23 minutes ago, Basil B said:

No...

 

A lot more are thinking of pulling out, certainly there is a hold on investment by most companies until the future is clear.

 

We have lost a lot for probably very little gain, with the UK likely to accept a watered down version of the EU and no say...

 

 

I always said that they should never have gone in because I knew the bureaucrats would always go for the most restricted and complicated rules for all members, and those most suitable and profitable to Belgian bureaucrats.    It has been contrived so that Britain pays way too much of the  costs for too little of the benefits.  But once in I could never see how they could get out without losing too much.   Let us not forget that it was transparently a French (and a few other states) self defence idea, to tie all the economies together and so stop the Germans invading every 30 odd years.

 

The "Watered down" idea would be great if it watered down UK's contributions.

Edited June 24, 20188 yr by The Deerhunter

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

I always said that they should never have gone in because I knew the bureaucrats would always go for the most restricted and complicated rules for all members, and those most suitable and profitable to Belgian bureaucrats.    It has been contrived so that Britain pays way too much of the  costs for too little of the benefits.  But once in I could never see how they could get out without losing too much.   Let us not forget that it was transparently a French (and a few other states) self defence idea, to tie all the economies together and so stop the Germans invading every 30 odd years.

 

The "Watered down" idea would be great if it watered down UK's contributions.

The net contribution to the EU is a little over 1.1% of the UK's annual expenditures (as of 2016).

 

This would, very roughly, be the same as a £600 per year bill for someone with a salary of £50000.

 

Sure, it might be nice if you didn't have to pay it, but its not going to meaningfully impact your day to day life.

8 hours ago, BuaBS said:

What about jet engines ? Rolls-Royce comes to mind . The Brits could have some leverage there.

https://www.quora.com/Which-companies-make-the-engines-for-Airbus-and-Boeing?share=1

Totally separate businesses the aircraft are bought separately from the engines. RR do not make money on the engines; only the service contracts.

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

No...

 

A lot more are thinking of pulling out, certainly there is a hold on investment by most companies until the future is clear.

 

We have lost a lot for probably very little gain, with the UK likely to accept a watered down version of the EU and no say...

 

 

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE ECONOMY OK?

 

The Brexiters don't know what it's about but it must be about something! The price of fish?

2 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

I always said that they should never have gone in because I knew the bureaucrats would always go for the most restricted and complicated rules for all members, and those most suitable and profitable to Belgian bureaucrats.    It has been contrived so that Britain pays way too much of the  costs for too little of the benefits.  But once in I could never see how they could get out without losing too much.   Let us not forget that it was transparently a French (and a few other states) self defence idea, to tie all the economies together and so stop the Germans invading every 30 odd years.

 

The "Watered down" idea would be great if it watered down UK's contributions.

UK contributions are 0.4% of GDP. We spend 5x that on defence. Cheap at twice the price!

43 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

The net contribution to the EU is a little over 1.1% of the UK's annual expenditures (as of 2016).

 

This would, very roughly, be the same as a £600 per year bill for someone with a salary of £50000.

 

Sure, it might be nice if you didn't have to pay it, but its not going to meaningfully impact your day to day life.

OK.  I take that on board as i have never seen the figures before.   I am only a grubby colonial but my understanding from Brit friends is that UK contribution is much higher on a per-capita basis than any of the other members, which is why they want out.  If it is as you say, then the Brexit people are being bigger idiots than I even thought.

Edited June 24, 20188 yr by The Deerhunter

29 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Totally separate businesses the aircraft are bought separately from the engines. RR do not make money on the engines; only the service contracts.

BuaBS, seriously. Counterintuitive I know but that's how it is. You want an Airbus A320? sign a contract with Airbus and a separate contract with RR

7 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

OK.  I take that on board as i have never seen the figures before.   I am only a grubby colonial but my understanding from Brit friends is that UK contribution is much higher on a per-capita basis than any of the other members, which is why they want out.  If it is as you say, then the Brexit people are being bigger idiots than I even thought.

They talk about net contribution. Some countries are net beneficiaries. The idea is to help countries grow their economies and societies. UK is a major contributor but it's still small IMHO. The aim is to grow the total size of the market and give poorer countries a leg up. Nothing wrong with that!

42 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Totally separate businesses the aircraft are bought separately from the engines. RR do not make money on the engines; only the service contracts.

Also not getting a good press...

4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Also not getting a good press...

Especially if you want to go somewhere on a Boeing 787. Not sure why A350's are not involved.  I thought they were the same engine series.

Typical EU Bruxelles-mafia attitude threats,  from Airbus...

On 6/23/2018 at 4:29 AM, bert bloggs said:

project fear ,alive and well

Right Brexit is project fear.

Many are worried about their jobs, nobody knows how to proceed, uncertainty everywhere.

Brexit is project fear indeed.

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

 

 

Especially if you want to go somewhere on a Boeing 787. Not sure why A350's are not involved.  I thought they were the same engine series.

We save the rejects for Boeing! 

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

Typical EU Bruxelles-mafia attitude threats,  from Airbus...

Just business. Why would Airbus want to risk increased costs?

The FT had this in October 2012:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c3ecb73e-0e08-11e2-8b92-00144feabdc0

 

Brexiteers play the role chosen for them.

Typical EU Bruxelles-mafia attitude threats,  from Airbus...

The deeper you research, the more skeletons you'll find & it's simply hot air from Airbus.

It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.

Also, the EU illegal payments to Airbus.

That's just two from Airbus.

As for another well known Germany manufacturer Mercedes-Benz, industry rumour is one plant will close, VAG is 50/50.

PSA, French car producer who owns Vauxhall, they'll just adjust accordingly via its Ellesmere Port.....

These companies don't invest without contingency planning for litigation purposes.

Hard Brexit will hurt the EU far far harder than the UK.....so go for it Brussels if your hard enough to try.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

We save the rejects for Boeing! 

Of course I considered that but somehow I think it couldn't be that easy.  Boeing might notice.

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

The deeper you research, the more skeletons you'll find & it's simply hot air from Airbus.

It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.

Also, the EU illegal payments to Airbus.

That's just two from Airbus.

As for another well known Germany manufacturer Mercedes-Benz, industry rumour is one plant will close, VAG is 50/50.

PSA, French car producer who owns Vauxhall, they'll just adjust accordingly via its Ellesmere Port.....

These companies don't invest without contingency planning for litigation purposes.

Hard Brexit will hurt the EU far far harder than the UK.....so go for it Brussels if your hard enough to try.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

What nonsense

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Just business. Why would Airbus want to risk increased costs?

No worries. The E.U-Canada free trade agreement will be kicking in shortly. Canada can then buy into Airbus using Bombardier. The wing work can be done in Montreal. 

Not just Airbus...... every auto company, manufacturer, finance company, farmers .... all have reported concerns about Brexit. They either see contraction or are moving out...Not one is forecasting an improvement.

 

However it would be interesting if one single British company has said they think Brexit would actually improve business. 

10 hours ago, citybiker said:

The deeper you research, the more skeletons you'll find & it's simply hot air from Airbus.

It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.

Also, the EU illegal payments to Airbus.

That's just two from Airbus.

As for another well known Germany manufacturer Mercedes-Benz, industry rumour is one plant will close, VAG is 50/50.

PSA, French car producer who owns Vauxhall, they'll just adjust accordingly via its Ellesmere Port.....

These companies don't invest without contingency planning for litigation purposes.

Hard Brexit will hurt the EU far far harder than the UK.....so go for it Brussels if your hard enough to try.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

Cloud cuckoo land with a sprinkling of conspiracy theory....the basis of Brexit

Edited June 25, 20188 yr by kwilco

Bottom line is these companies are operated by directors who are responsible to shareholders who have a legitimate concern about what plans they have in place to deal with issues relating to Brexit. While the govt insists on ‘no deal’ being an option then they must plan accordingly and keep shareholders informed - that the govt think these details should be suppressed from the companies owners shows how out of touch they are with reality.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

13 minutes ago, Orac said:

While the govt insists on ‘no deal’ being an option then they must plan accordingly and keep shareholders informed - that the govt think these details should be suppressed from the companies owners shows how out of touch they are with reality.

Inter - Government negotiations are nothing to do with business. Regardless of how much bleating businesses like to do.

 

Nor is it anything to do with company owners or shareholders.

 

This is all business need to know

 

Quote

While the govt insists on ‘no deal’ being an option

Then plan accordingly. Governments are not there to wipe the @rse of business.

16 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Inter - Government negotiations are nothing to do with business. Regardless of how much bleating businesses like to do.

 

Nor is it anything to do with company owners or shareholders.

 

This is all business need to know

 

Then plan accordingly. Governments are not there to wipe the @rse of business.

 

But they are planning accordingly which is exactly why they have  done this risk assessment.

1 hour ago, Orac said:

Inter - Government negotiations are nothing to do with business.

its just unbelievable what Brexiteers believe!

 

Do you think if they voted that the world was flat it would make it any less round?

Simple flaw easily noticeable....


Forecast......George Osborne attempted that with project fear.

Utter nonsense from the Anti-Brexit element.

Oh well never mind [emoji57]

Not just Airbus...... every auto company, manufacturer, finance company, farmers .... all have reported concerns about Brexit. They either see contraction or are moving out...Not one is forecasting an improvement.
 
However it would be interesting if one single British company has said they think Brexit would actually improve business. 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

20 hours ago, citybiker said:

The deeper you research, the more skeletons you'll find & it's simply hot air from Airbus.

It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.

Also, the EU illegal payments to Airbus.

That's just two from Airbus.

As for another well known Germany manufacturer Mercedes-Benz, industry rumour is one plant will close, VAG is 50/50.

PSA, French car producer who owns Vauxhall, they'll just adjust accordingly via its Ellesmere Port.....

These companies don't invest without contingency planning for litigation purposes.

Hard Brexit will hurt the EU far far harder than the UK.....so go for it Brussels if your hard enough to try.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

Let’s have a dig around your skeletons:

 

“It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.”

 

At least £1Billion, you say.

 

 

Where did you get that number from?

7 hours ago, The Renegade said:

Inter - Government negotiations are nothing to do with business. Regardless of how much bleating businesses like to do.

 

Nor is it anything to do with company owners or shareholders.

 

This is all business need to know

 

Then plan accordingly. Governments are not there to wipe the @rse of business.

Funny then that directly after the vote PM May had private meetings with business leaders to reassure them of what, that ‘Governments are not there to wipe the @rse of business’?

 

Would that government ministers were not so closely linked to business lobbyists.

 

 

Let’s have a dig around your skeletons:
 
“It would cost Airbus at least £1bn to relocate it's wings department to the EU.”
 
At least £1Billion, you say.
 
 
Where did you get that number from?

Your welcome to my skeletons if your sad enough ;-)

I'm also sad enough to research long and deep enough & know people within the aviation industry, including defence aspect.

The car industry also depends on manufacturers to be fair, let's not forget Trump & his trade tariffs will hurt the EU, whilst the UK is currently an EU member its soon to be leaving and the U.K. thus being independent.

Lastly, in a recent Sky news interview with Kay Burley the American ambassador has made it very clear Trump is very keen to do a bilateral trade deal with the U.K. Soonest.

To summarise, excuse for not answering the £1bn figure however I'm happy to be disapproved on the basis but not the figure itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

37 minutes ago, citybiker said:

Your welcome to my skeletons if your sad enough ?

I'm also sad enough to research long and deep enough & know people within the aviation industry, including defence aspect.

The car industry also depends on manufacturers to be fair, let's not forget Trump & his trade tariffs will hurt the EU, whilst the UK is currently an EU member its soon to be leaving and the U.K. thus being independent.

Lastly, in a recent Sky news interview with Kay Burley the American ambassador has made it very clear Trump is very keen to do a bilateral trade deal with the U.K. Soonest.

To summarise, excuse for not answering the £1bn figure however I'm happy to be disapproved on the basis but not the figure itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh so you pulled out of your own very personal mucky place!