car industry investment is higher than usual because of the transition to electric the UK is basically in the process of losing most of its car industry.  

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Did you find something there that made my statements wrong ?

In reply to David Riley:

If we remove tariffs from Japanese batteries we have to remove tariffs on batteries from everywhere else, which would be bad news for our domestic battery producers.

Despite our new found sovereignty, we cannot unilaterally remove tariffs. 

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Since we export few batteries and import most of them.  Free trade in batteries would be good for us.   Do you support free trade or protectionist policies ?

In reply to David Riley:

I was replying to your statement that

"Now we have left the EU, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to say we have to charge import duty on anything. "

Pointing out that there are internationally agreed rules on tariffs which do restrict our possible options.

Hope that helps. 

In reply to Andy Hardy:

No, as far as I can see, we can charge any level of import duty we like, or none, as long as it is the same for every country.  Presumably this ceases to apply if a formal trade agreement has been enacted.

In reply to David Riley:

I think there is. WTO rule that if you do that to one country then you have to do it to all. Do you really want to do that? No country will want to sign a trade deal with us ever again.

In reply to wynaptomos:

I'm saying we don't have to.  You are saying we may not want to.

In reply to cp123:

It would be more accurate to say that the trade deal was ‘good enough’ to enable Nissan to stay where it was. However they’ve had to move battery production to the UK to avoid tarifs due to the rules of origin rules (it’s a lot more complex than simply looking at where the car is assembled). I’d say it’s lucky that they’ve been able to do that, otherwise it would have been curtains probably. 

In reply to David Riley:

You may be right but no country would ever do that because that would take away a big bargaining chip in any trade negotiations. A trade deal covers more than just tarifs but it’s a negotiation with give and take. If we charge zero as opposed to WTO level tariffs on something, we can’t offer to reduce those tariffs so our negotiating hand would be weaker.

So even if you’re right, what you’re saying is pretty hypothetical. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Didn't one of Brexit's crank economics supporters - Patrick Minford, maybe? - say that we needed to take it for granted that Brexit would mean the end of the UK car industry, but that the benefits (I forget what, exactly - nimble new global Britain, no doubt) would far outweigh this trivial inconvenience?

jcm

In reply to cp123:

Mr Riley's arguments on this thread really do evoke the true spirit of Brexit - he is celebrating the fact that we have won the right to do enormously stupid and self-defeating things should we so wish.

jcm

In reply to David Riley:

That’s not right. You must follow the rules of the WTO unless you have a specific Trade  Agreement with that country. 

The WTO has specific tariffs on all goods . Some maybe 0% and some are 40% all depending on the HTS code  

In reply to neilh:

I'm happy to be corrected.  Do you think our import duties from non EU countries are the same as before we left ?  Do you think they will change in the future ?

In reply to David Riley:

Yes they are the same. 
 

unless there is a specific trade agreement there will be no change. 

In reply to neilh:

I'm wrong then.  I always thought our import duty from non EU countries would reduce if we left the EU.  An article I read said the EU were taking legal action against the UK for (a) failing to enforce import duty, mainly from China, and (b) hand it over to the EU.  Was that true ?  If so does the duty now go to us, rather than the EU ?

In reply to David Riley:

The import duty went to the respective countries not to the EU.

by not enforcing EU duties at the time the U.K. was discriminating against other EU countries who followed the rules. I am sure EU has taken similar action against other EU countries . 

In reply to neilh:

That makes sense.  Thanks. Good to get an sensible answer, rather than the normal endless insults and  abuse.

In reply to David Riley:

The EU is fine as a trading block. You need one to wield economic clout both with and  against USA Or China. 
 

It also makes sense as most trade is done with your neighbours. 

In reply to cp123:

No it isn't

https://twitter.com/i/status/1352906550810193920

It's good Nissan are staying but it's still only damage limitation.