The eurosceptics annoyance over this is driven by the knowledge that this is what it will be like when the referendum campaign starts: how can the believers for exit get enough people to vote to leave when you have the likes of Japan, the US etc etc being wheeled out against Nigel Farage, Peter Bone and the Daily Express. Men against boys comes to mind.
My annoyance was expressed in my previous post. Every eurosceptic group wants a free-trade agreement with Europe, eg by joining EFTA, so wheeling out the likes of Japan and the US is dishonest, misleading propaganda.
Why can't you find a case for staying in the EU that doesn't rely on lying?
What I was saying was up to now it is the anti-EU pipsqueaks that have had the stage to themselves. Now that the grown ups have started to enter the debate on the pro-EU side all they can do is cry foul.
To be clear. Are you suggesting that there's no element of self interest being used by third parties to try to influence Britain's position regarding the Eu?
To be clear. Are you suggesting that there's no element of self interest being used by third parties to try to influence Britain's position regarding the Eu?
I'm not suggesting anything about self interest etc. What I am saying is that you had better get used of people with more clout than Farage, Bone and the Express wading in for the pro- EU side.
As a woman I am very happy to belong to the EU.equal pay comes to mind.
There was I thinking the Labour Party was getting all the credit for equal pay legislation. Have you considered the possibility that an independent country such as Japan might also legislate for equal pay?
I'm not suggesting anything about self interest etc. What I am saying is that you had better get used of people with more clout than Farage, Bone and the Express wading in for the pro- EU side.
How much are these Japanese firms paying in corporation tax and the like? Its all very well them using Britain as a gateway to Europe. Just so long as we're not getting shortchanged along the way.
I am pretty sure they pay the amount they should, or we would have heard about it, I think.
Sorry? but are the Japanese saying that if we pull out the EU that their cars or other products made here cannot be exported to Europe?
No, they are saying it will be more expensive and more difficult. This is what has made them consider whether or not the UK or France, Italy, Poland or Spain will be a better place to make their cars.
They wouldnt / its bluff. You cant let other countries dictate your destiny though. The EU has a trade deficit with the UK so they need to trade with us.Thats all and we as a nation are capable of organising everything else.Countries like the USA and Japan need to be more considerate of the UK populations wishes
They "might" drop investments here if we leave the EU and the single market. I think most folk want us out of the EU but to remain part of the trading area which I'd assume is the most likely outcome.
Although I respect Japan's oppinion alot more than the land of the 'free' across the Atlantic, I didn't expect another answer from Japan other than the one most suited to their own needs. Not to mention we can set up out own trade deals with Japan and Asia if we get out.
So, you are saying it will be better to be "kind of" members, but not really, of "the club;" having to abide by its rules, but have no say whatsoever in what those rules are?
Exactly time to leave the EU and join the world! The future is India, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia and China not the bankrupt economies of the EU.
As for this quote Japan isn't saying this just its here today gone by 2017 government which is not quite the same thing! Why they are even wasting their time flogging cars to bankrupt Europeans when they have a billion Chinese next door anyway is beyond me?
Because they can't export their cars to China as easily as they can to the EU.
do you think the businesses you mention will spend tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds to lay off thousands of people (redundancy payments), close down factories, relocate to another EU country and spend tens of millions of euros to build new factories and go through the proces of employing thousands of people again, just so they can carry on selling cars to the EU?
All of that depends on the corporation's long term fiscal strategies. If they believe that the extra costs of employment, production and tariffs are too restrictive to profit from, they will move. Why do you think they moved here in the first place?
if the UK where ever to leave the EU, the EU would not stop trading with us, and neither would the EU stop us from selling goods to them. there are too many jobs at stake. and too much money involved.
there would be no tariffs. that leads to a trade war. we buy a hell of a lot of goods from the EU. Businesses on the continent would be a might ticked off if a tariff war started. besides does the USA or China (examples) pay any tariffs on the goods they sell in the EU?
do they keep warning us or has it been mentioned once or twice?
i don't understand your last sentence. we were in the EU in 2000 weren't we?
Reading the memo the Japanese are saying that they think Britain has played a key role in liberalising EU markets - which the Japanese like. They think Britain should continue in that role. Well of course they would - less work for them.
They say nothing about jobs being lost if Britain leaves the EU. That headline is of the BBC's creation (slapped wrists all round.)
I've heard some presenters say "Jobs will be lost if Britain has tariffs" - well the EU does has tariffs. So then it boils down to who has the lower.
What tariffs does the UK have to pay the EU on its exports to Europe?
All of that depends on the corporation's long term fiscal strategies. If they believe that the extra costs of employment, production and tariffs are too restrictive to profit from, they will move. Why do you think they moved here in the first place?
two main reasons.
1. by moving to europe thay no longer paid a tariff on their cars.
2. the financial incentives given to toyota by the local council were very generous. i seem to remember that edwina currie got a bit of flack over how much toyota were given to get them to build the factory at burnaston. a total figure of 44 million is what i vaguely remember but i can't be sure and i can't find a link to the actual figures / incentives.
other reasons though were an educated and skilled workforce being available in the area as well as good road and rail links (especially linking to their deeside engine plant).
My annoyance was expressed in my previous post. Every eurosceptic group wants a free-trade agreement with Europe, eg by joining EFTA, so wheeling out the likes of Japan and the US is dishonest, misleading propaganda.
Why can't you find a case for staying in the EU that doesn't rely on lying?
EFTA is a pointless organisation, all the disadvantages of not being in the EU with non of the advantages.
What? All of that depends on the corporation's long term fiscal strategies. If they believe that the extra costs of employment, production and tariffs are too restrictive to profit from, they will move. Why do you think they moved here in the first place
1. by moving to europe thay no longer paid a tariff on their cars.
2. the financial incentives given to toyota by the local council were very generous. i seem to remember that edwina currie got a bit of flack over how much toyota were given to get them to build the factory at burnaston. a total figure of 44 million is what i vaguely remember but i can't be sure and i can't find a link to the actual figures / incentives.
other reasons though were an educated and skilled workforce being available in the area as well as good road and rail links (especially linking to their deeside engine plant).
ahh yes i remember the chinese shoe tariff. i remember mandleson giving his reasons for it all those years ago. do they still pay it though?
I've said many times before on here, the reason for the Japanese car industry coming here was to overcome the 'gentleman's agreement' on car exports to Europe. This was in place so that high tariffs were not imposed to dissuade them but that they would not abuse the situation by flooding the market. The motorcycle industry was fresh in the minds of many. Mrs T allowed them to site themselves here, paid them a lot of tax payers money in subsidies and because the costs and Labour, along with some local parts supply, meant there was enough 'content' to claim as 'produced in the EU', it didn't contravene the 'rules'. The rest, as they say, is history.
To be clear. Are you suggesting that there's no element of self interest being used by third parties to try to influence Britain's position regarding the Eu?
It may well be self-interest, but people who live in the regions of this country would do well to listen to them.
The one and only reason the like of the North East of England is a net exporter, and not a complete basket case, is the existence of the EU.
The EU redistributes UK capital away from the centralising forces of the government of this country and saves the regions from complete collapse.
I would not trust the Westminster government as far as I can throw them to invest a penny outside of the South East, if they had free reign. Their answer to absolutely everything related to the regions is typified by Norman Tebbit's comments in 1981.
It may well be self-interest, but people who live in the regions of this country would do well to listen to them.
The one and only reason the like of the North East of England is a net exporter, and not a complete basket case, is the existence of the EU.
The EU redistributes UK capital away from the centralising forces of the government of this country and saves the regions from complete collapse.
I would not trust the Westminster government as far as I can throw them to invest a penny outside of the South East, if they had free reign. Their answer to absolutely everything related to the regions is typified by Norman Tebbit's comments in 1981.
1. by moving to europe thay no longer paid a tariff on their cars.
When the UK are no longer part of the EU, they will have to start paying tariffs.
2. the financial incentives given to toyota by the local council were very generous. i seem to remember that edwina currie got a bit of flack over how much toyota were given to get them to build the factory at burnaston. a total figure of 44 million is what i vaguely remember but i can't be sure and i can't find a link to the actual figures / incentives.
other reasons though were an educated and skilled workforce being available in the area as well as good road and rail links (especially linking to their deeside engine plant).
I wonder how much money France, Germany or Poland will offer them to move there?
It may well be self-interest, but people who live in the regions of this country would do well to listen to them.
The one and only reason the like of the North East of England is a net exporter, and not a complete basket case, is the existence of the EU.
The EU redistributes UK capital away from the centralising forces of the government of this country and saves the regions from complete collapse.
I would not trust the Westminster government as far as I can throw them to invest a penny outside of the South East, if they had free reign. Their answer to absolutely everything related to the regions is typified by Norman Tebbit's comments in 1981.
I wonder how much money France, Germany or Poland will offer them to move there?
the point is, governments should not be offering taxpayers money as financial incentives for private businesses to move their operations to their country.
if they want to build cars here, there, or anywhere else for that matter, then they should shoulder the costs, not the taxpayer.
the point is, governments should not be offering taxpayers money as financial incentives for private businesses to move their operations to their country.
if they want to build cars here, there, or anywhere else for that matter, then they should shoulder the costs, not the taxpayer.
No...the point is that governments do offer money to incentivise investment; the only question to answer is, "how much will the other countries offer?"
Why is anyone surprised by this...Japanese investment in the UK was always in large part motivated by it giving them a springboard into EU markets.
And why the UK...financial inducements aside...English (not French, German etc) is the second language for the Japanese...just as it is for many if not most people in countries outside Europe....and most of them inside it come to that...try finding an average Italian speaks a few words of conversational Dutch....or a Dutchman speaks a few words of conversational Italian.
A fact which we should continue to exploit...if only we could stop playing "fog in channel Europe cut off" for long enough.
Comments
My annoyance was expressed in my previous post. Every eurosceptic group wants a free-trade agreement with Europe, eg by joining EFTA, so wheeling out the likes of Japan and the US is dishonest, misleading propaganda.
Why can't you find a case for staying in the EU that doesn't rely on lying?
To be clear. Are you suggesting that there's no element of self interest being used by third parties to try to influence Britain's position regarding the Eu?
The EU will still be there after we have departed.
If the Japanese are so enamoured with the European Union model, why don't they apply to become a province of China?
I'm not suggesting anything about self interest etc. What I am saying is that you had better get used of people with more clout than Farage, Bone and the Express wading in for the pro- EU side.
There was I thinking the Labour Party was getting all the credit for equal pay legislation. Have you considered the possibility that an independent country such as Japan might also legislate for equal pay?
Justin Bieber? Simon Cowell?
What? You mean, like when the Britain stops interfering in other countries' business? :rolleyes:
Whereas leaving that club will make us poorer and more miserable.
I am pretty sure they pay the amount they should, or we would have heard about it, I think.
No, they are saying it will be more expensive and more difficult. This is what has made them consider whether or not the UK or France, Italy, Poland or Spain will be a better place to make their cars.
Flippin' 'eck! Talk about desperation. :rolleyes:
So, you are saying it will be better to be "kind of" members, but not really, of "the club;" having to abide by its rules, but have no say whatsoever in what those rules are?
Because they can't export their cars to China as easily as they can to the EU.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense, why would the EU do that?
All of that depends on the corporation's long term fiscal strategies. If they believe that the extra costs of employment, production and tariffs are too restrictive to profit from, they will move. Why do you think they moved here in the first place?
And this is the argument for remaining in the EU.
Of course they flippin' do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575044640704474512.html
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/
What tariffs does the UK have to pay the EU on its exports to Europe?
Oh dear....are you sure you understood Workhorse's post?
Because this is nothing to do with their exports to china.
two main reasons.
1. by moving to europe thay no longer paid a tariff on their cars.
2. the financial incentives given to toyota by the local council were very generous. i seem to remember that edwina currie got a bit of flack over how much toyota were given to get them to build the factory at burnaston. a total figure of 44 million is what i vaguely remember but i can't be sure and i can't find a link to the actual figures / incentives.
other reasons though were an educated and skilled workforce being available in the area as well as good road and rail links (especially linking to their deeside engine plant).
ahh yes i remember the chinese shoe tariff. i remember mandleson giving his reasons for it all those years ago. do they still pay it though?
That is correct, UKIP wants out of the EU for ideological reasons not economic.
EFTA is a pointless organisation, all the disadvantages of not being in the EU with non of the advantages.
You see, IMO, there would be no EU if the UK decided to leave, not in its current form anyway.
I think it would be the final nail in the coffin.
I've said many times before on here, the reason for the Japanese car industry coming here was to overcome the 'gentleman's agreement' on car exports to Europe. This was in place so that high tariffs were not imposed to dissuade them but that they would not abuse the situation by flooding the market. The motorcycle industry was fresh in the minds of many. Mrs T allowed them to site themselves here, paid them a lot of tax payers money in subsidies and because the costs and Labour, along with some local parts supply, meant there was enough 'content' to claim as 'produced in the EU', it didn't contravene the 'rules'. The rest, as they say, is history.
It may well be self-interest, but people who live in the regions of this country would do well to listen to them.
The one and only reason the like of the North East of England is a net exporter, and not a complete basket case, is the existence of the EU.
The EU redistributes UK capital away from the centralising forces of the government of this country and saves the regions from complete collapse.
I would not trust the Westminster government as far as I can throw them to invest a penny outside of the South East, if they had free reign. Their answer to absolutely everything related to the regions is typified by Norman Tebbit's comments in 1981.
Toyota GB and Toyota Europe are not Japanese registered companies.
Evidence for the bits in bold...
When the UK are no longer part of the EU, they will have to start paying tariffs.
I wonder how much money France, Germany or Poland will offer them to move there?
THe EU invests our money, even in the South East.
:eek: What on Earth happened there? :eek:
1- We will be putting tariffs on car imports, we could just use some of those revenues to compensate Honda's exports to Europe.
2- If they move to Germany or Poland, they will have to pay our import tariffs.
the point is, governments should not be offering taxpayers money as financial incentives for private businesses to move their operations to their country.
if they want to build cars here, there, or anywhere else for that matter, then they should shoulder the costs, not the taxpayer.
Which will make imports for us much more expensive.
No...the point is that governments do offer money to incentivise investment; the only question to answer is, "how much will the other countries offer?"
And why the UK...financial inducements aside...English (not French, German etc) is the second language for the Japanese...just as it is for many if not most people in countries outside Europe....and most of them inside it come to that...try finding an average Italian speaks a few words of conversational Dutch....or a Dutchman speaks a few words of conversational Italian.
A fact which we should continue to exploit...if only we could stop playing "fog in channel Europe cut off" for long enough.