Just heard on the radio the excellent news that Nissan is to expand its UK operation. To make batteries for EVs.
Why? The main market for their cars is the EU. And EU regs require a certain percentage of local content.
So those nasty EU regs 'we' were so delighted to get away from have resulted in more jobs etc for an area which voted leave.
But it also shows the remoaner doom mongers were also wrong in their predictions.
As a result of Brexit and the EU trade deal, cars with more than 55% (or some number) UK components can be exported to the EU with no tariffs. Cars with batteries made elsewhere might be subject to a tariff.
So a Brexit win. I'm trying to work out if you were showing genuine positive surprise or by mentioning 'nasty EU regs' is trying to be snide?
BTW this is very old news, back in January:
Good. Whether people voted "Leave" or otherwise, more jobs and production are good.
I have to say I was amused by this. One has to ask, however why they have come here, cos if the EU want to be bolchy about it, we now not being in the EU may get dropped from the accepted list cos the rules no longer apply. Brian
In message snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
In fairness to the Brexiteers, one of the Remainers' warnings was about possible problems with the UK manufactures obtaining just-in-time supplies from the EU. I therefore presume that the pre-Brexit UK was incidentally providing jobs in Europe - and will still be doing so.
Err, arch brexiteers hated EU regs. Saying they were imposed on the UK. And bad for the UK.
Yet this one has forced Nissan to bring battery production to the UK. Without it, they'd very likely just have imported them from the far east.
But they are not EU regs
It is a standard term usually found in all trade deals
The only thing that the EU "imposed" here is the actual number in the "percentage of local content" rule
Though of course, that is isn't an EU imposition either. It's a negotiated number that works both ways. They can't sell tariff free goods to us with less than 55% (by value) local content either.
which is good for us how?
And is good for the world how?
Forced? They have manufacturing plants in France and Spain, presumably they could have made batteries there instead of the UK, but they didn't...
Does that EU reg applying to EU countries too surprise you? It is known as a level playing field. ;-) If there was no such reg, do you really think Nissan wouldn't have just imported them from the cheapest place?
What we don't yet know is how much the UK government bribe is.
I wouldn't consider myself an arch-Brexiter. If the EU hadn't expanded in the historical manner it did, and morphed from EEC to EU there would never have been a Brexit. Hence I blame John Major and Tony Bliar for creating the conditions for Brexit.
That's not entirely obvious. Production could have been in the EU. I'm sure car batteries would attract a significant tariff if they were imported from the Far East into the EU. Also, having a manufacturing plant nearby ensures control over the continuity of production.
No, because they would want certainty of supply and quality.
It can never be as much as the money we sent to the EU.
Lots were against the EEC too. meant cutting off - or reducing - our historical ties with the empire.
Err, my point? This EU reg not only benefits the EU but ourselves. If you believe the Brexiteers on here, all EU regs are bad. Made for everyone in the EU except the UK. So a bad thing for the UK. Hence so desperate to leave.
That old chestnut. How about the income from services we'll now loose? And our trade deficit is likely to get larger too.
Not all Brexiters thought that all EU regs were bad. Some of the harmonisation of standards were an improvement, but some countries ignored them and continued their own way.
One example is fire control panels. In virtually every country you can get building fire insurance with a fire control panel to an ISO standard, except Germany. There it must have a further accreditation to German standards.
It's a fact Dave. Ever since we joined the Common MArket, Britain has been a net contributor, along with Germany and few other 'wealthy' common market members. France was a net beneficiary for a long time.
While here in Britain our fire control panels complied with BS5839, unless your name was the GPO/BritishTelecom who had their *own* standard with two-stage evacuation sounders. They refused to fit bog-standard BS5839 panels in occupied exchange buildings
Britiain remained a net beneficiary too - by contributing (investing, if you will) it gained access to markets on beneficial terms. Now those contributions have stopped, it's at best unclear what the position will be.
I think you're saying GB will achieve better trade terms than an EU member state has. I'm sure you'd accept quite a few disagree. Whatever, we won't
*know* for some years yet.I wouldn't mind any of this if GB used the situation to (for example) establish world-leading rights and pay for workers, the highest environmental standards, equal access to health, education and housing, nuclear disarmament and disinvestment in the arms trade, no border controls, and fair trade with partners. Thereby becoming something of a trailblazer, and a nation fit to admire and a good place to live for everyone.
Can't see it, though.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.