FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tata choose Somerset
Tata choose Somerset
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel?" TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of)" So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? " The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel?" Tata is a huge conglomerate. BBC reports that the U.K. now has 3 battery plants operational, under construction or planned. By contrast, the 26 countries of the EU have just over 1 each on average. | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? " Yes - shocking really - get on the phone to India and tell them we don’t want the factory and potentially 9,000 jobs. | |||
| |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? Yes - shocking really - get on the phone to India and tell them we don’t want the factory and potentially 9,000 jobs. " If it's that much of a sure thing why doesn't a UK company make the most of the opportunity | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? Yes - shocking really - get on the phone to India and tell them we don’t want the factory and potentially 9,000 jobs. If it's that much of a sure thing why doesn't a UK company make the most of the opportunity " I’m sure many uk companies in the supply chain will also make the most of this opportunity | |||
"Great news. Hopefully this will pay back the massive subsidy and then some. Does this count as a Brexit victory or would/could this have happened anyway?" It's definitely a Brexit thing, everything is. Probably could've/would've happened regardless, but we still attribute it to Brexit. | |||
 | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side" Given France gave around 2.1bn euros Not a problem then. Or is state aid only allowed in the e.u? | |||
"Great news. Hopefully this will pay back the massive subsidy and then some. Does this count as a Brexit victory or would/could this have happened anyway?" Government should have started these 10 years ago. We may not have been able to give the state aid inside the e.u. But then France has offered 2.1bn I subsidies. As I mentioned a few days ago this is a problem for not just the uk but e.u for the last decade. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem "I read this as earlier today but looks like its moved on a bit. A slight word of caution though is that it's not a done deal yet but looking promising. Apparently it is between the UK and Spain where it gets located. As we are told on another thread, both the U.S. and EU are throwing lots of money at tempting companies to set up at their locations so the UK is only doing the same as them. Hopefully this will go through as it will be great news, though of course some will not be so happy. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
I read this as earlier today but looks like its moved on a bit. A slight word of caution though is that it's not a done deal yet but looking promising. Apparently it is between the UK and Spain where it gets located. As we are told on another thread, both the U.S. and EU are throwing lots of money at tempting companies to set up at their locations so the UK is only doing the same as them. Hopefully this will go through as it will be great news, though of course some will not be so happy. "You are correct. Maybe a little preemptive but all looks like it's going ahead. | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? TATA Motors - part of Tata Group (which TATA steel is also a part of) So a company that would probably be supported by the British taxpayer whilst taking the profit? The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side Given France gave around 2.1bn euros Not a problem then. Or is state aid only allowed in the e.u?" I have no problem with subsidies. | |||
| |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? Tata is a huge conglomerate. BBC reports that the U.K. now has 3 battery plants operational, under construction or planned. By contrast, the 26 countries of the EU have just over 1 each on average. " It's very good news as it allows the UK to retain an automotive industry. There is 1 operational battery plant in the UK, 1 planned, 1 probably about to be agreed. 1.7GWh per year being produced. There are 17 in the EU, 35 planned. 124GWh per year. More factories attract a larger supply base, reducing prices. Everything is open to the very high US subsidies being offered though. Many EU countries do not build cars, so a battery plant not necessarily a sensible idea to build an automotive battery factory. An "average" is not the most sensible measure. Of course, some people are certain that EVs are a dead end and we will be keeping the internal combustion engine burning synthetic fuel. Perhaps we should invest in that for cars instead? We don't need to worry about batteries at all. They're Betamax. Allegedly. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem "The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU. I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac."Most likely ignorance Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy. In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably. | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? Tata is a huge conglomerate. BBC reports that the U.K. now has 3 battery plants operational, under construction or planned. By contrast, the 26 countries of the EU have just over 1 each on average. It's very good news as it allows the UK to retain an automotive industry. There is 1 operational battery plant in the UK, 1 planned, 1 probably about to be agreed. 1.7GWh per year being produced. There are 17 in the EU, 35 planned. 124GWh per year. More factories attract a larger supply base, reducing prices. Everything is open to the very high US subsidies being offered though. Many EU countries do not build cars, so a battery plant not necessarily a sensible idea to build an automotive battery factory. An "average" is not the most sensible measure. Of course, some people are certain that EVs are a dead end and we will be keeping the internal combustion engine burning synthetic fuel. Perhaps we should invest in that for cars instead? We don't need to worry about batteries at all. They're Betamax. Allegedly. " I worked in the car manufacturing industry for many years. Installing automation for car plants. I will say yes some EU countries do not build cars. But many have production lines for engines , drive chains and body work. So to say car production in a country is not actually correct. Is there a car factory in Europe ? That actually manufacturers , builds a car on on site. ? This means all components. | |||
"Is this the same Tata as Tata steel? Tata is a huge conglomerate. BBC reports that the U.K. now has 3 battery plants operational, under construction or planned. By contrast, the 26 countries of the EU have just over 1 each on average. It's very good news as it allows the UK to retain an automotive industry. There is 1 operational battery plant in the UK, 1 planned, 1 probably about to be agreed. 1.7GWh per year being produced. There are 17 in the EU, 35 planned. 124GWh per year. More factories attract a larger supply base, reducing prices. Everything is open to the very high US subsidies being offered though. Many EU countries do not build cars, so a battery plant not necessarily a sensible idea to build an automotive battery factory. An "average" is not the most sensible measure. Of course, some people are certain that EVs are a dead end and we will be keeping the internal combustion engine burning synthetic fuel. Perhaps we should invest in that for cars instead? We don't need to worry about batteries at all. They're Betamax. Allegedly. I worked in the car manufacturing industry for many years. Installing automation for car plants. I will say yes some EU countries do not build cars. But many have production lines for engines , drive chains and body work. So to say car production in a country is not actually correct. Is there a car factory in Europe ? That actually manufacturers , builds a car on on site. ? This means all components. " 17 out of 27 EU countries have large scale road vehicle manufacturing facilities. You would not expect a battery plant to be built in every country any more than an engine plant would you? So, regardless, using an average factory per country figure is not especially useful. It is still the case that a larger market with more customers (companies and individuals) attracts more suppliers and ultimately lower prices. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU? | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade. About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year) NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply. They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.""So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?" Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016. All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive."As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother. No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share. You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida? | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
"To be fair Morley you seem to know more about a lot of things compared to the experts and professionals employed to know about those things  | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
To be fair Morley you seem to know more about a lot of things compared to the experts and professionals employed to know about those things "Well. I do. And I back it up. The IMF said the uk would slump to a decline. And I said it wouldn't decline I said it would grow. The IMF has now caught up with me. But there's a difference between forecasting bollocks and the saying a CEO didn't say what he said which is in tbe public domain. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
To be fair Morley you seem to know more about a lot of things compared to the experts and professionals employed to know about those things
Well. I do. And I back it up. The IMF said the uk would slump to a decline. And I said it wouldn't decline I said it would grow.
The IMF has now caught up with me.
But there's a difference between forecasting bollocks and the saying a CEO didn't say what he said which is in tbe public domain."I’m pulling your leg  | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
To be fair Morley you seem to know more about a lot of things compared to the experts and professionals employed to know about those things
Well. I do. And I back it up. The IMF said the uk would slump to a decline. And I said it wouldn't decline I said it would grow.
The IMF has now caught up with me.
But there's a difference between forecasting bollocks and the saying a CEO didn't say what he said which is in tbe public domain.
I’m pulling your leg " | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
"Did we bother from 2016- 2022? Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting. I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so. If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own."Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan? The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive."Can you clarify what you mean by Nissan are disseminating with Renault? My friend mentioned a while back that Nissan have increased their shares in Renault so that its a more even partnership. Apparently before Renault had a bigger stake in Nissan than Nissan had in Renault, hence the change. When you say Nissan are becoming a purely UK based company, I'm assuming you mean for the European side of things? Not that they will not bother with the rest of the world. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
I read this as earlier today but looks like its moved on a bit. A slight word of caution though is that it's not a done deal yet but looking promising. Apparently it is between the UK and Spain where it gets located. As we are told on another thread, both the U.S. and EU are throwing lots of money at tempting companies to set up at their locations so the UK is only doing the same as them. Hopefully this will go through as it will be great news, though of course some will not be so happy.
You are correct. Maybe a little preemptive but all looks like it's going ahead."It does look promising which is great. Just think it's not done until it's done. They are up against Spain a major EU country and possibly even bigger money incentives. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
Can you clarify what you mean by Nissan are disseminating with Renault? My friend mentioned a while back that Nissan have increased their shares in Renault so that its a more even partnership. Apparently before Renault had a bigger stake in Nissan than Nissan had in Renault, hence the change. When you say Nissan are becoming a purely UK based company, I'm assuming you mean for the European side of things? Not that they will not bother with the rest of the world."When Carlos Ghosn was in charge the relationship was heavily tilted towards Renault. Renault reduced their active shareholding in Nissan from 45% to 15%. The same level as Nissan's interest in Renault. Although Renault retains Board seats at Nissan but not vice versa. So, opposite to what your friend said, but same point. Re-balancing. They are developing EV technology together. As you said, the Nissan European interests will be far more UK focused. Their vehicles sell much better here than in the EU. As we already discussed, they also have an engineering and technology centre here. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation."You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed. I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote: "They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)" I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that. Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention? | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?"Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
"Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important? Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
Can you clarify what you mean by Nissan are disseminating with Renault? My friend mentioned a while back that Nissan have increased their shares in Renault so that its a more even partnership. Apparently before Renault had a bigger stake in Nissan than Nissan had in Renault, hence the change. When you say Nissan are becoming a purely UK based company, I'm assuming you mean for the European side of things? Not that they will not bother with the rest of the world.
When Carlos Ghosn was in charge the relationship was heavily tilted towards Renault.
Renault reduced their active shareholding in Nissan from 45% to 15%. The same level as Nissan's interest in Renault. Although Renault retains Board seats at Nissan but not vice versa.
So, opposite to what your friend said, but same point. Re-balancing.
They are developing EV technology together.
As you said, the Nissan European interests will be far more UK focused. Their vehicles sell much better here than in the EU. As we already discussed, they also have an engineering and technology centre here."So as I understand it now Nissan's 15% now has full voting rights where before they did not have voting rights. Not sure if they had to pay anything for that but that's the outcome. Renault have reduced their share by putting all except 15% into a fund so they only have voting rights on 15% now, same as Nissan. As you say they are developing EV's together. So with all this I'm not sure I would class that as disengaging at all. I don't believe I said Nissan's interests will be far more UK focused. I did agree they are a very British company these days. However the UK plant produces their most popular models and sells to the UK but mostly into Europe. This has been the case before and looks set to continue | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next."Since 2010 and before not really. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
"Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020. Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government? There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government. You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years."Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time."Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since. One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis. | |||
| |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis."Og there have been years before and since. Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum  | |||
"It's good news, Brexit or not. If the government helped with sweeteners, well done!! ALL countries do it - most far more than the UK, and in blatant breach of EU and other trade rules. " Agreed. Sadly for many. Incentives/ grants from e.u countries is good. From the uk its bad That's how it works apparently. | |||
"It's good news, Brexit or not. If the government helped with sweeteners, well done!! ALL countries do it - most far more than the UK, and in blatant breach of EU and other trade rules. Agreed. Sadly for many. Incentives/ grants from e.u countries is good. From the uk its bad That's how it works apparently." Nobody said that. We are doing so reactively and at greater cost because we have no plan. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum "The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East. That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster. The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017. What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then? | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then? "No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012. If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories. The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative."You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you? The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it. The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently. The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles. If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind."It converted that plant specifically for the leaf. Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011. But hey. You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan. | |||
 | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind.
It converted that plant specifically for the leaf.
Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011.
But hey.
You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan."You are arguing on your own. I didn't say that the plant wasn't built for the Leaf in 2012. It was done of Nissan's own back before the industry shift to EVs and whilst the UK was solidly in the EU and funded by the European Investment Bank and Nissan. Nothing to do with UK Government. That is the entire point. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind.
It converted that plant specifically for the leaf.
Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011.
But hey.
You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan.
You are arguing on your own.
I didn't say that the plant wasn't built for the Leaf in 2012. It was done of Nissan's own back before the industry shift to EVs and whilst the UK was solidly in the EU and funded by the European Investment Bank and Nissan. Nothing to do with UK Government.
That is the entire point."So then factories were in the uk in 2012 and were bring fu ded from 2011 and hand working papers from 2010. But you blame no further developments on ev battery plants on brexit. The delusion is great in you. | |||
"Apparently though nongovernmental could jave foreseen the move to electric over the next 5 years.... "The UK Government could have seen the move to EVs because it introduced the legislation! The automotive industry knew because it was consulted well in advance by the Government. Yet here we are with an apparent suprise that having only one battery plant may prove to be a problem. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind.
It converted that plant specifically for the leaf.
Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011.
But hey.
You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan.
You are arguing on your own.
I didn't say that the plant wasn't built for the Leaf in 2012. It was done of Nissan's own back before the industry shift to EVs and whilst the UK was solidly in the EU and funded by the European Investment Bank and Nissan. Nothing to do with UK Government.
That is the entire point.
So then factories were in the uk in 2012 and were bring fu ded from 2011 and hand working papers from 2010.
But you blame no further developments on ev battery plants on brexit.
The delusion is great in you.
"Are you unable to understand what is being written or just deliberately? 2010 was long before any mandate to switch the entire industry to electric vehicles. The Tesla Model S was first released in 2012! The UK Government's inability to focus on any national strategy for anything including the automotive industry is in a large part because of Brexit and internal Conservative party blood letting and the subsequent rise of the most incompetent to the top. Nonsense Yoda-speak doesn't make up for your lack of comprehension. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind.
It converted that plant specifically for the leaf.
Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011.
But hey.
You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan.
You are arguing on your own.
I didn't say that the plant wasn't built for the Leaf in 2012. It was done of Nissan's own back before the industry shift to EVs and whilst the UK was solidly in the EU and funded by the European Investment Bank and Nissan. Nothing to do with UK Government.
That is the entire point.
So then factories were in the uk in 2012 and were bring fu ded from 2011 and hand working papers from 2010.
But you blame no further developments on ev battery plants on brexit.
The delusion is great in you.
Are you unable to understand what is being written or just deliberately?
2010 was long before any mandate to switch the entire industry to electric vehicles.
The Tesla Model S was first released in 2012!
The UK Government's inability to focus on any national strategy for anything including the automotive industry is in a large part because of Brexit and internal Conservative party blood letting and the subsequent rise of the most incompetent to the top.
Nonsense Yoda-speak doesn't make up for your lack of comprehension."What lack of comprehension? Why does tesla Influence rechargeable batteries facilities? You think tesla are the only and first full electric car company ? You seem intent on the lack of ev battery pla ts being a brexit problem without any evidence. I have stated poor government policy has resulted in this for over a decade. Which is clear. It's nothing to do with brexit. As much as you want it to be. Which is why the e.u is in the same state as the uk is in for its car exports. | |||
"Must be a Brexit problem
The question remains as to why we don't have more battery plants already in the UK given the size of our automotive industry and that we have decided to stop combustion engine sales dive years before the EU.
I have already said that if the plant is built it will be a good thing, so let's avoid that cul-de-sac.
Most likely ignorance
Same as not having nuclear power now and paying high prices for gas. People in the government don't view things with a 10 year plan only their immediacy.
In 2010-2016 why would Cameron etc incentivise gigafactories while we were in the e.u? Sadly the short sightedness/hubris in not protecting domestic productions means I look on such decisions and times in government less favourably.
So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?
The uk wasn't looking to create giga factories itself for tbe last decade.
About 15-20% of cars manufactured in tbe uk are sold here( dependent on year)
NISSAN changed its strategy for domestic supply.
They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk) I imagine others will follow suit.
"So there has been no more investor uncertainty into the UK than into the EU?"
Agreed, there is no UK strategy for many things. There have been some distractions since 2016.
All companies try to get a larger share of every market they operate in
Nissan changed it's strategy because it is disengaging with Renault so it is becoming a purely UK based company. It has no choice but to become more UK focused as a mid/low market supplier and therefore cost sensitive.
As I said 2010 ton2016 we were in e.u and didn't bother.
No. Not all companies try and get larger shares actually. Especially in saturated markets, its about maintaining share.
You are saying the ceo of Nissan is wrong then? As that was the strategy he laid out. You know more of Nissans strategy than Nissan CEO Makato Uchida?
Did we bother from 2016- 2022?
Actually, particularly in the automotive industry, there is always a fight for market share as the economies of production scale feeds through to the bottom line even with discounting.
I didn't say that Nissan weren't focusing on the UK market. I explained why they were doing so.
If you want to argue when there's no disagreement, do so on your own.
Can we address whether you know more about nsisans strategy than the ceo of Nissan?
The ceo explained it . It wasn't your explanation.
You can "just" witter on about whatever detail you think you have "got" me on if you like. I'm not fussed.
I have no idea why you think I disagree with Nissan's CEO. You wrote:
"They intend to take a larger share of our domestic market.(production.nd sales in uk)"
I have agreed and provided some reasons why it makes sense for them to do that.
Shall we discuss why the UK "didn't bother" with encouraging battery and motor factories in the UK from 2016-2022, or would you rather ignore the possible reasons for the lack of attention?
Go for it. Let's discuss the uk not bothering with gigs factories since their inception. Which wasn't 2016.
Was there something that might have been distracting the Government since then that meant that they weren't paying attention to what was really important?
Excited to hear what bit of vocabulary you want to obsess about next.
Since 2010 and before not really.
Brexit happened in 2016. Covid happened in 2020.
Neither of these events constitute a long-term distraction to the UK Government?
There are also several years of extremely incompetent Government.
You seem completely lost in your desperation to "win" to actually notice some of the most significant events of the last 70 years.
Not considering the creation of the ev battery was prior and a plant was built here during that time.
Not considering the need for a battery plant was before 2016? What about since 2016? There has been years since.
One plant was built here to keep Nissan. We will do the same for JLR and Stellantis.
Og there have been years before and since.
Hence why what you're asserting as a reason for not is hocum
The years before, as with most countries, the view was of a globalised system with the batteries coming from the Far East.
That has since changed with the USA and the EU reacting far, far faster.
The EU Battery Alliance was started in 2017.
What have we been doing? Anything distracting us then?
No nothing...because the first ev battery facility was built in the uk in 2012.
If they expected them tk be built in the far east why did the usa build so many factories.
The actual real world doesn't seem to fit your warped narrative.
You don't actually know anything about the industry that you are providing your opinion on do you?
The Nissan battery factory was built long before the industry wide shift to battery electric vehicles. Before it was of strategic importance. It was built by Nissan for one product line and the future of the UK automotive industry didn't rely upon it.
The USA has 5 large scale battery plants and most of them opened very recently.
The UK Government has not been paying attention to what is required for the automotive industry to meet the switch to electric vehicles, amongst many other important straight requirements for the country because it has been busy arguing with itself about Brexit, immigrants and internal party squabbles.
If you cannot see that you are being wilfully blind.
It converted that plant specifically for the leaf.
Again there aa full working paper on this regarding the European Investment fund in 2011.
But hey.
You know better than the e.u the investment fund and Nissan.
You are arguing on your own.
I didn't say that the plant wasn't built for the Leaf in 2012. It was done of Nissan's own back before the industry shift to EVs and whilst the UK was solidly in the EU and funded by the European Investment Bank and Nissan. Nothing to do with UK Government.
That is the entire point.
So then factories were in the uk in 2012 and were bring fu ded from 2011 and hand working papers from 2010.
But you blame no further developments on ev battery plants on brexit.
The delusion is great in you.
Are you unable to understand what is being written or just deliberately?
2010 was long before any mandate to switch the entire industry to electric vehicles.
The Tesla Model S was first released in 2012!
The UK Government's inability to focus on any national strategy for anything including the automotive industry is in a large part because of Brexit and internal Conservative party blood letting and the subsequent rise of the most incompetent to the top.
Nonsense Yoda-speak doesn't make up for your lack of comprehension.
What lack of comprehension?
Why does tesla Influence rechargeable batteries facilities? You think tesla are the only and first full electric car company ?
You seem intent on the lack of ev battery pla ts being a brexit problem without any evidence.
I have stated poor government policy has resulted in this for over a decade. Which is clear.
It's nothing to do with brexit. As much as you want it to be. Which is why the e.u is in the same state as the uk is in for its car exports.
"Why does Tesla influence the automotive electric vehicle industry? Surely you don't need that question answered. Scale,volume, market capitalisation. I was, in fact making it clear that the single most influential company was only just getting starting in 2012 so decisions made then were independent of what is happening now. I don't know why it is so difficult to make clear that this issue, amongst many others, is not "because" of Brexit. It is exacerbated by Brexit. We have an incompetent Government because of Brexit which saw to the cull of the most experienced Conservative politicians. The Civil Service and companies have finite resources. A large proportion of which are being focused on a wide range of Brexit related uncertainties. The opportunity cost of which is doing something more useful than negotiating trade deals that compensate for a fraction of what has been lost, creating new UK bodies and standards to replace the EU ones, adding bureaucracy and border posts and lorry parks, checking thousands of pieces of regulation to delete or retain and looking for benefits that do not exist. Meanwhile we have no plan for the automotive industry and battery investment whereas the organisation that we just left does and is acting on it. | |||
| |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. " No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too.... | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too.... "You clearly don't know what you're talking about. There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries. They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise. The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us."No one said about internal roo. Where do you interpret that from? Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is. I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too? | |||
| |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us."That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars? | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?"If I remember the Nissan factory and proposed 2nd factory can be expanded to deal with the entire uk requirement. It may be a case that they sell the batteries to other makers. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?"Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply. This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU. The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too. Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head. You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing. | |||
"“There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.” As can the U.K. That’s fine if they don’t want to export to the U.K. I would think that BMW, Audi et al would probably want to be able to continue to export to the U.K. I haven’t read anything to the contrary. " I can write one more time that there will be yet another renegotiation of the Brexit trade deal to delay the introduction of the regulation. I can also write one more time that this will lead to investment uncertainty in the UK but not the EU whilst this happens and also allow companies to extract higher subsidies from the UK that otherwise would have been the case. Perhaps the point being made will be acknowledged or even denied with some sort of an explanation? | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?"Nothing to do with the component cost of cars, although 40%-50% of an EV is in the battery. Why does investment uncertainty and negotiating leverage depend on the component cost of "all" cars? | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?
If I remember the Nissan factory and proposed 2nd factory can be expanded to deal with the entire uk requirement. It may be a case that they sell the batteries to other makers."You know that these aren't like AAA batteries for your TV remote, don't you? You can't just drop them in whatever you want because they are in your cupboard. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing."This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries. They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade. I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?
Nothing to do with the component cost of cars, although 40%-50% of an EV is in the battery.
Why does investment uncertainty and negotiating leverage depend on the component cost of "all" cars?"I'm not entirely sure of your maths here. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?
If I remember the Nissan factory and proposed 2nd factory can be expanded to deal with the entire uk requirement. It may be a case that they sell the batteries to other makers.
You know that these aren't like AAA batteries for your TV remote, don't you?
You can't just drop them in whatever you want because they are in your cupboard."I think it's time you went and read about the expansion capabilities of the factory. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
That is a guess unless you know the component cost for all cars?
If I remember the Nissan factory and proposed 2nd factory can be expanded to deal with the entire uk requirement. It may be a case that they sell the batteries to other makers.
You know that these aren't like AAA batteries for your TV remote, don't you?
You can't just drop them in whatever you want because they are in your cupboard.
I think it's time you went and read about the expansion capabilities of the factory.
"At this point in Time. It's almost looking like you do no research at all. "planned Envision AESC battery factory at the Nissan plant in Sunderland, England, will have an annual capacity of 11 GWh when it opens in 2024 and an annual capacity of up to 38 GWh in a potential final expansion stage. Both figures exceed those previously made public." | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
"seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space. "People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit And that was why the e.u was ahead. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead."may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert. Do you think the EU are ahead ? | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?"It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes. If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not. For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011. 13 years of nothing 6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving . | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?
It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes.
If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not.
For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011.
13 years of nothing
6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving ."so more lack of any planning rather than brexit related. Although the case for ev has increased rapidly in recent years and net zero more forefront ... From the outside weve been sleeping at the wheel... and increasingly so in recent years. | |||
| |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?
It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes.
If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not.
For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011.
13 years of nothing
6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving .so more lack of any planning rather than brexit related. Although the case for ev has increased rapidly in recent years and net zero more forefront ... From the outside weve been sleeping at the wheel... and increasingly so in recent years. "Yes sadly. Lack of planning. And poor policy making from this tory government.( and the e.u) I don't for the life of me ud erstand the push to have every new car as an e.v by 2030 the I pact is minimal. Puts international pressure on tbe resources of lithium, cobalt etc. Phase it in more gradually. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?
It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes.
If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not.
For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011.
13 years of nothing
6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving .so more lack of any planning rather than brexit related. Although the case for ev has increased rapidly in recent years and net zero more forefront ... From the outside weve been sleeping at the wheel... and increasingly so in recent years.
Yes sadly.
Lack of planning. And poor policy making from this tory government.( and the e.u)
I don't for the life of me ud erstand the push to have every new car as an e.v by 2030 the I pact is minimal. Puts international pressure on tbe resources of lithium, cobalt etc.
Phase it in more gradually."fair to say our govenment is worse at planning if the EU are ahead ? I'm not quiet in saying I think an unintedended consequence of brexit is the worst government in many many years (May onwards). I do wonder if we'd be better placed if a Cameron govenment had persisted. Especially if there hadn't been the erg/UKIP faction making his party weak. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?
It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes.
If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not.
For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011.
13 years of nothing
6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving .so more lack of any planning rather than brexit related. Although the case for ev has increased rapidly in recent years and net zero more forefront ... From the outside weve been sleeping at the wheel... and increasingly so in recent years.
Yes sadly.
Lack of planning. And poor policy making from this tory government.( and the e.u)
I don't for the life of me ud erstand the push to have every new car as an e.v by 2030 the I pact is minimal. Puts international pressure on tbe resources of lithium, cobalt etc.
Phase it in more gradually.fair to say our govenment is worse at planning if the EU are ahead ?
I'm not quiet in saying I think an unintedended consequence of brexit is the worst government in many many years (May onwards). I do wonder if we'd be better placed if a Cameron govenment had persisted. Especially if there hadn't been the erg/UKIP faction making his party weak. "Depends. I dont kow the e.u ins and out of the subsidising while we were in there. We were subject to their rulings on state aid. In a recent case France broke the laws on spending and when other members complained they HD kept to the commissions austerity plans and France hadn't. Junker said " because they are france" Something tells me it would be different had the uk breached state aid rules which are a complicated matter. I dont know if we could have offered the incentives other countries offered from 2010 to 2020 when we were in the e.u but I would have thought there would be some mechanism. | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 " Thank you for this! I'm taking these figures at face value, but they prove my comment that guess work on component costs was happening in certain comments | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
"The rules of origin clause for automobiles will depend on the specific trade deal. The UK-EU one becomes progressively stricter over time up to 65%. There is also a specific requirement for 60% of battery content which will not be a feature of any historic trade deals. You are glad that you agree with what literally everyone has been saying throughout? That the UK-EU deal will be renegotiated yet again to delay the introduction of this rule? The "point" is that the EU is way ahead in its battery provision and it is not suffering from delayed investment or being screwed for subsidies as hard as the UK sadly is. You can understand that, right? | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 " Bookmygarage.com is not really going to tell you very much about vehicle build costs or if battery packs are being subsidised to consumers. Why not look up what the manufacturing cost breakdown of an EV is? That will give you a better idea of the percentage of the production cost of a vehicle. You are, perhaps, a little naïve about the difference in cost of production and cost of retail and everything that comes in between. | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 Thank you for this! I'm taking these figures at face value, but they prove my comment that guess work on component costs was happening in certain comments " You should, perhaps, consider looking up the manufacturing costs of an EV before you think that you have "proved"something. You still have failed to explain how this changes the specific rules of origin around batteries or how this helps uncertainty around UK investment and the ability of manufacturers to demand higher subsidies. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
seems to me the interesting stat would be waht percentage of UK made cars are sold to EU and vice versa. I don't think anyone has said it's not an eu issue (given its a brexit consequence) but that the EU can absorb the hit more than the UK. That's based in general size difference... bit there may be something interesting in the automotive space.
People claimed the uk couldn't concentrate on e.v battery plants because they were concerned with brexit
And that was why the e.u was ahead.may be a grain of truth. I'm not an expert.
Do you think the EU are ahead ?
It will depend on what policies they want in places if they insist like the uk on having 2030 decarbon policies the yes.
If Nissan increases its capacities the likely not.
For now I think its ahead of the uk because bo plant has been built here since 2011.
13 years of nothing
6 of which wer pre vote 4 of which were prior to leaving .so more lack of any planning rather than brexit related. Although the case for ev has increased rapidly in recent years and net zero more forefront ... From the outside weve been sleeping at the wheel... and increasingly so in recent years.
Yes sadly.
Lack of planning. And poor policy making from this tory government.( and the e.u)
I don't for the life of me ud erstand the push to have every new car as an e.v by 2030 the I pact is minimal. Puts international pressure on tbe resources of lithium, cobalt etc.
Phase it in more gradually."What has this Government been mainly occupied with since 2016? The move to EVs is due to climate change. The data is enough to scare Governments heavily lobbied and funded by the fossil fuel industry because it scares their military and intelligence services as well as global insurance companies. Why do you think that China, the USA and the EU are all shifting to EVs? Japan was aiming at Hydrogen for similar reasons. The investment required and the shift of a global supply chain for the industry requires legislation to drive the large scale investment needed. To create the economies of scale to change a global industry requires a large, fast shift otherwise it takes far too long. As it did for renewables. Costs have now dived due to volume. That's why it wasn't introduced more gradually. Economies of scale from everything from R&D to mining to manufacture to charging infrastructure. It's a fairly well known and understood economic phenomenon. | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
The rules of origin clause for automobiles will depend on the specific trade deal. The UK-EU one becomes progressively stricter over time up to 65%.
There is also a specific requirement for 60% of battery content which will not be a feature of any historic trade deals.
You are glad that you agree with what literally everyone has been saying throughout? That the UK-EU deal will be renegotiated yet again to delay the introduction of this rule?
The "point" is that the EU is way ahead in its battery provision and it is not suffering from delayed investment or being screwed for subsidies as hard as the UK sadly is.
You can understand that, right?"I have never said the deal wouldn't be re negotiated. You've Made that up. As you tend to do with many things. | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 Bookmygarage.com is not really going to tell you very much about vehicle build costs or if battery packs are being subsidised to consumers. Why not look up what the manufacturing cost breakdown of an EV is? That will give you a better idea of the percentage of the production cost of a vehicle. You are, perhaps, a little naïve about the difference in cost of production and cost of retail and everything that comes in between." No naivety. The cheapest car with the dearest battery is about 50% Indon tknkw what markups you think the car industry works on but they aren't that big. People are free to look at the cost of the battery and the new car price. The average battery is 5k The cheapest car is about 20k that is 25% you need that markup to be about 100% on new cars and no mark up on batteries to be almost right. Feel free to post the input costs of the batteries and markups and input costs on cars. If you want to try and prove that yet again. You've not made something up | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 Thank you for this! I'm taking these figures at face value, but they prove my comment that guess work on component costs was happening in certain comments You should, perhaps, consider looking up the manufacturing costs of an EV before you think that you have "proved"something. You still have failed to explain how this changes the specific rules of origin around batteries or how this helps uncertainty around UK investment and the ability of manufacturers to demand higher subsidies." You understand that no tariffs will be applied under the rule of origin if the conditions are met? You agree that the tariff will be more than likely paused for the UK and EU to prevent an unnecessary tariff until both the UK and EU car manufacturers will be in such a place to fulfil orders without tariffs? You understand that the UK can use EU parts and the EU can use UK parts and qualify for no tariff under Rules of origin? | |||
"The FT reporting that Mercedes are concerned about supply lines being impacted by the EU tariff regime. No no no U must have this all wrong. Earlier in this thread I had no idea what I was speaking about when I said the e.u companies faced the same threat people mocked the uk companies as having. The remainers had to be right that the e.u was far enough ahead and there were no problems on rules of origin impacting the e.u too....
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There are no internal rules of origin to EU countries. They can sell their cars to each other with 100% foreign batteries.
They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise.
The point is that in the meantime, EU investment continues whilst ours remains uncertain until there is confirmation and JLR and Stellantis can use that as leverage to extract further subsidies from us.
No one said about internal roo.
Where do you interpret that from?
Yes they can't export those cars to third countries bow with the roo in place as it is.
I was laughed at and told in this thread it was bollocks and only affected uk . So now we have admittance it affects the e.u too?
Nobody said that the rules of origin was only the UK's problem. The EU are well ahead in battery supply.
This particular regulation is only between the UK and the EU.
The USA are releasing some separate battery sourcing rules to qualify for EV credits too.
Whatever your winning, it's on some other argument happening in your own head.
You were and are laughed at because you keep doing the same thing.
This regulation affects the uk and e.u and their ftas in other countries.
They are concerned now because of tbe amount of cars we buy from them and they want it changed but risk a policy and restriction that affects all trade.
I am glad people are now seeing this is an problem for the e.u and not just the uk
The rules of origin clause for automobiles will depend on the specific trade deal. The UK-EU one becomes progressively stricter over time up to 65%.
There is also a specific requirement for 60% of battery content which will not be a feature of any historic trade deals.
You are glad that you agree with what literally everyone has been saying throughout? That the UK-EU deal will be renegotiated yet again to delay the introduction of this rule?
The "point" is that the EU is way ahead in its battery provision and it is not suffering from delayed investment or being screwed for subsidies as hard as the UK sadly is.
You can understand that, right?
I have never said the deal wouldn't be re negotiated.
You've Made that up.
As you tend to do with many things.""They just couldn't sell them to us without yet another renegotiation of Brexit. That's what Mercedes are upset about and that's why there will be a renegotiation. Nobody has said otherwise." Have some quiet time now. | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 Thank you for this! I'm taking these figures at face value, but they prove my comment that guess work on component costs was happening in certain comments You should, perhaps, consider looking up the manufacturing costs of an EV before you think that you have "proved"something. You still have failed to explain how this changes the specific rules of origin around batteries or how this helps uncertainty around UK investment and the ability of manufacturers to demand higher subsidies. You understand that no tariffs will be applied under the rule of origin if the conditions are met? You agree that the tariff will be more than likely paused for the UK and EU to prevent an unnecessary tariff until both the UK and EU car manufacturers will be in such a place to fulfil orders without tariffs? You understand that the UK can use EU parts and the EU can use UK parts and qualify for no tariff under Rules of origin? " I do understand that perfectly well. I haven't said otherwise. I have been saying that not having battery factories here remains a major problem. All the battery capacity in the EU will be used in the EU, unless UK manufacturers choose to pay more, increasing direct costs in addition to that of border friction. We will be at the back of the line (although unable to accept that concept). That makes continued production of complete vehicles in the UK less attractive. Does that make sense to you or do you have a different position? Even though there will eventually be renegotiation of the trade terms, until confirmed there will be investment uncertainty in the UK but not in the EU. We become less attractive for investment. This then forces the Government into making more concessions to business to attract them than they would have done, costing the tax payer more. Does that make sense to you or do you have a different position? That's all that I have actually said. What point are you making, as I appear to have missed it. | |||
"FYI for all on tbe above claim about the cost of an e.v battery. The battery costs. Audi e-tron - £6,194.40 (71.2) Audi e-tron GT - £8,125.80 (93.4) Audi Q4 e-tron - £4,524 (55) BMW i4 - £7,299.30 (80.7) BMW i7 - £9,195.90 (105.7) BMW iX - £6,664.20 (76.6) BMW iX1 - £5,916 (68) BMW iX3 - £6,960 (80) Citroën Ami - £445.50 (5.5) Citroën ë-Berlingo - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-C4 - £4,350 (50) Citroën ë-Spacetourer - £4,350 (50) Cupra e-Born - £5,046 (62) DS 3 Crossback E-Tense - £4,350 (50) Fiat 500e - £3,654 (42) Ford Mustang Mach-E - £6,525 (75) Genesis G80 - £7,586.40 (87.2) Genesis GV60 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Genesis GV70 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Honda e - £3,088.50 (35.5) Hyundai Ioniq 5 - £5,063.40 (58.2) Hyundai Ioniq 6 - £6,699 (77) Hyundai Kona Electric - £3,410.40 (39.2) Jaguar I-Pace - £7,830 (90) Kia EV6 - £6,733.80 (77.4) Kia e-Niro - £5,637.60 (64.8) Kia Soul EV - £5,568 (64) Lexus UX300e - £4,724.10 (54.3) Maxus eDeliver 3 - £3,045 (35) Maxus eDeliver 9 - £4,480.50 (51.5) Mazda MX-30 - £3,088.50 (35.5) Mercedes-Benz EQA - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQB - £5,785.50 (66.5) Mercedes-Benz EQC - £7,395 (85) Mercedes-Benz EQE - £8,700 (100) Mercedes-Benz EQS - £10,440 (120) Mercedes-Benz ESQ SUV - £9,430.80 (108.4) Mercedes-Benz EQV - £8,700 (100) MG4 EV - £4,437 (51) MG5 EV - £5,307 (61) MG ZS EV - £4,445.70 (51.1) MINI Electric - £2,836.20 (32.6) Nissan Ariya - £5,742 (66) Nissan Leaf - £3,393 (39) ORA Funky Cat - £4,176 (48) Peugeot e-208 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-2008 - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Rifter - £4,350 (50) Peugeot e-Traveller - £4,350 (50) Polestar 2 - £6,003 (69) Polestar 3 - £9,657 (111) Porsche Taycan - £6,890.40 (79.2) Renault Kangoo Van e-Tech - £3,915 (45) Renault Master e-Tech - £4,524 (52) Renault Megane e-Tech - £5,220 (60) Renault Zoe - £4,524 (52) Škoda ENYAQ iV - £5,394 (62) Škoda ENYAQ Coupe - £7,134 (82) Smart fortwo EQ - £1,531.20 (17.6) Subaru Solterra - £6,525 (75) Tesla Model 3 - £5,220 (60) Tesla Model S - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model X - £8,700 (100) Tesla Model Y - £7,134 (82) Toyota BZ4x - £6,211.80 (71.4) Toyota Proace Electric - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Combo-e Life - £4,959 (57) Vauxhall Corsa-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Mokka-e - £4,350 (50) Vauxhall Movano Electric - £7,830 (90) Vauxhall Vivaro-e Life - £4,350 (50) Volkswagen ID.3 - £5,046 (58) Volkswagen ID.4 - £4,785 (55) Volkswagen ID.5 - £7,134 (82) Volkswagen ID.Buzz - £7,134 (82) Volvo C40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) Volvo XC40 Recharge - £6,003 (69) You can look up tbe prices of the cheapest ev vehicles I their class here by googling nimblefins average-cost-electric-uk Do you think the average cost is 40-50%? Given the cheapest new car is 22k and the most expensive battery is 10440 Bookmygarage.com is not really going to tell you very much about vehicle build costs or if battery packs are being subsidised to consumers. Why not look up what the manufacturing cost breakdown of an EV is? That will give you a better idea of the percentage of the production cost of a vehicle. You are, perhaps, a little naïve about the difference in cost of production and cost of retail and everything that comes in between. No naivety. The cheapest car with the dearest battery is about 50% Indon tknkw what markups you think the car industry works on but they aren't that big. People are free to look at the cost of the battery and the new car price. The average battery is 5k The cheapest car is about 20k that is 25% you need that markup to be about 100% on new cars and no mark up on batteries to be almost right. Feel free to post the input costs of the batteries and markups and input costs on cars. If you want to try and prove that yet again. You've not made something up " This is industry specific knowledge and not widely published unless you want to read technical papers and industry analyses. This is fairly easily read though: https://www.ft.com/content/a7e58ce7-4fab-424a-b1fa-f833ce948cb7 8000/20000 = 40% There is a bit more analysis based on this from an InsideEVs article based on the same data "EVs Are Still 45% More Expensive To Make Than Combustion-Engined Cars" Prices should will down with scale, so actually a diminishing problem unless you are unable to secure your own supply. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ " Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. | |||
| |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. " If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances." Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. | |||
" If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. " And therein lies the problem. A private business is essentially saying to the government, "Give us taxpayer's money and we can continue to fund our business and employ people." That's market distortion. If the business is only viable with taxpayers money, then it should be nationalised, because the owners are too stupid to run a business, or their idea has no economic merit or stability. It's also not fair to other competitors who don't receive government (read taxpayer) largesse competing in the same market. It does sound like a jolly good wheeze (read corruption) for said CEO's and their Government Chums however. | |||
" If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. And therein lies the problem. A private business is essentially saying to the government, "Give us taxpayer's money and we can continue to fund our business and employ people." That's market distortion. If the business is only viable with taxpayers money, then it should be nationalised, because the owners are too stupid to run a business, or their idea has no economic merit or stability. It's also not fair to other competitors who don't receive government (read taxpayer) largesse competing in the same market. It does sound like a jolly good wheeze (read corruption) for said CEO's and their Government Chums however. " That's a problem that we caused ourselves through things like "taking back control" of our borders from the free movement of goods. The introduction of a market distortion which has to be compensated for. A spiralling problem. Equally, the market doesn't provide for everything and requires the reallocation of resources. It's always juggling, but,as I said, certain circumstances slant the table one way or the other. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. " People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? " What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? " Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language." You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward " I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU." Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. " Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy?" Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. " I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable." You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. " Speaking of EVs not being the future. Something I never considered but seen an article this morning re. multi-story car parks. Apparently lots of them built over 50 years ago aren't man enough to accommodate EVs over 2.5t | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable." You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. " As you wish. Just a change of subject though. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. Speaking of EVs not being the future. Something I never considered but seen an article this morning re. multi-story car parks. Apparently lots of them built over 50 years ago aren't man enough to accommodate EVs over 2.5t" True. That's because of the range anxiety problem which is a genuine problem for the minority. Shorter range, faster 5 minute) charging would fix that, but requires a refocusing. That said parking spaces are also too narrow, but that can be solved with paint! | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? " If you like. It's more expensive due to import costs. I also explained why there would be a premium charged if we have to buy EU batteries in order to sell back to them. UK companies would have to pay whatever price was demanded if we do not have adequate domestic supply. Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. I have no clue what point you are making at the end. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. " I believe that in the near future the F1 motor racing will be using synthetic fuels as well as an increase in the amount of electric power. Hopefully both will benefit | |||
"Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it." Pretty much every EV battery is made up of 18650 or 2170 cells. These are the standard sizes produced by all battery manufacturers. The one exception is Tesla, who moved to their own specialist size of 4680 for some of their cars. The point is, with the exception of Tesla, all EV battery cells are standard sizes, and any manufacturer can use cells from any battery company. From a manufacturer's point of view, they are indeed just like the batteries that you put in your remote control. | |||
"Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. Pretty much every EV battery is made up of 18650 or 2170 cells. These are the standard sizes produced by all battery manufacturers. The one exception is Tesla, who moved to their own specialist size of 4680 for some of their cars. The point is, with the exception of Tesla, all EV battery cells are standard sizes, and any manufacturer can use cells from any battery company. From a manufacturer's point of view, they are indeed just like the batteries that you put in your remote control." In fact, Tesla is looking to increase cell size. There are also prismatic and pouch cells in widespread use. It's not the cell size. It's the chemistry and associated performance parameters. As I stated previously. Heating, charge rates, discharge rates, degradation etc, etc, etc. Both hardware and software are tuned to this. If you don't believe me, don't believe me. | |||
"Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it." "Pretty much every EV battery is made up of 18650 or 2170 cells. These are the standard sizes produced by all battery manufacturers. The one exception is Tesla, who moved to their own specialist size of 4680 for some of their cars. The point is, with the exception of Tesla, all EV battery cells are standard sizes, and any manufacturer can use cells from any battery company. From a manufacturer's point of view, they are indeed just like the batteries that you put in your remote control." "In fact, Tesla is looking to increase cell size." And they can do that because they make their own cells. Everyone else just buys the standard ones available everywhere. "There are also prismatic and pouch cells in widespread use." Those cells exist, and are in common use, but they aren't used in EVs. Both of those formats have too many cooling issues to be used in EVs. You seem to be conflating 'cells' and 'packs'. A battery pack is made of lots of cells, and it has a management system that has to control charge and discharge rates, cooling, leveling, etc. A battery cell is a small cylinder full of chemicals, built to a standard size. Cells are completely interchangeable, even between manufacturers. So if your contention is that car manufacturers don't all use the same battery pack, then you're right, they don't. If you are really saying that they don't all use the same cells, then you've misunderstood how batteries are made. Either way, you should stop using the word 'cells' when you're talking about 'packs'. | |||
"Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. Pretty much every EV battery is made up of 18650 or 2170 cells. These are the standard sizes produced by all battery manufacturers. The one exception is Tesla, who moved to their own specialist size of 4680 for some of their cars. The point is, with the exception of Tesla, all EV battery cells are standard sizes, and any manufacturer can use cells from any battery company. From a manufacturer's point of view, they are indeed just like the batteries that you put in your remote control. In fact, Tesla is looking to increase cell size. And they can do that because they make their own cells. Everyone else just buys the standard ones available everywhere. There are also prismatic and pouch cells in widespread use. Those cells exist, and are in common use, but they aren't used in EVs. Both of those formats have too many cooling issues to be used in EVs. You seem to be conflating 'cells' and 'packs'. A battery pack is made of lots of cells, and it has a management system that has to control charge and discharge rates, cooling, leveling, etc. A battery cell is a small cylinder full of chemicals, built to a standard size. Cells are completely interchangeable, even between manufacturers. So if your contention is that car manufacturers don't all use the same battery pack, then you're right, they don't. If you are really saying that they don't all use the same cells, then you've misunderstood how batteries are made. Either way, you should stop using the word 'cells' when you're talking about 'packs'." No, Tesla buys cells as well as manufacturing its own. Pouch and prismatic cells as well as structural battery cells are also being introduced now. I am not "conflating" anything. You just don't understand enough about what you're reading. You are just plain wrong. I am talking about cells because I want to talk about cells. If I wanted to talk about modules or packs, I would. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. Speaking of EVs not being the future. Something I never considered but seen an article this morning re. multi-story car parks. Apparently lots of them built over 50 years ago aren't man enough to accommodate EVs over 2.5t True. That's because of the range anxiety problem which is a genuine problem for the minority. Shorter range, faster 5 minute) charging would fix that, but requires a refocusing. That said parking spaces are also too narrow, but that can be solved with paint!" Not quite as simple as that I am afraid. With a friend that's a financial controller at q parks( car park group). It's nowhere near that easy. We've had this discussion. Do you get customers to pay, do you increase charges for all customers, do you reduce your car park from 250 spaces to 100 spaces to fit them in, donyou lease the xhargers, do you buy outright. Insurance of charging points. It's a huge investment and risk for them | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? If you like. It's more expensive due to import costs. I also explained why there would be a premium charged if we have to buy EU batteries in order to sell back to them. UK companies would have to pay whatever price was demanded if we do not have adequate domestic supply. Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. I have no clue what point you are making at the end." But they already have supply contracts with companies. You can't just change the pricing. Remember youw ere the one that said they had supply contracts. Again. What do you do if the uk manufacturer comes to your plant for 20k batteries and an e.u manufacturer comes for 4k? You didn't seem to answer that. Why is the battery kaker picking ghe e.u trader? Your point on battery type doesn't matter if they're already manufacturing them for uk manufacturers | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. Speaking of EVs not being the future. Something I never considered but seen an article this morning re. multi-story car parks. Apparently lots of them built over 50 years ago aren't man enough to accommodate EVs over 2.5t True. That's because of the range anxiety problem which is a genuine problem for the minority. Shorter range, faster 5 minute) charging would fix that, but requires a refocusing. That said parking spaces are also too narrow, but that can be solved with paint! Not quite as simple as that I am afraid. With a friend that's a financial controller at q parks( car park group). It's nowhere near that easy. We've had this discussion. Do you get customers to pay, do you increase charges for all customers, do you reduce your car park from 250 spaces to 100 spaces to fit them in, donyou lease the xhargers, do you buy outright. Insurance of charging points. It's a huge investment and risk for them " I didn't say that there was not a problem with the current generation of EVs and battery chemistries. That will change if the approach changes with smaller batteries and safer batteries. The bay size is more about the fact that cars have got much, much bigger regardless of fuel type driven mainly by the switch to SUVs. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You know my thoughts, EV's are not the future, over priced, infrastructure issues, customer hesitancy, poor in the co2 used to produce the cars and the exploitation of labour in the extraction of core materials. Synthetic fuels, however... and yes I know I'm listening to those with interests in making the stuff. Speaking of EVs not being the future. Something I never considered but seen an article this morning re. multi-story car parks. Apparently lots of them built over 50 years ago aren't man enough to accommodate EVs over 2.5t True. That's because of the range anxiety problem which is a genuine problem for the minority. Shorter range, faster 5 minute) charging would fix that, but requires a refocusing. That said parking spaces are also too narrow, but that can be solved with paint!" Spaces being too small is an issue, not an EV issue though. The article spoke mainly about structural issues and weight distribution. I guess that's because of battery weight? I'm one of those who has 'range anxiety', not necessarily because I travel that far but its a convenience things versus ICE vehicles. Most people want convenience whether we like that or not. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? If you like. It's more expensive due to import costs. I also explained why there would be a premium charged if we have to buy EU batteries in order to sell back to them. UK companies would have to pay whatever price was demanded if we do not have adequate domestic supply. Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. I have no clue what point you are making at the end. But they already have supply contracts with companies. You can't just change the pricing. Remember youw ere the one that said they had supply contracts. Again. What do you do if the uk manufacturer comes to your plant for 20k batteries and an e.u manufacturer comes for 4k? You didn't seem to answer that. Why is the battery kaker picking ghe e.u trader? Your point on battery type doesn't matter if they're already manufacturing them for uk manufacturers "Then the UK does not receive batteries and will be taxed on its exports to the EU. Again, there will be more demand in the EU for domestic supply for some time to come, so the answer to the hypothetical question that wasn't answered because you didn't ask until now is moot. Until EU supply is met the UK car manufacturers are knocking on doors. If UK manufacturers design their entire systems around what they can get in the UK from the one factory, then they will pay whatever price is demanded as they have no choice and they may not be using a cell type appropriate for the use case and therefore building an inferior product. The requirements for the performance of a Nissan Leaf are very different to that of a Range Rover Sport. | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? If you like. It's more expensive due to import costs. I also explained why there would be a premium charged if we have to buy EU batteries in order to sell back to them. UK companies would have to pay whatever price was demanded if we do not have adequate domestic supply. Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. I have no clue what point you are making at the end. But they already have supply contracts with companies. You can't just change the pricing. Remember youw ere the one that said they had supply contracts. Again. What do you do if the uk manufacturer comes to your plant for 20k batteries and an e.u manufacturer comes for 4k? You didn't seem to answer that. Why is the battery kaker picking ghe e.u trader? Your point on battery type doesn't matter if they're already manufacturing them for uk manufacturers
Then the UK does not receive batteries and will be taxed on its exports to the EU.
Again, there will be more demand in the EU for domestic supply for some time to come, so the answer to the hypothetical question that wasn't answered because you didn't ask until now is moot.
Until EU supply is met the UK car manufacturers are knocking on doors.
If UK manufacturers design their entire systems around what they can get in the UK from the one factory, then they will pay whatever price is demanded as they have no choice and they may not be using a cell type appropriate for the use case and therefore building an inferior product.
The requirements for the performance of a Nissan Leaf are very different to that of a Range Rover Sport."What % cars manufactured in the UK go to the EU? | |||
"The word is that they're being supported to the tune of 500m on the battery plan and 300m on the steel side/ Taxpayer supported, of course. Because the biggest welfare scroungers are Corporations. That's 800 million that could have gone to supporting national and local services, being redirected to corporate welfare. If the subsidies retains an industry that supports thousands of jobs and produces thousands of high value products then that will pay itself many times over. Government needs to earn money to be able to spend it. However I agree that the table is tilted towards manufacturers under the current circumstances. Why will it "pay itself many times over"? If the government subsidises manufacture of products that nobody wants to buy then what use is it? It's just a misallocation of capital that would have been better spent elsewhere. People do want to buy them, but have created a situation, of their own free will, where it has made it uneconomical to build them here. However, if they are not built here they will lose their jobs and not be able to buy anything. Complicated, isn't it? What evidence do you have that "people want to buy them"? Your argument is totally simplistic as usual and guided by economic illiteracy and eco zealotry. You are suggesting that government subsidy is a good thing regardless of whether the expenditure is likely to generate a positive return for the taxpayer, simply because people then have "jobs" and can spend their taxpayer funded cash or borrowed or printed money on "stuff". So shouldn't the government just give everyone a massive subsidy and we will all be rich? Why doesn't the government pay everyone £1 million a year to plant trees and we can all retire and the planet will be saved? Do you believe that people do not want to buy JLR or Vauxhall or Mini cars? Sales figures appear to indicate otherwise. Picking through the insults you seem to be saying that subsidies to attract investment do not work. In isolation, there is no logic to subsidies. That is absolutely correct. However, if your closest economic competitors are offering subsidies so that they can quickly ramp up production to protect themselves from overreliance on China then the normal decision making process will have been disrupted. These subsidies seem to be relatively short term. There is an argument that Government subsidy also enables the private funding which would not have been attracted otherwise. We are a smaller market, so at somewhat of a disadvantage anyway. We can pretend this is not happening and let our automotive industry and supply chain close. Then what? Do we hope that it is replaced with something else? How do we pay for the benefits needed to look after the newly unemployed? The consequences of rapid deindustrialisation were played out under Margret Thatcher's government and the long term consequences of how it was approached were pretty grim. This isn't about "giving people money" is it? It's about retaining a competitive, high value industry. Interested to hear your alternative scenario though. Preferably with less abusive language. You keep looking at everything in isolation, I have suggested that there is room here for better working relationships that do not attract tariffs. Apple do not make all of their components for their phones, car manufacturers might be able to adopt a similar model than going it alone. silo mentality is the problem, better cleaner more efficient sourcing could / should be the way forward I don't look at anything in isolation. The automotive industry has always functioned like apple. A large proportion of its components are built, and designed, by it's tier 1 suppliers. Globalisation was the removal of silos. They are now being reimposed due to the geopolitics with China and, specifically the topic of this thread, with the Brexit trade relationship with the EU. This is the actual consequence of Brexit being experienced. There is room for as many renegotiations as are wished, but that continues to create UK investment uncertainty but not for the EU. Exactly and if it is cheaper to build a battery in the EU and ship it to the UK or have vehicles shipped to the EU to have a battery fitted rather than build new production lines, training etc, that is what will happen. If the car manufacturers pull out of the UK altogether that will be their choice, however it is not the end of the world and this has happened many times before. Worried about unemployment? Stop chasing the motor industry and start focusing the money being given as sweetener's into the UK infrastructure. Nuclear power plants, would be a good place to start, we need more energy for the EV's, housing we need more social housing and the abundance of jobs those investments would create is far more substantial than what the car industry would provide. Not sure why we are repeating this loop. There will be a shortage of EU produced batteries for a few years as production ramps up. They will be used by EU based factories unless the UK pays a premium, although most of not all are already tied to supplying specific companies. If there is no battery supply in the UK, the "renegotiation" continues until the EU no longer has to as it meets the rules of origin requirement. At that point it can kill a large proportion of UK exports to the EU forcing car factory moves or ramp up their battery production to sell to us such that the economic benefits accrue to them not us. If your view is that this industry (and presumably all other manufacturing) will cost more than we can afford that is up to you. We build nuclear power stations and social housing for our own needs as our industrial strategy? Why would the uk pay a premium? If you have a car supplier purchasing 20k batteries from. The e.u vs an e.u purchased buying 5k Why would they choose the e.u car maker? Not really getting the logic there. As you say , agreements exist for supply. Unless you're advocating market intervention? We discussed the expansion capacity of the uk side. In Sunderland. You seemed to ignore it. I will write the same thing differently, again. The EU is building higher EV battery capacity. The EU will be building more cars than domestically built batteries for some time. Demand within the EU for EU built batteries is higher than supply. Most, if not all new battery factories are already tied into supply contracts with EU car manufacturers. It provides the business case for the financing. EU manufacturers may release some of their supply to the UK. There will be a premium because there is additional trade cost with the EU in red tape and transportation even if they do not choose to charge more to non-EU owned companies. Likely they would. Why would they not want higher profits. We cannot buy batteries anywhere else and meet the rules of origin requirement. Sunderland can expand. In whatever timeframe and cost it takes. I did not ignore that. I explained why it was not the solution that you seem to think that it is. As I stated previously, battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control. The battery system is tailored to a specific cell chemistry and design. Battery manufacturing costs rely on millions of identical cells being produced. Car companies will not be redesigning their battery systems just for UK built cars to match the available batteries from the factory that happens to exist in the UK. Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types. Not financially viable. You say they're tied in with e.u companies for contracts. Got the proof there easy? Or is this lilke the value of the battery being 40% again? A premium isn't red tape cost. Premium is what you charge your customer. Not the customs charge. You're attempting to change whatbremium means in business so why are they going to charge uk businesses more? Again transportation wouldn't be a premium. That would be a transport cost. Why would they have to re design a battery you've gone off on a tangent there if the contract already exists. Or did you believe uk got bi supply of batteries previously from inside the e.u for its ev market? If you like. It's more expensive due to import costs. I also explained why there would be a premium charged if we have to buy EU batteries in order to sell back to them. UK companies would have to pay whatever price was demanded if we do not have adequate domestic supply. Battery pack and management system design is tailored to cells. Temperature performance. Charge and discharge behaviour, etc, etc, etc. As I said, not like your remote control. So, just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it. I have no clue what point you are making at the end. But they already have supply contracts with companies. You can't just change the pricing. Remember youw ere the one that said they had supply contracts. Again. What do you do if the uk manufacturer comes to your plant for 20k batteries and an e.u manufacturer comes for 4k? You didn't seem to answer that. Why is the battery kaker picking ghe e.u trader? Your point on battery type doesn't matter if they're already manufacturing them for uk manufacturers
Then the UK does not receive batteries and will be taxed on its exports to the EU.
Again, there will be more demand in the EU for domestic supply for some time to come, so the answer to the hypothetical question that wasn't answered because you didn't ask until now is moot.
Until EU supply is met the UK car manufacturers are knocking on doors.
If UK manufacturers design their entire systems around what they can get in the UK from the one factory, then they will pay whatever price is demanded as they have no choice and they may not be using a cell type appropriate for the use case and therefore building an inferior product.
The requirements for the performance of a Nissan Leaf are very different to that of a Range Rover Sport."Sorry why doesn't tbe uk get batteries? Explain? | |||
| |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say " It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. | |||
"No, Tesla buys cells as well as manufacturing its own." Yes, that's what I said earlier when I said that only Tesla uses a non-standard size, and they only use it on some of their vehicles. "Pouch and prismatic cells ... are also being introduced now." No they aren't, not in EVs. "I am not "conflating" anything. I am talking about cells because I want to talk about cells. If I wanted to talk about modules or packs, I would." Then why did you say "battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control"? That's true of packs, but not cells. Why did you say "Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types", if you knew that there are only 2 cell types relevant to EVs, and all existing battery factories manufacture both types? And why did you say "just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it"? That would be true of battery packs, but it isn't true of cells. Are you sure that you're using the right words? | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries." So you believe those manufacturers are all inside the e.u What makes you say that Have you got evidence. Again big claim. What's the backup? Lots of hot air with little substance here easy. | |||
"No, Tesla buys cells as well as manufacturing its own. Yes, that's what I said earlier when I said that only Tesla uses a non-standard size, and they only use it on some of their vehicles. Pouch and prismatic cells ... are also being introduced now. No they aren't, not in EVs. I am not "conflating" anything. I am talking about cells because I want to talk about cells. If I wanted to talk about modules or packs, I would. Then why did you say "battery cells are not interchangeable like those you buy for your remote control"? That's true of packs, but not cells. Why did you say "Battery factories will not be producing multiple different cell types", if you knew that there are only 2 cell types relevant to EVs, and all existing battery factories manufacture both types? And why did you say "just because one factory outputs more of a specific type of battery cell it doesn't mean any car company can use it"? That would be true of battery packs, but it isn't true of cells. Are you sure that you're using the right words?" I said what I meant. I will repeat, yet again, that different cell chemistries in exactly the same form factor will have different operating characteristics which require different control systems and module and pack designs. Using an identical cell shape with a different chemistry can require substantial engineering change. If the factory that makes cells for Nissan makes more of the same cells, as was indicated, that doesn't mean that JLR can use them for their cars even if they are cylindrical and not one of the other designs. I know exactly what words I am using and why. You are demonstrating that you do not. Do keep going though. | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. So you believe those manufacturers are all inside the e.u What makes you say that Have you got evidence. Again big claim. What's the backup? Lots of hot air with little substance here easy." I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I also don't understand what "big claim" you need evidence for. 30+ battery factories are being built in the EU just to satisfy domestic demand as production transitions to fully electric. You can do a little research, which considering how far through the thread we are, it's surprising that you haven't. You can discover which battery manufacturers have agreements with which car manufacturers. Do you think that there are not going to be enough EVs built in the entire EU to accept this level of output? Why do you think that the UK based car companies are making a fuss? Again, investment is being delayed here and not in the UK whilst car companies use the leverage to extract more subsidies from the UK taxpayer. What point are you trying to make? | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries." There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.* | |||
"I know exactly what words I am using and why." Well it's good that you know what you mean. | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.*" You seem to think the e.u is 1 big company? | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.* You seem to think the e.u is 1 big company?" No, I think that it is one big domestic market whilst we are a foreign one. It is easier to trade domestically. | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.* You seem to think the e.u is 1 big company? No, I think that it is one big domestic market whilst we are a foreign one. It is easier to trade domestically." What is the % of cars exported from UK manufacturers? | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.* You seem to think the e.u is 1 big company? No, I think that it is one big domestic market whilst we are a foreign one. It is easier to trade domestically. What is the % of cars exported from UK manufacturers?" I only see articles for 2021 on this so may have changed a bit but in 2021 82% of UK build vehicles were exported. | |||
"It's a simple question I've asked several tiema and several times you have avoided answering. Why would tbe uk be at the back of the queue? If the manufacturers offer tk buy more than their continental competitors? Why suddenly do contracts you stipulated exist for supply. No longer matter? I won't ask again after this If you can't answer. Just say It's a simple answer that you do not want to hear. Most of not all factories being built are already tied into manufacturers. In part due to the close technical and engineering relationship which you also don't seem to believe exists. So no conversation to have anyway. There will not be more demand than supply in the EU for some time. There is greater business certainty and simplicity in supplying to the domestic market at the same cost than an uncertain foreign market with associated political, tariff and currency fluctuations. If you can sell all that you make then the business logic is to sell to the customer which minimises your risk and cost. Not the UK unless it pays a risk premium for the privilege. If you still don't understand, just say. I can be patient as you seem to be struggling with some basics on how businesses make decisions and certainly do not understand the automotive or battery supply industries. There will be more demand than supply in the EU for some time.* You seem to think the e.u is 1 big company? No, I think that it is one big domestic market whilst we are a foreign one. It is easier to trade domestically. What is the % of cars exported from UK manufacturers?" SMMT 2022 78% of UK car production is exported. 58% of those exports go to the EU. This is what is under threat, or at least requires significant thought. | |||
