And the UK government stood by and watched. It takes a bit more than an EU grant to make a company upsticks and move to another country. The UK government, of both persuasions have a track record of stabbing industry in the back but never mind you can reverse the policy in 5 years time, a really successful long term plan. As the CEO of Siemans said on QT last week, industry is the engine of the UK economy and should rise above party politics, not something the politicians want to hear.
It should be borne in mind that when companies did relocate to mainland Europe the workforce had the option of going as well. It is quite possible that companies like Nissan and Toyota may also follow suit but the option for the workforce to relocate will no longer be there.

OK - so we are moving our widget manufacturing plant to Slovakia. Of course you can move as well, never mind your families, mortgage, grandparents, children's schooling or anything else.
Never mind that we would only pay you half of what you get now. Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant, a significant proportion of which will be drawn from contributions from the UK taxpayers.

An offer that can hardly be refused isn't it?

I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many in the UK have had enough of the EU...

21 minutes ago, Loaded said:

This is not entirely true.

 

The UK already has a schedule from the time it was a co-founder of the WTO. To certify this or another schedule, you are correct, there must be universal approval from all other members of the WTO. However, to prevent nationalistic political interfering in this process, the country/WTO member must have a valid reason to object. IE it must be related to the schedule and it must be substantiated. Spain using Gibraltar and Argentina using The Falklands wouldn't wash. If it did, the WTO wouldn't be able to function.

 

Incidentally, a schedule doesn't need to be certified in order to trade under WTO rules.

"The UK already has a schedule from the time it was a co-founder of the WTO."

There is no UK Schedule, the UK schedule is included with the European Communities. If you go to the tariff data download facility the UK is not listed as an available country.

Trading under the WTO arrangement is not the simple answer that many would make out.

 

"WTO Membership

The UK will not have to apply to join the WTO since it is already a longstanding member in its own right, but it must meet two conditions of membership. It has already met the first condition, which is to ratify the WTO Agreement. The second condition is that the UK must have its own Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) schedules of market access commitments for goods and services. These are the maximum level of import restrictions (tariffs for goods and specific commitments for services) that the UK can apply.

The UK currently shares MFN market access schedules with the rest of the EU. It will need to establish its own, stand-alone, MFN schedules and have them approved by all other WTO Members. These schedules matter since they are the basis on which the UK as an EU Member trades with many of its main partners today."

 

"The UK will have to negotiate first with the EU to decide what share of each TRQ it will take with it after Brexit, and then propose its stand-alone TRQs to other WTO Members when seeking approval for the new UK good schedule. It may take a long time before each WTO Member is satisfied with the result and is prepared to join a consensus to certify the UK's schedule. However, pending that outcome, the UK will be able to continue trading on its uncertified schedules. The EU itself traded unchallenged on uncertified schedules for many years while it sought approval for changes to its MFN schedules following enlargement from EU-15."

https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/uk-and-world-trade-organization-wto-what-happens-after-brexit

39 minutes ago, Loaded said:

At last, you understand why we had to leave the EU. Our government is forced to stand by and watch as the EU dismantles our democracy, economy and country. It's a misnomer to call it the EU anyway - it's the GU or German Union. Merkel calls the shots as Macron has already found out.

You are perfectly free to believe that returning to a regime with a history of industrial chaos is the way forward.

The UK had an industrial revolution when the US were playing Cowboys and Indians and the Japanese were counting on an abacus.

What went wrong - don't tell me - the EU.

43 minutes ago, JAG said:

OK - so we are moving our widget manufacturing plant to Slovakia. Of course you can move as well, never mind your families, mortgage, grandparents, children's schooling or anything else.
Never mind that we would only pay you half of what you get now. Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant, a significant proportion of which will be drawn from contributions from the UK taxpayers.

An offer that can hardly be refused isn't it?

I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many in the UK have had enough of the EU...

Yes its a mystery isn't it, British manufacturing continues to decline while German Manufacturing is on the up and up. As I have said before maybe they are in a different EU. After all when French German and Spanish companies bought the UK Utility and Generating operations the EU forced the British to sell them. When  a Communist State Owned company constructs a Nuclear Power station in the UK that must be the fault of the EU.

When we sell off 70% of our railways to state owned foreign companies because we do not like nationalised industries that must be the fault of the EU.

Then the final insult the EU forced us to sell Rolls Royce Cars to the Germans and Jaguar Cars and Steel to Indians. In fact as Nontabury pointed out with his list its far more extensive than even that.

 

15 minutes ago, JAG said:

OK - so we are moving our widget manufacturing plant to Slovakia. Of course you can move as well, never mind your families, mortgage, grandparents, children's schooling or anything else.
Never mind that we would only pay you half of what you get now. Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant, a significant proportion of which will be drawn from contributions from the UK taxpayers.

An offer that can hardly be refused isn't it?

I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many in the UK have had enough of the EU...

"Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant,"

 

Of course it is, say it often enough and you will believe it.

I suppose it was these EU grants that created call centres in India as opposed to the UK.

17 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Yes its a mystery isn't it, British manufacturing continues to decline while German Manufacturing is on the up and up. As I have said before maybe they are in a different EU. After all when French German and Spanish companies bought the UK Utility and Generating operations the EU forced the British to sell them. When  a Communist State Owned company constructs a Nuclear Power station in the UK that must be the fault of the EU.

When we sell off 70% of our railways to state owned foreign companies because we do not like nationalised industries that must be the fault of the EU.

Then the final insult the EU forced us to sell Rolls Royce Cars to the Germans and Jaguar Cars and Steel to Indians. In fact as Nontabury pointed out with his list its far more expensive than even that.

 

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

"Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant,"

 

Of course it is, say it often enough and you will believe it.

I suppose it was these EU grants that created call centres in India as opposed to the UK.

it was done under duress. the Indian Navy threatened to invade Stratford-on-Avon.

43 minutes ago, sandyf said:

"The UK already has a schedule from the time it was a co-founder of the WTO."

There is no UK Schedule, the UK schedule is included with the European Communities. If you go to the tariff data download facility the UK is not listed as an available country.

Trading under the WTO arrangement is not the simple answer that many would make out.

 

"WTO Membership

The UK will not have to apply to join the WTO since it is already a longstanding member in its own right, but it must meet two conditions of membership. It has already met the first condition, which is to ratify the WTO Agreement. The second condition is that the UK must have its own Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) schedules of market access commitments for goods and services. These are the maximum level of import restrictions (tariffs for goods and specific commitments for services) that the UK can apply.

The UK currently shares MFN market access schedules with the rest of the EU. It will need to establish its own, stand-alone, MFN schedules and have them approved by all other WTO Members. These schedules matter since they are the basis on which the UK as an EU Member trades with many of its main partners today."

 

"The UK will have to negotiate first with the EU to decide what share of each TRQ it will take with it after Brexit, and then propose its stand-alone TRQs to other WTO Members when seeking approval for the new UK good schedule. It may take a long time before each WTO Member is satisfied with the result and is prepared to join a consensus to certify the UK's schedule. However, pending that outcome, the UK will be able to continue trading on its uncertified schedules. The EU itself traded unchallenged on uncertified schedules for many years while it sought approval for changes to its MFN schedules following enlargement from EU-15."

https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/uk-and-world-trade-organization-wto-what-happens-after-brexit

I'll assume you skipped past the next sentence from my post:

 

" The UK already has a schedule from the time it was a co-founder of the WTO. To certify this or another schedule, you are correct, there must be universal approval from all other members of the WTO. "

 

The article you quoted seems to support the ideas in my post.

 

6 minutes ago, Naam said:

it was done under duress. the Indian Navy threatened to invade Stratford-on-Avon.

There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all
the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

 

20 hours ago, sandyf said:

And the UK government stood by and watched. It takes a bit more than an EU grant to make a company upsticks and move to another country. The UK government, of both persuasions have a track record of stabbing industry in the back but never mind you can reverse the policy in 5 years time, a really successful long term plan. As the CEO of Siemans said on QT last week, industry is the engine of the UK economy and should rise above party politics, not something the politicians want to hear.

It should be borne in mind that when companies did relocate to mainland Europe the workforce had the option of going as well. It is quite possible that companies like Nissan and Toyota may also follow suit but the option for the workforce to relocate will no longer be there.

 

3 hours ago, JAG said:

OK - so we are moving our widget manufacturing plant to Slovakia. Of course you can move as well, never mind your families, mortgage, grandparents, children's schooling or anything else.
Never mind that we would only pay you half of what you get now. Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant, a significant proportion of which will be drawn from contributions from the UK taxpayers.

An offer that can hardly be refused isn't it?

I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many in the UK have had enough of the EU...

 

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Yes its a mystery isn't it, British manufacturing continues to decline while German Manufacturing is on the up and up. As I have said before maybe they are in a different EU. After all when French German and Spanish companies bought the UK Utility and Generating operations the EU forced the British to sell them. When  a Communist State Owned company constructs a Nuclear Power station in the UK that must be the fault of the EU.

When we sell off 70% of our railways to state owned foreign companies because we do not like nationalised industries that must be the fault of the EU.

Then the final insult the EU forced us to sell Rolls Royce Cars to the Germans and Jaguar Cars and Steel to Indians. In fact as Nontabury pointed out with his list its far more extensive than even that.

 

You're changing the discussion from the original 'UK companies moved to poorer countries and received an EU grant to do so'.

 

 This was countered (in part - other points were also raised) by 'employees of said UK companies had the option to relocate' - and JAG pointed out that this was not really an option at all for most employees.

 

But on the points you raise, I agree that FAR from everything can be blamed on the EU - many of the UK's problems are largely (in some cases entirely) the fault of various UK governments.

3 hours ago, Loaded said:

I'll assume you skipped past the next sentence from my post:

 

" The UK already has a schedule from the time it was a co-founder of the WTO. To certify this or another schedule, you are correct, there must be universal approval from all other members of the WTO. "

 

The article you quoted seems to support the ideas in my post.

 

Not sure what you mean, I addressed the point regarding the UK schedule right at the start. There are no UK schedule or tariff profiles for the UK, they were all wiped out when the European Communities came on the scene.  It is fairly clear that a new schedule and profiles will be required and the consensus of opinion so far has been it will be a copy of the EU position negotiated as applicable for the UK.

As I said, if you go to the download facility the UK is not even listed.

 

You are perfectly correct regarding the UK using an uncertified schedule and posted the text that supported your comment. The main point being it is not the easy option that is being portrayed.

It is also being assumed that current trading partners outside the EU are going to accept this new status of the UK without question.

 

You're changing the discussion from the original 'UK companies moved to poorer countries and received an EU grant to do so'.
 
 This was countered (in part - other points were also raised) by 'employees of said UK companies had the option to relocate' - and JAG pointed out that this was not really an option at all for most employees.
 
But on the points you raise, I agree that FAR from everything can be blamed on the EU - many of the UK's problems are largely (in some cases entirely) the fault of various UK governments.

The problem with the unlinked article is the way it is worded to imply EU responsibility for industry moving away and giving funds to enable it when that is not really what is happening.

There are many funding options available to business from EU and UK sources for such things a training/retraining and business development, as a small business owner in the UK previously I took advantage of several so I would be very surprised if any of the larger companies mentioned didn't.

As an example, from the article there is a statement that Dyson relocated manufacturing from the UK to Malaysia with an EU loan which may be true but implication that the EU is somehow responsible for the move is pure spin when events could be better written as James Dyson decided to to relocate his factory to Malaysia after a hissy fit because Hampshire County Council would not give him planning permission to expand his factory there, the EU provided some funding to retrain some of the workforce.

52 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

You're changing the discussion from the original 'UK companies moved to poorer countries and received an EU grant to do so'.

 

 This was countered (in part - other points were also raised) by 'employees of said UK companies had the option to relocate' - and JAG pointed out that this was not really an option at all for most employees.

 

But on the points you raise, I agree that FAR from everything can be blamed on the EU - many of the UK's problems are largely (in some cases entirely) the fault of various UK governments.

And it was shown by the link I provided that many of the companies on that list did not in fact receive EU assistance to move anywhere.

 

However Nontabury's OP contained a whole raft of companies that were no longer British owned. You know like the ones that were sold to the British Public who then couldn't wait to sell them off to get their 30 pieces of silver. I am sure many of those are now posting on this forum, the type who want their country back but  sorry you can't, don't you remember you sold it.

You remember that giveaway of the family silver in the eighties because British people owning something collectively (called nationalisation) was a bad thing.

Like Power Generation now owned by EDF a French owned state company. Yep British people bad but French people okay. But the biggest joke is that the Chinese Communist Party now have a stake in the game and not only that they are going to get  with EDF 30 billion in subsidies for the privilege of building us a power station. 

So what I would like to know from all the flag waving, wanting their country back types some of whom are always banging on about leftists, how many of you bought shares in the great British giveaway and promptly sold them off?

I will start with my declaration, I neither applied for nor received any shares from any public selloff.

How about you would you like to add to that, perhaps we could start a movement here to discover exactly who on TV sold the UK down the river.

 

On 09/05/2017 at 8:53 AM, mommysboy said:

Yes and you are quite right to draw comparisons with immigration: if we can't exercise control over non EU immigration-where we already have the powers to do so- then how will we suddenly control EU immigration when we get similar powers?

TM stated the Con Party manifesto will retain target of 10s of thousands but will still include students. Ridiculous! They won't get close even if they cut EU migration to zero! Who's going to pick my fruit and veggies eh? Who? You?

6 hours ago, Loaded said:

At last, you understand why we had to leave the EU. Our government is forced to stand by and watch as the EU dismantles our democracy, economy and country. It's a misnomer to call it the EU anyway - it's the GU or German Union. Merkel calls the shots as Macron has already found out.

I don't quite follow your reasoning. Please can you elucidate? I'm a bit hard of hearing

5 hours ago, JAG said:

OK - so we are moving our widget manufacturing plant to Slovakia. Of course you can move as well, never mind your families, mortgage, grandparents, children's schooling or anything else.
Never mind that we would only pay you half of what you get now. Never mind that the whole move is being driven by a EU grant, a significant proportion of which will be drawn from contributions from the UK taxpayers.

An offer that can hardly be refused isn't it?

I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many in the UK have had enough of the EU...

But OK to move to China or Thailand? How do you stop IPR crossing borders?

 

Incidentally, in the case of the plant I discussed recently, 50 engineers ( quality, process, testing, materials, etc) all transferred with improved conditions. 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

You're changing the discussion from the original 'UK companies moved to poorer countries and received an EU grant to do so'.

 

 This was countered (in part - other points were also raised) by 'employees of said UK companies had the option to relocate' - and JAG pointed out that this was not really an option at all for most employees.

 

But on the points you raise, I agree that FAR from everything can be blamed on the EU - many of the UK's problems are largely (in some cases entirely) the fault of various UK governments.

Your last comment is spot on. 

The aviation industry is a prime example. The UK used to make some of the best aircraft in world until UK governments decided it would be better to buy from the US rather than invest in UK manufacturing.

Here we go again, another UK government that wants to put the remainder of the industry in jeopardy.

 

Interesting quote from 2014.

“If there could be one lesson… to be learnt from the Airbus Industrie experience,” says Jean Pierson, Airbus’s chief executive from 1985 to 1998, “it would be that co-operation is the key to prosperity and that there simply is room no more for narrow nationalistic endeavours.”
https://www.ft.com/content/c9a9a77c-db07-11e3-8273-00144feabdc0

 

 

5 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Yes its a mystery isn't it, British manufacturing continues to decline while German Manufacturing is on the up and up. As I have said before maybe they are in a different EU. After all when French German and Spanish companies bought the UK Utility and Generating operations the EU forced the British to sell them. When  a Communist State Owned company constructs a Nuclear Power station in the UK that must be the fault of the EU.

When we sell off 70% of our railways to state owned foreign companies because we do not like nationalised industries that must be the fault of the EU.

Then the final insult the EU forced us to sell Rolls Royce Cars to the Germans and Jaguar Cars and Steel to Indians. In fact as Nontabury pointed out with his list its far more extensive than even that.

 

Not sure irony is well understood sometimes! A steely response might work when things are a bit wrought! Difficult to cast in stone though

45 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

The problem with the unlinked article is the way it is worded to imply EU responsibility for industry moving away and giving funds to enable it when that is not really what is happening.

There are many funding options available to business from EU and UK sources for such things a training/retraining and business development, as a small business owner in the UK previously I took advantage of several so I would be very surprised if any of the larger companies mentioned didn't.

As an example, from the article there is a statement that Dyson relocated manufacturing from the UK to Malaysia with an EU loan which may be true but implication that the EU is somehow responsible for the move is pure spin when events could be better written as James Dyson decided to to relocate his factory to Malaysia after a hissy fit because Hampshire County Council would not give him planning permission to expand his factory there, the EU provided some funding to retrain some of the workforce.

 

Re. the second paragraph, part of the problem is that the EU is far too lax in giving out TAXPAYER'S money.  I (obviously) know nothing about your company and hope the grants were for genuinely beneficial projects, but we know that some large/already very profitable companies have also received grants when there no understandable reason (as far as the average tax payer is concerned)  for them to receive the grants.

 

Encouraging training/retraining etc. is laudable - but not when already successful companies receive this money which, is basically 'pocketed' as profits.  Even less understandable is why any EU grant should be given to a company looking to relocate all or even part of its workforce elsewhere.

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Not sure irony is well understood sometimes! A steely response might work when things are a bit wrought! Difficult to cast in stone though

Groan! 

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Your last comment is spot on. 

The aviation industry is a prime example. The UK used to make some of the best aircraft in world until UK governments decided it would be better to buy from the US rather than invest in UK manufacturing.

Here we go again, another UK government that wants to put the remainder of the industry in jeopardy.

 

Interesting quote from 2014.

“If there could be one lesson… to be learnt from the Airbus Industrie experience,” says Jean Pierson, Airbus’s chief executive from 1985 to 1998, “it would be that co-operation is the key to prosperity and that there simply is room no more for narrow nationalistic endeavours.”
https://www.ft.com/content/c9a9a77c-db07-11e3-8273-00144feabdc0

 

 

Quote of the day!

15 minutes ago, Grouse said:

TM stated the Con Party manifesto will retain target of 10s of thousands but will still include students. Ridiculous! They won't get close even if they cut EU migration to zero! Who's going to pick my fruit and veggies eh? Who? You?

"Who's going to pick my fruit and veggies eh? Who? You?"

 

I'm sure this was addressed earlier in the thread, or perhaps it was another thread - I lose track...

 

In short, back in the 'old days', UK fruit and veg was picked by wives (and children during school holidays) looking to earn money to supplement the family income/pocket money.  Its quite possible of course that you came from a wealthier family and therefore don't know this .

Just now, Grouse said:

Quote of the day!

OK. But the EU was not in existence when the French and British built the superb Concorde, together!

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the second paragraph, part of the problem is that the EU is far too lax in giving out TAXPAYER'S money.  I (obviously) know nothing about your company and hope the grants were for genuinely beneficial projects, but we know that some large/already very profitable companies have also received grants when not only was there no understandable reason (as far as the average tax payer is concerned)  for them to receive the grants.

 

Encouraging training/retraining etc. is laudable - but not when already successful companies receive this money which, is basically 'pocketed' as profits.  Even less understandable is why any EU grant should be given to a company looking to relocate all or even part of its workforce elsewhere.

I cannot find any evidence for the claim that Dyson received a loan from the EU to relocate anywhere so i thinks its incumbent on the person making that claim to provide the link.

What I do find extraordinary is that Dyson was one of those in favour of joining the Euro and is now a supporter of Brexit, strikes me he is a schizophrenic. 

Just now, pitrevie said:

I cannot find any evidence for the claim that Dyson received a loan from the EU to relocate anywhere so i thinks its incumbent on the person making that claim to provide the link.

What I do find extraordinary is that Dyson was one of those in favour of joining the Euro and is now a supporter of Brexit, strikes me he is a schizophrenic. 

A bit like Blair but the other way round?

1 minute ago, pitrevie said:

I cannot find any evidence for the claim that Dyson received a loan from the EU to relocate anywhere so i thinks its incumbent on the person making that claim to provide the link.

What I do find extraordinary is that Dyson was one of those in favour of joining the Euro and is now a supporter of Brexit, strikes me he is a schizophrenic. 

It would be interesting to find out why Dyson received ANY grant from the EU.  A successful, profitable company - why would the EU give the company money?

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It would be interesting to find out why Dyson received ANY grant from the EU.  A successful, profitable company - why would the EU give the company money?

No it would be interesting to find out IF they received any grant loan or whatever from the EU as I have already stated I cannot find any evidence that they have. As I said in an earlier post its incumbent on anyone making that claim to provide the evidence.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

But OK to move to China or Thailand? How do you stop IPR crossing borders?

 

Incidentally, in the case of the plant I discussed recently, 50 engineers ( quality, process, testing, materials, etc) all transferred with improved conditions. 

Very difficult to stop it. My gripe, and the point of our posts, is that it has so often been encouraged to do so within the EU, by incentives which we have to a significant extent funded.

Entirely off topic, but I didn't vote in the referendum as I wasn't sure as to whether my annoyances over the EU took precedence over my concerns about UK governments...

 

I had no intention of voting in the GE either - whilst hoping that May obtained an increased majority enabling her to 'fight the UK's corner' without having to fight UK MPs determined to do everything and anything possible to ensure a 'bad deal', and consequently a possible return to the EU for their own financial reasons. Giving the EU even more reason to continue ignoring the electorates' grievances.

 

But my concerns on this subject before the referendum (and Grouse's outspoken statements before and after) that the tory party would use this to pursue their own agenda is looking ever more likely.

 

May has now come out to support fox hunting and state that she wants another parliamentary vote on the subject .  Hardly a popular opinion amongst the majority of the electorate (!), but presumably May feels safe enough to start coming out with these 'promises'.

 

If only there was an alternative for those of us who support brexit  (as opposed to grovelling to get back in, giving the EU even more reason to continue its wasteful/pigs in the trough practices) - but there isn't.... .

Just dropping out isnt really the option we all thought- a bit like opting out the premier league for Division 2.  Not really a goer.

 

Everything points to a single market solution: not least because it's arguably what people voted for.  Wait until the international business community flexes its muscles too. 

 

It might have helped if Brexiteers had undertaken even a touch of planning. Utter shambles!