UK Votes to leave EU

CMOTDibbler · 10-10-2016 12:43PM

First Up wrote: »

Japan drives on the left.

VinLieger wrote: »

As do Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Malaysia and Thailand to name but a small few

I'm aware of that. However I don't think they're supplied from European plants.

South Africa manufacture BMWs for the Australasia market, India have their own manufacturers as do Japan and Australia.

Edit: Cyprus and Malta are the only two other European countries that drive on the left, but their markets are tiny.

FrancieBrady · 10-10-2016 12:45PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Could we not just bite the bullet and start driving on the right side of the road like normal people?

This just in from our Irish Brexit cheerleaders: 'We will just phase in driving on the right - lorries and buses first then cars and bikes'.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 12:54PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm aware of that. However I don't think they're supplied from European plants.

South Africa manufacture BMWs for the Australasia market

Unless it has changed recently, all RHD 3 series are made in SA. Mercedes also manufactured RHD C class there as well (and initially had a nightmare with lead times).

It has been a while since I was involved in fleet management though, so I'm a bit out of touch with it all.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 12:57PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

I'd say that is a reasonable conclusion

Though perhaps their will be specialised garages converting right to left hand drive cars.....like Polish used do when they came here first buying cars converting them back across
.

From. Talking to Polish mechanics in work at the time....remember them telling me it wasn't as big job as you'd imagine

You'd need a completely new dashboard. That alone must make it cost prohibitive.

josip · 10-10-2016 01:23PM

Would labour costs at the Nissan,Toyota, BMW, etc plants in the UK have decreased 20-30% in the last few months due to the fall in the value of Sterling?

CMOTDibbler · 10-10-2016 01:45PM

josip wrote: »

Would labour costs at the Nissan,Toyota, BMW, etc plants in the UK have decreased 20-30% in the last few months due to the fall in the value of Sterling?

Good question. If their imports and exports were priced and paid in Euros and they were buying sterling to pay wages, it would certainly have a benefit. But it's a short to medium term benefit at best. As the price of imports increases due to sterling's weakness, there would be an upward pressure on wages to compensate. They could resist those demands I suppose, but it may not be sustainable.

In any event, direct* labour costs for car production are estimated to be between 8 and 10% of the total cost. Raw materials make up the vast bulk of the cost of manufacture.

*The other portion of labour costs (3 to 5%) are indirect costs such as design and research which are probably not borne by the assembly plants.

catbear · 10-10-2016 03:08PM

josip wrote: »

Would labour costs at the Nissan,Toyota, BMW, etc plants in the UK have decreased 20-30% in the last few months due to the fall in the value of Sterling?

Short term gain erased by import inflation. The only way then to keep it profitable is suppressing wage growth which mean a 20-30% reduction in workers purchasing power. .

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 03:08PM

I wonder what the UK's economy will look like in two years time?

Grayson · 10-10-2016 03:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You'd need a completely new dashboard. That alone must make it cost prohibitive.

I'd imagine in the manufacturing plant they wouldn't put a dashboard on then send it out just so it can be ripped off and have another put on.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 03:12PM

From the BBC on possible tariffs and the certainty of increased prices in shops:

The BRC says reverting to WTO rules would result in the following price rises:

The average duty on meat imports could be as high as 27%
Clothing and footwear would attract tariffs of 11-16% versus the current zero-rating for all EU imports
The import cost of women's clothing from Bangladesh would be 12% higher
Chilean wine would be 14% dearer for importers
However, many raw materials and semi-finished products would be zero-rated or attract rates of duty of below 10%

CMOTDibbler · 10-10-2016 03:22PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

New dash for mondeo is e1200

Hardly prohibitive.....clusters can be recalibrated to suit

I know lads what had to change few these in work for PDI

I don't really see the point of doing this. Manufacturers will still produce for the Irish market and whatever's left of the UK market plus the other markets in and outside Europe that still get their supply of right hand drive vehicles from there.

It's still hundreds of thousands of vehicles. It's not as though they haven't already set up to do this.

wes · 10-10-2016 03:36PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wonder what the UK's economy will look like in two years time?

King Farage, will announce that the EU is to blame for everything!!!

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 03:56PM

wes wrote: »

King Farage, will announce that the EU is to blame for everything!!!

I have no doubt the EU will be blamed.

First Up · 10-10-2016 04:02PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

From the BBC on possible tariffs and the certainty of increased prices in shops:

The BRC says reverting to WTO rules would result in the following price rises:

The average duty on meat imports could be as high as 27%
Clothing and footwear would attract tariffs of 11-16% versus the current zero-rating for all EU imports
The import cost of women's clothing from Bangladesh would be 12% higher
Chilean wine would be 14% dearer for importers
However, many raw materials and semi-finished products would be zero-rated or attract rates of duty of below 10%

The WTO framework is just a default position if no deal is agreed. The UK can set whatever tariffs it likes on imports from the EU. They can have none if they want. But that doesn't mean the EU has to reciprocate and I think it is unlikely in the extreme that the EU will allow UK exporters the same degree of access to the EU market access as they had when an EU member.

If it comes to a negotiation that uses tariffs as a bargaining chip, the UK can only lose. But they have lost anyway.

10-10-2016 04:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This just in from our Irish Brexit cheerleaders: 'We will just phase in driving on the right - lorries and buses first then cars and bikes'.

Like Nigeria did:eek:, Buses and lorries one day, cars and bikes another. Sounds hilarious but from people there at the time it wasn't really.

Anyway. Apparently were all Brexiters too. Got it in the neck from two Frenchmen yesterday. Me being one of those Brexit trouble makers, pointed out I'm Irish .
"Yeh exactly, you all voted for Brexit".
I'm from Ireland, ye know, Island over west of England, Green rugby jerseys etc
"Yes and you all voted for Brexit."
Pointed out independence nearly a hundred years ago, join EEC back in early '70's. etc. Just got blank looks and a few of those strange noises only the French make.

F it. Gave up.
Thing is these two have traveled the world much, much more than most French, so whats the rest like? We are more tied to the UK than we will ever be to Europe.
Makes me laugh when hear politicians on about Ireland at the center of Europe.

Zubeneschamali · 10-10-2016 05:04PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

Singapore, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Malta..

In Malta they drive on the shadier side of the road.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 05:09PM

Negotiations should be interesting.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 05:11PM

First Up wrote: »

The WTO framework is just a default position if no deal is agreed. The UK can set whatever tariffs it likes on imports from the EU. They can have none if they want. But that doesn't mean the EU has to reciprocate and I think it is unlikely in the extreme that the EU will allow UK exporters the same degree of access to the EU market access as they had when an EU member.

This is where the eu has to be careful, as what should be a sensible financial economic negotiation, will be political and have the political interest of the eu at its core, rather than the interests of the people and countries it represents.

The logical thing to do is to have a straightforward free trade agreement like the one with South Africa, which is in every one's best interests, but Junkers will look to use the UK as an example and be punitive, which is in no ones interest.

Greenmachine · 10-10-2016 05:18PM

Explain to me why Britain is proposing we have a border on our side to keep illegal immigrant out of the UK when they leave the EU. Surely the burden is on them and they can protect their own borders??

First Up · 10-10-2016 05:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote:

The logical thing to do is to have a straightforward free trade agreement like the one with South Africa, which is in every one's best interests, but Junkers will look to use the UK as an example and be punitive, which is in no ones interest.

Most South African exports are raw materials that are not produced in Europe. The mutual trade is mostly complementary - not competitive.

Most UK exporters are in direct competition with companies elsewhere in the EU. There is little chance the EU will allow the UK to retain the same terms of trade as companies in the EU.

wes · 10-10-2016 05:49PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The logical thing to do is to have a straightforward free trade agreement like the one with South Africa, which is in every one's best interests, but Junkers will look to use the UK as an example and be punitive, which is in no ones interest.

Brexit is in no ones interest, but it happening regardless. Brexit simply put represent opportunity for EU countries to take away business from the UK, especially as they seem to want a hard Brexit. The smart thing to do is for the EU, is take advantage of the situation. Nothing punitive about that. Just rational self interest. If the UK suffers, why should the EU care? The British electorate didn't give a crap about the North, but acting in what they saw there own best interests. No reason for anyone else to act different. Britain isn't special.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 05:51PM

wes wrote: »

Brexit is in no ones interest, but it happening regardless. Brexit simply put represent opportunity for EU countries to take away business from the UK, especially as they seem to want a hard Brexit. The smart thing to do is for the EU, is take advantage of the situation.

Yes, the smart thing is to try and bankrupt the eu's largest trading partner. That makes total sense.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 05:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is where the eu has to be careful, as what should be a sensible financial economic negotiation, will be political and have the political interest of the eu at its core, rather than the interests of the people and countries it represents.

The logical thing to do is to have a straightforward free trade agreement like the one with South Africa, which is in every one's best interests, but Junkers will look to use the UK as an example and be punitive, which is in no ones interest.

How it is in the best interests of the EU to have practically the same trade deal for countries that leave the EU?

Not giving special treatment to countries that leave isn't the same as punishing those countries.

catbear · 10-10-2016 05:59PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, the smart thing is to try and bankrupt the eu's largest trading partner. That makes total sense.

Actually the USA, China and Japan are individually larger trade partners.

But that's fact so ignore them.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 06:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How it is in the best interests of the EU to have practical the same trade deal for countries that leave the EU?

Not giving special treatment to countries that leave isn't the same as punishing those countries.

The "eu" itself doesn't care, because it is a political project. Individual member states will care, because they want to continue trading with a large economy.

wes · 10-10-2016 06:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, the smart thing is to try and bankrupt the eu's largest trading partner. That makes total sense.

Who said anything about bankrupting anyone? Britain is part of the EU, still. Your statement betrays the attitude that Britain always taught of themselves as not really being part of the EU. The US is the EU largest trading partner.

Brexit make 0 sense, and yet its going to happen. Hard Brexit make even less sense, but thats what May seems to want.

Brexit changes things. There is opportunity to take things from Britain. Why shouldn't the remaining EU countries do so? Why not act in there own interests? Why give advantage to a soon to be ex-EU competitor nation, who wanted out of the club?

Britain made its choice, and needs to realize there not special. May wants a hard Brexit, which again presents opportunities to take from Britain, and it would be stupid to not do so.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 06:08PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The "eu" itself doesn't care, because it is a political project. Individual member states will care, because they want to continue trading with a large economy.

Well that's not what Merkel is saying. Member states benefit from being in the single market. It would not make sense to give the same deal to countries that aren't in the EU. David Davis previously said that "german car manufactures would be beating down Merkel's door for a fair deal. Now Markus Kerber, chief of the BDI, the federation of German industries seems to be in line with Merkel. The Telegraph expands on this:

German car makers and other major industrial lobbies will not be able to insist that Britain gets an easy deal in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, the German chancellor Angela Merkel has warned.

In a further hardening of the line against Britain, Mrs Merkel told the annual conference of German industrial federations, the BDI, that defending the principle of free movement and the internal cohesion of the European Union would come before defending German exports to the UK.

"If we don't say full access to the internal market is linked to full freedom of movement, then a movement will spread in Europe where everyone just does whatever they want,” she told business leaders in Berlin.

Mrs Merkel, who has faced down German firms before over EU sanctions against Russia, said German bosses must weigh the short-term hit of a 'hard' Brexit to the UK sales against the long-term risk of allowing the EU to unravel.

"We have to make our interests align so that European industry federations don't put pressure on us" during talks with London, she said.

Her stance contradicts assurances given by leading proponents of Brexit, including David Davis, the Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, that lobbying by German industry would ensure that the UK would not be ‘punished’ in any divorce negotiation.

As it turns out, after initially pressing for a non-punitive deal, the BDI – the German equivalent of the CBI – has come into line with Mrs Merkel, warning in London this week that a ‘hard’ Brexit with limited market access was now increasingly inevitable.

Some 7.5 per cent of German exports go the UK, a significant figure but not enough to force Germany to compromise on the four freedoms of the EU – goods, services, people and capital – according to Markus Kerber, the BDI chief.

“Well, 7.5 per cent is a big number but 92.5 per cent goes somewhere else. So, as much as we would like to uphold our very good relations with British customers, it is extremely important for us not to alienate other European markets,” he told the BBC.

Theresa May promised this week to invoke Article 50 and begin EU divorce proceedings by the end of March next year, indicating that she would not compromise over British demands to end EU free movement and restore the primacy of EU law.

wes · 10-10-2016 06:11PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well that's not what Merkel is saying. Member states benefit from being in the single market. It would not make sense to give the same deal to countries that aren't in the EU. David Davis previously said that "german car manufactures would be beating down Merkel's door for a fair deal. Now Markus Kerber, chief of the BDI, the federation of German industries seems to be in line with Merkel. The Telegraph expands on this:

There position makes perfect sense, as the EU is far more important to them, then Britain, and there acting in there own self interest to safe guard the EU, and not Britain.

Brexit is what has caused people to have to make this choice. Its not the EU fault, but that of the Brexiters. There is no malice at all, just rational self interest.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2016 06:14PM

wes wrote: »

Who said anything about bankrupting anyone? Britain is part of the EU, still. Your statement betrays the attitude that Britain always taught of themselves as not really being part of the EU. The US is the EU largest trading partner.

Brexit make 0 sense, and yet its going to happen. Hard Brexit make even less sense, but thats what May seems to want.

Brexit changes things. There is opportunity to take things from Britain. Why shouldn't the remaining EU countries do so? Why not act in there own interests? Why give advantage to a soon to be ex-EU competitor nation, who wanted out of the club?

Britain made its choice, and needs to realize there not special. May wants a hard Brexit, which again presents opportunities to take from Britain, and it would be stupid to not do so.

What?

The UK as it stands, will be the eu's largest export market when it leaves.

You betray the attitude of the smaller nations in the eu, it's all about "what's in it for us".

The big boys will still want to trade as freely as possible with the UK. The hard Brexit talk is merely the opening shots in the negotiations. No Tory PM is going to deliberately hurt their exporters.

steddyeddy · 10-10-2016 06:17PM

I talk about negotiating power in the negative but I think it would be in Britain's best interest to be more humble about this. A hard Brexit would be ridiculous. I live here so have to suffer the consequences. We've already lost EU funding because of this.

UK Votes to leave EU

Comments