May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"BTW. you shouldn't truncate quotes in an attempt to change the context."

 

I quoted the entire post, and then repeated/put in italics and quotation marks the part of the post to which I was responding - as advised by a Mod when I received a 'holiday' for quoting an entire post, but emboldening the part of the post to which I was replying.

 

Presumably you was responsible for my 'holiday' (even though I'd just emboldened part of an entire quoted post, and even said "my emboldening".....)

 

How exactly would you personally prefer me to reply to one part of a post?.....

Not quite true, you truncated the sentence you quoted in italics, removing a qualifying statement and distorting the sentence as a whole.

 

I can assure you that I have never reported anything you have posted. I may not agree with some of the content but unlike some others you have never stooped so low as to warrant being reported

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Not quite true, you truncated the sentence you quoted in italics, removing a qualifying statement and distorting the sentence as a whole.

 

I can assure you that I have never reported anything you have posted. I may not agree with some of the content but unlike some others you have never stooped so low as to warrant being reported

In which case I apologise.

 

But I promise you my last post is true and - as I'd replied to your entire post (and you complained about a following, truncated quote), I made the mistake of blaming you.  Sorry .

Edited September 30, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

In which case I apologise.

 

But I promise you my last post is true and - as I'd replied to your entire post (and you complained about a following, truncated quote), I made the mistake of blaming you.  Sorry .

Ok - no problem. I didn't like the cut as in leaving out my qualifying statement you appeared to be highlighting your view on intransigence, but its no big deal.

 

Still a bit puzzled on your previous comment regarding planning to leave in 2020, where does that come into it?

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Ok - no problem. I didn't like the cut as in leaving out my qualifying statement you appeared to be highlighting your view on intransigence, but its no big deal.

 

Still a bit puzzled on your previous comment regarding planning to leave in 2020, where does that come into it?

I thought the current E U budget ended in 2020?  But I'm a bit pissed and so could be missing something here.

[melvinmelvin]

34 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I thought the current E U budget ended in 2020?  But I'm a bit pissed and so could be missing something here.

 

drunks and kids speak the truth, keep on nipping

 

UK may leave at any point during a budget period but she must honour the budget,

ie pay her share for the remainder of the period

 

 

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

What, even those with undeniably cast-iron reasons for wanting to leave???

Funnily enough, the screw in type is E27!  Now where have I heard that recently?

[aright]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

The UK has already lost part of the A350 to Germany and Spain. Of course that couldn't be seen as a decline in UK participation, I suppose more of a negative incline.

This subcontracting or outsourcing thing isn't new. A more correct statement from the graphic below would be "Airbus Europe has outsourced  50% of the A350 to other countries" It's not just the UK or the rest of the Consortium. I'm sure Boeing would also be outsourcing components. 

Outsourcing involves loss of jobs( in your terms decline in UK participation) and enhanced income. You don't outsource to increase costs . 

Because wing production has gone to another country at a cheaper cost this improves the overall profitability of the Consortium and as a result profits for Airbus UK. Although the wings are being produced abroad they would have been designed in the UK and their production overseen by Airbus UK. Airbus UK is of course a world leader in composite wing technology.  

In short it's called Capitalism. If you are worried about jobs a vote for Corbyn will help you.

I have shares in Companies. I risk my capital and expect them to maximise profits to maximise share price and returned dividends. If they need to subcontract to do that! Fine! Year on year I also want them to be more efficient and if that involves loss of jobs so be it. 

Companies exist in most part for the benefit of shareholders not the unemployed. Corbyn disagrees with me on that.

So many people want the benefits of a Capitalist system governed by Socialist rules. That's a real dichotomy.

IMO nothing will change when we leave the EU, Airbus Europe will still continue with "Best Business Practice" 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Off topic post removed.   There is a separate thread running about the Catalan referendum.  

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

drunks and kids speak the truth, keep on nipping

 

UK may leave at any point during a budget period but she must honour the budget,

ie pay her share for the remainder of the period

 

 

What do you mean that the UK can leave at any point? The treaties come to an end on 29th March 2019, the UK cannot leave before and when they come to an end the UK has left, is out, is kaput, call it what you like.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, aright said:

This subcontracting or outsourcing thing isn't new. A more correct statement from the graphic below would be "Airbus Europe has outsourced  50% of the A350 to other countries" It's not just the UK or the rest of the Consortium. I'm sure Boeing would also be outsourcing components. 

Outsourcing involves loss of jobs( in your terms decline in UK participation) and enhanced income. You don't outsource to increase costs . 

Because wing production has gone to another country at a cheaper cost this improves the overall profitability of the Consortium and as a result profits for Airbus UK. Although the wings are being produced abroad they would have been designed in the UK and their production overseen by Airbus UK. Airbus UK is of course a world leader in composite wing technology.  

In short it's called Capitalism. If you are worried about jobs a vote for Corbyn will help you.

I have shares in Companies. I risk my capital and expect them to maximise profits to maximise share price and returned dividends. If they need to subcontract to do that! Fine! Year on year I also want them to be more efficient and if that involves loss of jobs so be it. 

Companies exist in most part for the benefit of shareholders not the unemployed. Corbyn disagrees with me on that.

So many people want the benefits of a Capitalist system governed by Socialist rules. That's a real dichotomy.

IMO nothing will change when we leave the EU, Airbus Europe will still continue with "Best Business Practice" 

 

 

 

In other words you accept the original point that UK participation in the aerospace industry will decline.

 

BTW. Airbus is not a consortium, and a bit strange that this outsourcing for profit as you put it went to 2 other EU member states, who just happen to be 2 of the major shareholders in Airbus.

[SheungWan]

39 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What do you mean that the UK can leave at any point? The treaties come to an end on 29th March 2019, the UK cannot leave before and when they come to an end the UK has left, is out, is kaput, call it what you like.

 

He might mean that the UK could terminate the negotiations at any point. This is the uber Hard Brexit position. The HB position in the Government appears to have retreated to a 2-year transitional period limit agreed with Theresa May. Without the transitional period the Govt will have some rather hefty bills to face from Nissan and the others. With a transitional period that particular problem goes away.

Edited October 1, 2017 by SheungWan

[sandyf]

13 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

He might mean that the UK could terminate the negotiations at any point. This is the uber Hard Brexit position. The HB position in the Government appears to have retreated to a 2-year transitional period limit agreed with Theresa May. Without the transitional period the Govt will have some rather hefty bills to face from Nissan and the others. With a transitional period that particular problem goes away.

Possibly, but 'leave' tends to refer to leaving the EU, leaving the 'negotiations' would be in breach of the treaty and something the government has quite clearly stated it wouldn't do so the government isn't 'free' to leave the negotiations at any point.

 

I take it you mean that the transitional period would give the likes of Nissan time to pack their bags, the problems will only go away if things remain as they are now on a long term basis.

[SheungWan]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Possibly, but 'leave' tends to refer to leaving the EU, leaving the 'negotiations' would be in breach of the treaty and something the government has quite clearly stated it wouldn't do so the government isn't 'free' to leave the negotiations at any point.

 

I take it you mean that the transitional period would give the likes of Nissan time to pack their bags, the problems will only go away if things remain as they are now on a long term basis.

 

I don't think walking out of the negotiations would be in breach of the treaty as such. It would just mean no agreement on either the divorce terms or new relationship. Repercussions yes. The reference to Nissan is the reported (but not public) commitment by the Govt to Nissan (and others?) to cover them for extra taxes incurred as a result of immediate Brexit. It does not mean Nissan will walk, but there will be a longer time frame for such companies to consider new model production location. Industry has made it clear that it prefers a 4 year to a 2 year lead in to organise themselves.

[SheungWan]

Theresa May fightback. Bloomberg sums up the current political situation quite well: http://tinyurl.com/yanq2nk7

[Khun Han]

27 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Theresa May fightback. Bloomberg sums up the current political situation quite well: http://tinyurl.com/yanq2nk7

 

Crikey! That story has to hold the record for the number of unnamed sources . Interesting read though.

[aright]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

In other words you accept the original point that UK participation in the aerospace industry will decline.

 

No I don't accept it. To quote you "As future contracts come about UK participation in any new projects will decline". That is a statement and I assumed you had proof which I asked for. I am still waiting. Speculation as to what might happen is not proof and might be regarded as fear mongering.

As for outsourcing you seemed to think the outsourcing of components for the A350 was a new development. The graphic was published to show its been going on since 1984. This approach to manufacturing is not solely for Airbus, Mercedes and Rolls Royce etc do it as well. As to why outsourcing went to member states, wearing my business hat I would say probably for cost and/or capacity reasons or wearing your conspiracy hat I would say it's fishy. You pay your money and take your pick.

Any problems (which may result in job shedding) are not because we are leaving the EU, They are as a result of Airbus Europe's problems meeting contractual capabilities, receiving sufficient export orders cost reductions and commercial exposure.

Airbus operating profit dropped by 52% in the first quarter of 2017 compared to the same period last year.

Boeing on the other hand saw net earnings up by 19% in the first quarter of this year.

Airbus are going through a difficult period right now

I understand Airbus UK are talking about making wings in China. China's commercial aircraft manufacturing industry is in its infancy and obviously you can't develop 40 years of wing technology overnight. I think this is a good thing which might have quid pro quo ramifications. I am sure you feel differently.

[aright]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

 

BTW. Airbus is not a consortium, and a bit strange that this outsourcing for profit as you put it went to 2 other EU member states, who just happen to be 2 of the major shareholders in Airbus.

I forgot.  Airbus is not a consortium?????

 

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/airbus-380-800

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

What do you mean that the UK can leave at any point? The treaties come to an end on 29th March 2019, the UK cannot leave before and when they come to an end the UK has left, is out, is kaput, call it what you like.

 

what I mean?

that the date at which a EU member state can leave the EU is not tied up to budget periods

 

there are other stipulations than budget periods that steers the date at which a member can leave

 

eg A50 triggering

or later agreements between member and EU

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by melvinmelvin
typo

[aright]

Some time ago, I recommended that our Brexit  negotiating team would have more clout if headed by Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson. In light of recent events and the fact he will have a lot of time on his hands in the medium term I would like to recommend that Ben Stokes be added to this team. 

[melvinmelvin]

 

yes, I am sure BJ would go down well with the French counterpart . . .

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, aright said:

I forgot.  Airbus is not a consortium?????

 

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/airbus-380-800

The A380 was created by Airbus Industrie GIE which was a consortium. The current company Airbus SE was formed in January 2017 and is a multinational corporation.

British Aerospace had a 20% stake in Airbus Industrie which was then transferred to Airbus SAS. In 2006 BAE sold its stake to EADS in order to obtain the A380 wing business.

Future wing business on a 100% basis is no longer guaranteed as we have seen with the A350.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, aright said:

 

I understand Airbus UK are talking about making wings in China. China's commercial aircraft manufacturing industry is in its infancy and obviously you can't develop 40 years of wing technology overnight. I think this is a good thing which might have quid pro quo ramifications. I am sure you feel differently.

Airbus have been making the A320 in China for about 10 years and the contract has recently been extended to 2025. It would make economic sense to make more parts in China as opposed to shipping from Europe.

Its a bit of a no brainer on which country is likely to lose the jobs first, brexit is like a dark cloud hanging over UK industry.

[sandyf]

In the light of Brexit, this statement from 2009 has never been more appropriate.

 

"Right now the UK is the supplier of wings for the Airbus family but that doesn't mean the Chinese can't build a good wing," he told the Telegraph. "If we underestimate our Chinese friends, there will be a problem. Europe is not the only play in town. The UK has got to keep an edge in research and technology."

https://www.wired.com/2009/06/airbus-china/

[aright]

On 9/30/2017 at 7:46 PM, aright said:

 

Outsourcing involves loss of jobs( in your terms decline in UK participation) and enhanced income. You don't outsource to increase costs . 

Because wing production has gone to another country at a cheaper cost this improves the overall profitability of the Consortium and as a result profits for Airbus UK. Although the wings are being produced abroad they would have been designed in the UK and their production overseen by Airbus UK. Airbus UK is of course a world leader in composite wing technology.  

 

 

On 10/2/2017 at 10:27 AM, sandyf said:

Airbus have been making the A320 in China for about 10 years and the contract has recently been extended to 2025. It would make economic sense to make more parts in China as opposed to shipping from Europe.

Its a bit of a no brainer on which country is likely to lose the jobs first, brexit is like a dark cloud hanging over UK industry.

At last I'm preaching to the converted

 

On 10/2/2017 at 10:33 AM, sandyf said:

In the light of Brexit, this statement from 2009 has never been more appropriate.

 

"Right now the UK is the supplier of wings for the Airbus family but that doesn't mean the Chinese can't build a good wing," he told the Telegraph. "If we underestimate our Chinese friends, there will be a problem. Europe is not the only play in town. The UK has got to keep an edge in research and technology."

https://www.wired.com/2009/06/airbus-china/

I have every confidence in Airbus and my country something  you seem to lack, with your own good reasons I'm sure. Certainly Airbus and myself  will not be using a 2009 report to view or plan its future .A lot of water has gone under the bridge in 18 years.

I don't think we should underestimate anyone? but why would I worry about Chinese Aerospace?

In May China debut flew a C919 its first largish single aisle passenger plane. The plane was originally due to fly in 2014 and be delivered to buyers in 2016. So much for planning. The plane still has to meet flight safety standards, prove reliability, fuel efficiency, maintainance costs and aircraft comfort levels. The plane will need to be approved by the  Civil Aviation Administration of China and it is estimated bringing all these things together, given a fair wind, will take another 2-3 years.

All the critical parts for this plane were made in other countries or are joint ventures. 

Boeing estimate China will need 5110 new single aisle aircraft between now and 2035 . On the basis of the C919 experience they are more likely to come as joint ventures with Europe, USA, or Canada or direct.

So am I worried about Airbus/China. "I'm not Boverred" for the time being

 

 

On 10/2/2017 at 10:12 AM, sandyf said:

The A380 was created by Airbus Industrie GIE which was a consortium. The current company Airbus SE was formed in January 2017 and is a multinational corporation.

British Aerospace had a 20% stake in Airbus Industrie which was then transferred to Airbus SAS. In 2006 BAE sold its stake to EADS in order to obtain the A380 wing business.

Future wing business on a 100% basis is no longer guaranteed as we have seen with the A350.

 

Thanks for this information I was not aware.

I think we may have done Airbus to death without either of us changing our views so am going to sign off, I want to get back to Brexit issues

Thanks for the civilised way you handled the debate.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Scott
Post moved out of quote box.

[Khun Han]

Was enjoying a pint of the magnificent Jaipur IPA in a Wetherspoons on the other side of town yesterday evening, whilst waiting for the rush hour to calm down. Had a read of the in-house magazine, which has been running a feisty-but-fair pro-brexit campaign (every pro-brexit article published is counterbalanced by an article by a leading remainer. I'm linking two of the pro brexit ones, which are both food for thought.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-myth-of-britains-decline/

 

 

[sandyf]

Surprise surprise.

One day the brexiteers may wake up to the fact that Article 50, something that the UK invoked, states that any withdrawal agreement must be passed by the European Parliament.

In the meantime they continue to go against the European Parliament in the hope that progress can be made.

 

"MEPs made clear they will veto any deal unless Britain continues to accept European Court of Justice rulings during any implementation period."

"However, ending the jurisdiction of the court immediately at the point of Brexit was one of the four red lines set out by the Foreign Secretary over the past weekend."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiations-talks-latest-sufficient-progress-not-made-european-parliament-eu-leaders-theresa-a7980351.html

[Grouse]

Anyone hear PM on Radio 4 yesterday?

 

Eddie Mair was laying into Amber Rudd. Did she think the public were happy with Bernard Manning as Foreign Secretary? What should we infer about May's judgement? Was she frightened to fire him?

 

What a shambles!

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Anyone hear PM on Radio 4 yesterday?

 

Eddie Mair was laying into Amber Rudd. Did she think the public were happy with Bernard Manning as Foreign Secretary? What should we infer about May's judgement? Was she frightened to fire him?

 

What a shambles!

Never mind we can look forward to Emily Thornberry at the next election. ????

[citybiker]

Anyone hear PM on Radio 4 yesterday?
 
Eddie Mair was laying into Amber Rudd. Did she think the public were happy with Bernard Manning as Foreign Secretary? What should we infer about May's judgement? Was she frightened to fire him?
 
What a shambles!

I think the media & Labour are hungry for the Government to sack someone, just for political point scoring if anything else.

I don’t think she’s frightened to sack anyone (yet) as it’ll distract from the primary process of getting Brexit right, a reshuffle is inevitable however I think May really needs to get a grip of her current cabinet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aright]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

Anyone hear PM on Radio 4 yesterday?

 

Eddie Mair was laying into Amber Rudd. Did she think the public were happy with Bernard Manning as Foreign Secretary? What should we infer about May's judgement? Was she frightened to fire him?

 

What a shambles!

I didn't catch Eddie Mair's (imo one of the best political journo's on the BBC) interview yesterday........I was on Jedi Watch yesterday, the ba*tards have been seen at the bottom of my garden again.  Was he comparing the different literary styles of "Bernard Manning's Biography" and Johnos  "72 Virgins" or was he saying Manning tells better jokes than Johnson or Manning is a massive intellect compared to Johnson?

I agree with citybiker I don't think Theresa is frightened to sack any one but sadly I think she is standing on a line between giving up and seeing how much more she can take. I say sadly because she is one of the few conviction politicians around at the moment.

Talking about massive intellects............

 

Albert Einstein was born on March 14 1879.

He would be 138 if he were alive today. Few people remember that he married his cousin Elsa Lowenthal, after his marriage failed in 1919

 

At the time he stated that he was attracted to Elsa "Because she was so well endowed"

He postulated that if you are attracted to women with large breasts, the attraction is even stronger if there is a DNA connection.

 

This came to be known as...........Einstein's Theory of Relative Titty