UKC

Theresa May and Bombardier vs Donald Trump and Boeing.

Ne effing contest.

Welcome to a glimpse of what the sunny uplands post Brexit are going to look like.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

America First! It's going to be a Great Deal!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'd be really worried if I were an Airbus employee at present. What price a Trump-fuelled bid to arrange a cosy 'special relationship' deal for Boeing in the UK?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Also destroys Labours plans for a bit of nationalistaion or state subisdy in a post brexit world, as no doubt the US authorities would not like that ( quite correctly) for any export related business.

Still a long way to go on this one anyway. There are some serious trade battles going on between Canada and USA over things like logging ( trees) etc.

I am not sure its particulary a Trump thing, as these things have been rumbling away for ages.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Seems like a case of a deal being investigated by the relevant authorities to see if any rules have been broken.
You obviously have a problem with this.

In reply to baron:

whose rules? I thought we'd taken back control of all that

In reply to wercat:

I'm blaming the Canadians, especially that Trudeau fellow.
Sounds French to me.
Can't trust them French you know!

In reply to baron:

well you might have a point there

In reply to neilh:


Which particular 'nationalisations' do you think will be affected?

In reply to wercat:

A big and large and great and big deal.

In reply to Shani:

Any nationalisation that loses money for USA companies....or if they decide to pump money into somebody who exports to the USA ( like Bombardier in Belfast) to keep jobs.

Just like the EU will come down on the UK if post Brexit we are state subsidising industries selling into Europe.

In reply to neilh:


Isn't this the case now, anyway?

In reply to neilh:



You were quite explicit ("Also destroys Labours plans for a bit of nationalistaion or state subisdy in a post brexit world"), so one would imagine that you have several examples (or at least one key nationalisation), that you are aware of from Labour's nationalisation program, that is so dependent on state subsidy, it 'destroys' their whole nationalisation program.

So please, let us know what this event is that "destroys Labours plans" for nationalisation.

In reply to Shani:

Possibly that nationalised institution the NHS, maybe we should open our NHS to the efficiencies that American style private healthcare would bring

In reply to neilh:


American aerospace companies receive huge indirect state subsidies via military spending. Whether that (and or UK/Canadian subsidies) matters in a trade negotiation pretty much boils down to the power balance across the negotiating table. Thankfully with brexit behind us we'll be playing a super-strong hand... It's going to be a super deal. The best!


No, not Trump, just a hint of how very special our special relationship will be once our bridges into the EU are burned.
jk

In reply to Shani:

Only time will tell!

In reply to neilh:


Always strikes me as strange the degree to which the US can make these cases against state subsidy.

Their aerospace industry only reached the massive size it is, with vast economies of scale, on account of the billions of government funding directed through their military budgets.

In reply to neilh:

So when you said "Also destroys Labours plans for a bit of nationalistaion or state subisdy in a post brexit world...", you have no idea you can share with us how or why this statement may in any way be credible or even thought through?

In reply to neilh:
Clever use of "subsidies" for industry have always been available for the UK government just like the rest of Europe ( I didn't see the EU stepping in wagging its finger when we subsidized the financial sector to the tune of Billions of pounds) it has just not been an ideological tenant of the last few governments to be seen to subsidize industry (manufacturing) as this skews the "market" (hence the UK was the only government that opposed EU tariffs on Steel dumping by China just as our steel industry was going down the pan) unfortunately for us Europe have been quite happy to work the system to indirectly assist whatever industries they see as being important to their economies (which is no bad thing)
This means we pay private companies ridiculous amounts of money to "manage" our rail companies trying to replicate "free market" economics in a test tube situation to avoid calling it what it is, a big fat government subsidy, whereas the rest of |Europe has nice nationalized rail services that don't cost as much.
As has been pointed out, America uses strategic government contracts to help industry, Boeing has been the recipient of many "development programs".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'd have thought that large aviation companies (like Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas etc) have already got a built-in subsidy from the US government, coutesy of the ongoing (almost rollover) contracts with the military. The same might be said of UK/EU of course, but nowhere on the scale of the USA's armaments industry

In reply to Shani:

Please refer to his interview at the weekend when he talking about saving jobs etc, and how the EU restricts state intervention.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Which is why the EU tries to control it to avoid countries outbidding each other for a new car plant or whatever.

I do not know any country which does not try to get around the WTO rules etc. . And as for China, well that is a law unto itself.

Its a complicated area.

In reply to neilh:


So again, as I said at 1136, when you said "Also destroys Labours plans for a bit of nationalistaion or state subisdy in a post brexit world...", you have no idea you can share with us how or why this statement may in any way be credible or even thought through?

In reply to neilh:

Labour's nationalisation plans (for better or worse) are clearly limited to utilities and railways. There is no logic or plan to nationalise manufacturing industry so your "time will tell" argument is bollocks. Far more risk of the Torries bung to its Northern Ireland coalition of chaos MPs being seen as unfair state subsidies

In reply to neilh:

My point was due to ideological reasons and a tendency to blame anything difficult on the Eu politicians have shrugged their shoulders and gone "sorry mate I would love to help manufacturing in the NE but my hands are tied, EU red tape nothing I can do" whereas other EU countries have rolled up their sleeves, read the small print and worked out how to achieve support for key industries indirectly.
I understand that the EU wants a roughly level playing field which is good but we have always fallen for the default of Euro red tape being the cause of problems rather than our own mismanagement, or worse hiding our ideological reasons (industries that are traditionally unionized have no place in the British economy) behind the figleave off Europe made me do it.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


You weren't looking. They don't go after the governments, they penalise the corporations that receive the subsidies.

The European Commission told Lloyds to divest itself of a chunk of business, which ended up as the Sabadell-owned TSB after the Co-op Bank proved unable to take it on. And, again at the direction of the European Commission, RBS tried multiple times to unload its RBS branches in England and Wales, first to Santander, then as "challenger bank" Williams & Glyn, then as a straight book sale, before the European commission finally decided that it was unlikely ever to happen and effectively let them off -probably having decided that RBS had downsized its retail operations by roughly the required amount anyway (it's been frantically shedding branches left right and centre for some time, I know of three on my route to and from work that have closed within the last 2 years).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyds_Banking_Group#Divestment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Group#Williams_.26_Gly...

In reply to Martin W:

Cheers for the correction, i guess The commission called it what it was. The industries still remained afloat so the commission was probably the lesser of two evils.

In reply to baron:


Bloody ECJ! Roll on Brexit then we will only be subject to our own laws.
This is the future, Leavers ; likes't thou it?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

"We" have always gone to the euro rules default when making choices about supporting industries /manufacturing because it happens to be a perfect excuse for pursuing catastrophe capitalism which has been underpinning our successive governments' version of the free market for the last 35 years. As Germany and France have proved, it was never necessary.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

At least cut throat capatalism has given us the most productive workforce in Europe, once we can get rid of the shackles of EU workers rights red tape then we can show them how truly productive we can be.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

just in case anyone's irony meter is off

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/uk-productivity-gap-widens...

the realities of a flexible labour market, a socio economic experiment in which the numbers don't look good

under regulated, under paid, under educated, un unionized and over austertied workforce is less productive than those dam continentals who would have thought it?

In reply to Shani:


It appears to me that neilh's posts above really were devoid of any intellectual content. He is on-message with The Mail/Express/Sun. Odd how those papers resonate with so many.

In reply to baron:




In an agreeable way, what about your original point?

In reply to Timmd:

Did I have one? An original point that is?

In reply to Greenbanks:


I dunno, BAE are a world class when it comes to hoovering up built-in subsidies from Government contracts.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If only there were some tariff and barrier free single market grouping big enough not to be bossed about.

In reply to elsewhere:
Even the mighty EU has its work cut out when it takes on the mighty Boeing.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-wto-aircraft/wto-reverses-boeing-777x-tax...

In reply to baron:
indeed, it would take a trading partner with a "special" (subservient?) relationship to do better with the US

Actually the thing that made me most upset and desolate about a lack of accountability contol and democracy in my lifetime was the special relationship between Blair and Bush that took us into the 2nd Gulf War

In reply to baron:


I'm sure David Davis will be able to set up a crack team of aerospace trade negotiators within a few weeks that will do a far better job for us than the EU's established team that have been fighting Boeing to a standstill on behalf of Airbus for decades. The personal rapport between Theresa May and Trump will easily offset their lack of experience and the leverage of representing a 500 million person, 27 nation trading block that Boeing can't live without access to. And paying for the complete UK team ourselves is obviously going to save money compared with sharing the costs of the EU team among 27 countries.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I thought Liam Fox is going to be in charge of business deals.
He'll sort 'em out!

In reply to Ridge:


They’re in a world of their own when it comes to surviving a total failure to deliver.

In reply to baron:

Fixed that for you, just in case you'd forgotten that Fox is the kind of man who's happy to put his best mate's personal dodgy dealings above our national security.

In reply to deepsoup:

Why would I forget that ?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"crack team of aerospace trade negotiators"

that might be true! When I worked at Kingston on Thames (Al Yamamah wasjust getting going in the late 80s) we used to refer to the area of the Directors offices as "Pirates/Cutthroat Corridor"

in fairness we heard what the opposition was doing so don't think it was anything special in the industry!

In reply to wercat:

10/10.

It is a good recognition of what is a ruthless world out there.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Several commentators are today arguing that Boeing's actions are directly related to Brexit; Boeing and the US are happy to go after an isolated (and so, weak), UK much more than the EU as an EU-level retaliation would hurt them so much more.

A great lesson for Brexiteers; business does not care about political sensitivities nor ambassadorial/statesman-like behaviour. We can negotiate with states, but powerful corporations will exploit us to their own benefit in the meantime.

In reply to Shani:
Is it possible that Boeing's actions are related to Bombardier having broken the rules?

In reply to baron:


No. It's normal to go through the WTO, for example

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/wto-upholds-ruling-a...

(yep, Boeing gets subsidies too), this action by the US government is because of the new regime and quite possibly at Canada and the Uk as they are more vulnerable.

In reply to Shani:

I think it's more that Boeing are/will go after any competitions and are being emboldened by the occupant in the Whitehouse, I don't think they are going after the UK per se. What does the UK aerospace (non-military) consist of? Obviously RR, and Airbus wings, what else?

In reply to Tyler:

Leonardo helicopters...plus a host of suppliers in both chains. From what I reaccl the Uk is one of the very few countries that has the capability and infrastucture to actually build and assemble planes all the way through.

In reply to neilh:

Give it all to BAE.
After their Nimrod 2000 project what can possibly go wrong?

In reply to neilh:
Thanks Neil, I only asked because I read somewhere that the cost of developing new commercial jets was so expensive that it was almost too expensive for individual companies to do so without subsidy, especially given the time lines. This means that any new entrants to the market (or even existing ones) might need a domestic market big enough to support it.

In reply to Tyler:

The uk aerospace market as a whole punches well above it's weight in global terms.But you are right about both the domestic market and also the subsidy.

I think the poster Paul in Sheffield is probably better to give a view on it than me ( i think he runs some aersospce catapult ( technology) centre)

In reply to baron:

It wasn't all or even mostly BAe's fault - that project is an example of how not to set ever changing requiremements in the specification of what is to be delivered

In reply to wercat:

I'm sure they won't mind being blamed after all the money they made.
Due for delivery in 2000.
How many years late was it before the whole project was scrapped?
Should have saved a load of money and bought american.