Pyrian on 2/2/2019 at 07:31
Looks like Norway's ahead. ...What's that about, anyway?
hopper on 2/2/2019 at 13:46
Membership in all but name. You get access to the common market, including the "four freedoms", and must implement every directive that comes from the EU, but you don't get a say in making them. And you get to pay handsomely for the privilege.
Theoretically, you can reserve the right to opt out of any directive you don't like, but practically, this hardly ever happens. I'm not even sure it's been done at all yet, in Norway's case.
The main upside to the deal for Norway (as opposed to a full membership) is that they get to keep sovereign control over their fish stocks and the EU's fishing fleet out of their waters. Which has been a good thing for Norway, judging by how fisheries are managed in Norway and the EU.
Maybe there's an upside to such a deal for Britain, as well, although I don't know what it would be. London getting to keep all those bankers, perhaps?
demagogue on 2/2/2019 at 14:24
I thought the "upside" was people that want to respect referendum get to pretend that it was and that Brexit happened so life can get back to relatively normal (just take the economic hit & loss of decision-making power & move on in a somewhat worse position than before, but at least the least-worst), and people that really wanted to remain can be relieved they got off with the least damage one could expect short of the horrors of a second referendum and the collapse of civilization as we know it that would entail (and it's not even guaranteed to come back with Remain, I don't think, which would just make things worse). Among the available options, it's the one that has the flavour of "legitimate resolution" to it, arguably.
Pyrian on 2/2/2019 at 16:08
That really seems like "compromise in that nobody gets what they want".
Starker on 24/2/2019 at 10:56
Been following the reaction to Honda pulling out of Swindon and I can't figure out why some people seem to be so surprised. Of course they are going to leave and of course it was because of Brexit. When they said it wasn't because of Brexit, that was just a very obvious Japanese face-saving gesture. Certainly, there were other reasons too, but Honda hasn't closed a factory in 70 years and you bet that without Brexit they would have done everything to keep it open. The whole reason they were there in the first place was to gain access to the single biggest market in the world and now the UK is no longer going to be part of it, why would they stay?
caffeinatedzombeh on 26/2/2019 at 20:22
Personally I'd have gone with it being because nobody wants to buy a new Honda at the moment in Europe and it's a bit more profitable for them to make them somewhere else. They have other factories that aren't at full capacity and it's all got to be retooled to make whatever they replace that civic with so why *wouldn't* they make the next car where they can make the most money out of it? Especially if it's at home in Japan and even more so if tariffs on imported Japanese cars are being phased out in the EU.
It's the same reasons they're relocating production of pretty much ALL new models back to Japan, whether the existing one is built in the UK, Turkey, Mexico or Canada.
heywood on 27/2/2019 at 00:38
Exactly.
Honda opened that plant to get around tariffs during the trade wars of the 1980s. The need to regionalize auto manufacturing to avoid tariffs declined in the 1990s with the global free trade movement, and Honda never opened another assembly plant in the EU. When the global recession hit, Honda scaled back in Swindon and the plant hasn't come back to full capacity since. Until recently, there was a 10% tariff on cars made in Japan. But a new trade agreement between the EU and Japan just came into effect at the beginning of Feb, and the 10% tariff will be phased out over the next several years. So there will no longer be a 10% incentive for producing cars in Swindon vs. in Japan, Brexit or no Brexit.
If Honda believed there was a real (not tariff created) advantage to producing EU market cars in the EU, I would expect them to expand production into Eastern Europe where labor costs are cheaper. But they haven't. It costs a lot of money to close plants and transfer production, so it would be unwise to close a plant based on the "uncertainty" surrounding Brexit while the outcome is still in limbo. If possible, you would wait and see what happens before spending money to get out of the UK, or into the UK.
Pyrian on 27/2/2019 at 00:54
I'm still a bit baffled at how low the shipping costs must be to manufacture cars in Japan for sale in Europe.
Starker on 27/2/2019 at 03:32
"It's a bit more profitable" is much less of a motivating factor for Japanese businesses than existing relationships and long-term planning. The EU is still the biggest market in the world and making cars is a long cycle business, not to mention that such a move costs a lot of money.
As I said, there are certainly other reasons behind the move (such as electric cars and global overcapacity and whatnot), but I'd go as far as to say that Brexit is
the motivating event for the decision. And why would they wait out the chaos? Chaos and sudden rule changes are devastating for businesses.
Tariffs are fairly simple, as far as trade barriers go. The real clincher are the regulatory barriers. The one huge advantage that the single market has is that they have worked very hard to eliminate as much of the regulatory barriers as possible. Now that the UK is no longer going to be a part of the single market, that is going to disrupt Honda's manufacturing at the UK to a degree that's pretty much a death blow:
Quote:
(
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/21/honda-european-chief-outlined-no-deal-brexit-concerns-in-2018)
During a meeting on 14 September - five months before the firm said the plant would close from 2021 threatening 7,000 jobs, including 3,500 directly employed at the plant - Honda Motor Europe's government affairs manager, Patrick Keating, told locals the company was committed to the site.
But, according to notes taken by local Labour councillor Jane Milner-Barry, he also flagged up a litany of reasons why Brexit, in particular the prospect of a no-deal scenario, posed a threat to the factory.
Keating predicted that Brexit could interrupt crucial “just in time” delivery of 2m parts a day, 20% of which come from Europe and which allow smooth operation of the company's supply chain.
Brexit also raised the prospect of increased customs controls and paperwork, he said, warning that suppliers might have to fill out 60,000 customs declaration forms a year. He also pointed out that 20% of staff at Swindon were EU nationals and expressed concern about regulatory divergence that could force the company to carry out two differing sets of tests on vehicles.
Keating said Honda's requirements included tariff-free barriers, access to the EU's free-trade agreements with other countries, access to talent and the ability to move staff from one country to another, a clear plan on regulations and a predictable Brexit process with a meaningful transition period.
demagogue on 27/2/2019 at 15:40
Well while we're at it...
(
https://www.ft.com/content/d69fe31e-38f0-11e9-b856-5404d3811663?fbclid=IwAR0JQaO_bnhqaezcCdZtUWvpBimCgQyB0ZTsEK075_-WwuXJGdmFallyqv8) A second Brexit referendum is now essential
Quote:
Theresa May's aim is to convert fear of a no-deal Brexit into acceptance of her bad deal, which would leave the UK at the EU's mercy. In the end, the rhetoric about “taking back control” has come down to a choice between suicide and vassalage. This march of folly needs to be stopped, for the UK's sake and Europe's. The only politically acceptable way to do this is via another referendum. That is risky. But it would be better than sure disaster.
Let us count the ways in which what is now happening is quite insane.
In just over a month, the UK might suddenly exit from the EU. But the government and business are unprepared for such a departure: to take one example, the government is still fighting over what farm tariffs to impose. Such a no-deal Brexit would damage the UK — and the EU. If a no-deal exit did happen, negotiations would need to restart at once, but in a far more poisonous and, for the UK, more unfavourable context.
Even if the prime minister's deal were ratified, a new set of negotiations would have to start over the future relationship. The UK is unprepared for such negotiations. These new negotiations would also inevitably end up with an unsatisfactory outcome, because the UK has never confronted the trade-offs between access and control inherent in all trade negotiations. Finally, this entire mess would make only the EU's enemies — Russian president Vladimir Putin, above all — happy.
Britain has, in brief, launched itself on a perilous voyage towards an unknown destination under a captain as obsessed with delivering her version of Brexit as Ahab was with Moby-Dick. Has a mature democracy ever inflicted such needless damage on itself?