FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit - a solution to the problems in the car industry
Brexit - a solution to the problems in the car industry
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK
Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.
If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...
but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again
and it actually doesn't say a single thing
i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....
so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize......  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think what this says is that we can offset the impact of pulling out of the eu by throwing taxpayers money at the problem, something we can't do under the EU (think there are R&D tax reliefs already tho)
Sounds protectionist to me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over."
Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.
Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars..."
Electric probably can't power planes reliability.
It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.
Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.
Solar is better for the national grid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.
Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...
Electric probably can't power planes reliability.
It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.
Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.
Solar is better for the national grid."
If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.
Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.
Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.
The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK
Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.
If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem."
copied and pasted.you are a weak man  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.
Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...
Electric probably can't power planes reliability.
It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.
Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.
Solar is better for the national grid.
If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.
Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.
Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.
The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else."
Kind of disagree on cars going fully electric in the next decade.
A big issue is driving down the cost. Part of this is in the market accessibility of them - electronic cars suffer bad PR regarding battery duration, this makes people less eager to buy something that is already expensive. A limiting factor of the cells are rare earth metals available. These need to become cheaper.
In the long term yes, over the next decade, I think hydrogen is more implementable.
I'm interested about the shipping point you raised, any references I can Google? Everything nice heard says that there are too many variables for solar and wind to be viable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"We had a hydrogen car and transport summit in Leeds yesterday. Got chatting to the development lead for Hyundai's North UK implication team. They just lost 5 contracts for the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK, 4 in the North and Midlands.
A whole lot of sustainable jobs and technical apprenticeships have been lost to Italy, Western Spain and S.France.
Our gov was offering up 15% funding via the department for low emissions. The EU a further 20%, the rest was private sector investment.
We've lost it all. We could have been leading the world in implementing zero emission private transportation systems, through mainly market forces, and in 2 years the current contracts end and there are no more rolling over.
Hydrogen is not the answer, electricity is. You should visit Milton Keynes, the land of the concrete cow is a fine example of green energy and electric cars...
Electric probably can't power planes reliability.
It won't be able to power shipping tankers 100% either.
Hydrogen will be easier to work into our fuel supply chain for transportation.
Solar is better for the national grid.
If I may arbitrate, electricity is the answer to some transportation, hydrogen to others.
Personal transport most likely to be electric. Relatively short distances and small loads.
Heavy goods, trains, shipping will be hydrogen. The extra mass dor pressurised fuel tanks not such a penalty. Shipping is moving in the potential fuel source and has the surface area for solar panels and wind generation to drive the process.
The future is not fossil fuels just from the perspective of pollution if nothing else.
Kind of disagree on cars going fully electric in the next decade.
A big issue is driving down the cost. Part of this is in the market accessibility of them - electronic cars suffer bad PR regarding battery duration, this makes people less eager to buy something that is already expensive. A limiting factor of the cells are rare earth metals available. These need to become cheaper.
In the long term yes, over the next decade, I think hydrogen is more implementable.
I'm interested about the shipping point you raised, any references I can Google? Everything nice heard says that there are too many variables for solar and wind to be viable."
I don't think there is any logic in developing one set of infrastructure and technology and then replacing it with another.
There is some logic in having electric cars for domestic use, as the infrastructure already exists everywhere and a more limited, parallel hydrogen one that can be based in depots for lorries, buses and train yards.
Marine hydrogen:
Race for Water
Powercell Sweden
Fiskerstrand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Wow.
You have written all of that and said nothing.
I'd respond, but there is nothing to actually work with.
Not even the source.
Top quartile post right there  "
That must be good news then as if the post says nothing it allows you to put your time to more productive use though I note that you still choose to type out a few comments . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...
but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again
and it actually doesn't say a single thing
i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....
so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... "
Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...
but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again
and it actually doesn't say a single thing
i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....
so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it . "
october 31st. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"i thought easy was kidding when he said that pats post doesn't actually say anything...
but then i read it.... again.... and again.... and again
and it actually doesn't say a single thing
i thought at least pat could have thrown in a sarcastic line at the end like "buy leyland/rover....." but nothing for even comedic value.....
so pat... i award the "so many words to say "f*** all" prize...... Hi. Thanks for the prize. When can I collect it . october 31st. "
Good answer and hopefully with Boris as pm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obletonMan
over a year ago
A Home Among The Woodland Creatures |
"The conclusions of a very interesting article on problems facing the car industry . Apologies in advance if it upsets the merchants of doom and gloom or those who prefer not to participate in the success of the UK
Whilst Brexit does have a number of potential cost implications for UK car makers, these are of secondary importance when seeking to understand the reasons for the current global restructuring of the industry, which is largely the result of US trade policy and changing patterns of demand. Moreover, costs can be ameliorated or offset by judicious government policy which would be made easier to introduce once Brexit is completed, as long as the UK does not agree to harmonised regulations and competition policy. The so-called ‘level playing field’ that Theresa May accepted as part of her withdrawal agreement, and which the SMMT seem so eager to form part of any future trade relationship between the UK and the EU, would frustrate many of the policy interventions that would make Brexit work.
If designed and implemented correctly, it is in the introduction of a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy that could potentially ease some of the difficulties faced by the UK car industry. Uncertainty could be addressed. Rising demand could help stimulate car sales in the domestic market. Better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping could help to facilitate the development of an electric vehicle sector. Skills policies could ensure a productive and flexible future workforce. R&D credits and the maintenance of a competitive exchange rate could offset any cost increases resulting from a ‘no deal’ Brexit and/or the introduction of rule of origin regulations. Thus, by making these interventions easier, Brexit could itself become part of the solution, rather than being portrayed as part of the problem."
This was a very similar kind of plan to the ideas being put forward by John Mills.
Things is John Mills is pretty left wing, and I can't see anyone with any left wing ideas like these getting close enough to government to pull them off.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obletonMan
over a year ago
A Home Among The Woodland Creatures |
Other thoughts:
The article calls for "a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy", "better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping", "Skills policies", "R&D credits" and government intervention in currency markets to maintain a competitive exchange rate.
In other words the article calls for much much MUCH more government involvement in the market in order to make brexit a success for the SMMT and the industrial sector in general.
Boris wants "free market capitalism" in other words less government involement in the market - possibly zero involvement if Boris is as keen on the Minford plan as the ERG are.
So what Boris wants and what the SMMT want are polar opposites of each other.
What the SMMT wants is much closer to what the leavers in the Labour party are calling for.
If you want what the SMMT want then vote labour.
If you want Boris, then don't expect to get what this article calls for - expect to be dissapointed instead.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Other thoughts:
The article calls for "a more active industrial and macroeconomic policy", "better targeted infrastructure investment and direct industrial strategy market shaping", "Skills policies", "R&D credits" and government intervention in currency markets to maintain a competitive exchange rate.
In other words the article calls for much much MUCH more government involvement in the market in order to make brexit a success for the SMMT and the industrial sector in general.
Boris wants "free market capitalism" in other words less government involement in the market - possibly zero involvement if Boris is as keen on the Minford plan as the ERG are.
So what Boris wants and what the SMMT want are polar opposites of each other.
What the SMMT wants is much closer to what the leavers in the Labour party are calling for.
If you want what the SMMT want then vote labour.
If you want Boris, then don't expect to get what this article calls for - expect to be dissapointed instead.
"
Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.
If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obletonMan
over a year ago
A Home Among The Woodland Creatures |
"
Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.
If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now."
Yes - I took that context as read.
There is a certain irony don't you think to a right wing boris supporting brexiter posting an article which advocates strongly for what can only be described as a left wing vision of brexit, and one that any idiot could see would never ever ever happen if his man got in.
Likewise I suspect that most right wing boris supporting brexiters would be utterly horrified if the ERG's preferred vision for brexit - the Minford plan, which advocates for complete deregulation of border controls - came to fruition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
Well, actually, the SMMT only want this in the case of a hard Brexit.
If the status quo is maintained they do not expect the public to subsidise the industry any more than it does now.
Yes - I took that context as read.
There is a certain irony don't you think to a right wing boris supporting brexiter posting an article which advocates strongly for what can only be described as a left wing vision of brexit, and one that any idiot could see would never ever ever happen if his man got in.
Likewise I suspect that most right wing boris supporting brexiters would be utterly horrified if the ERG's preferred vision for brexit - the Minford plan, which advocates for complete deregulation of border controls - came to fruition."
Cognitive dissonance.
It's the phrase that just keeps giving.
As does the Dunning-Krueger effect |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
