"The UK steel industry has been in decline for some time because of a variety of factors such as overcapacity in EU steelmaking and Chinese state-subsidised firms flooding the global market with cheap product. An industry that employed 323,000 people in 1971 now employs less than a tenth of that, at 31,900. The closure of the Redcar steelworks in 2015 was a significant blow to the sector and left the UK with only two blast furnace steelworks, which make steel from raw materials: Scunthorpe and Tata Steel-owned Port Talbot in south Wales. There are also four electric arc furnaces in the UK, which make products from recycled steel. There are three of these sites in Sheffield and one in Cardiff."
> Tata Steel’s head of public affairs, warned the Welsh affairs committee in February that the chancellor, George Osborne, was pushing for China to get market economy status at the World Trade Organization, which would protect Beijing from the highest EU trade barriers, and that this could exacerbate the continent’s steel crisis.
(Mind you, the UK's steel industry is largely a historical contingency built on local deposits of ironstone and coal which are no longer economical to mine)
Wasn't this 14 countries and about the "lesser duty" rules?
However some articles do paint different pictures with the same facts - for example https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/steel-crisi... makes it sound like it was all the UK's fault based upon opinion. However, reading non-left learning media upon the same facts yields a different picture.
Though I may of missed something - please could you point a source that shows that the UK was the only country to vote to keep cheap Chinese steel imports? Asking as I thought this was actually 14 countries, and about some import duty rule that covers many things above and beyond, cheap steel.
OK, maybe the UK wasn't the only one (I edited my previous comment), but the overall point remains when I read things like the following (article you linked to) from the European Steel Association (are they left-leaning?):
"The fact is that the UK has been blocking this. They are not the only member state, but they are certainly the ringleader in blocking the lifting of the lesser duty rule,"
Taking into account that many small EU countries don't have a steel industry so may not have a strong view beyond wanting cheap steel.
Then, the results of the EU referendum are public facts. The areas mentioned heavily voted for Brexit.
As for Brexit or whatever it is called in the annals of history. The UK has always been a divided country when it comes to the whole EU project. Which has, as voting history has shown seen many a EU initiative squashed to the UK and its political influences with other members to rally behind it.
Way to look at it is, if the EU was a company and the UK was an employee. Would you want to keep that negative vibe employee who wasn't really towing the company ethos, or just let them go?
A healthy coal industry would seem to be fundamental to having a healthy steel industry.
In 1971 there was ore and coal being mined in the UK. Maggie Thatcher got rid of the miners so coal has to be bought on the open market. The ore for steel went similarly to having to be bought on the global market. The UK is no longer an island of coal in a sea of fish.
Economically it makes more sense to ship steel from where the ore and coal is rather than to ship the raw ore across to the other side of the world.
The two things (brexit and sector problems) compound.
Without Brexit, a sector crisis might have resulted in one company closing a UK plant and another closing a plant elsewhere, weighting specific pros and cons case-by-case.
With Brexit, they both close a UK plant, because it’s now a no-brainer. The UK after Brexit will have high labor costs AND high tariffs on goods’ movement. There is almost no reason to manufacture here.
Brexit is a massive hole in the UK appeal for manufacturing that targets the EU market. This is a hard fact. Everything else is wishful thinking.
The UK's remaining manufacturing is high value-add, and much of it is also on a smaller scale than mass car production. The UK satellite industry does very well, for example. We need to appreciate what our real strengths and weaknesses are, and huge armies of semi-skilled workers assembling things are not going to be one of them.
Indeed, it almost doesn’t. Before Brexit, the sector was constantly crying for help; the car industry itself almost disappeared in the ‘80s, before the government explicitly targeted it. When Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the opposition Labour party, pre-Brexit referendum, one of his main rallying cries was about rebuilding a real manufacturing sector; there is almost no word of that anymore, unsurprisingly - now it’s all about maintaining current levels of economic activity, which we’ll be lucky to do.
No but the UK does have certain other advantages over low cost producers, that's why it still manages to manufacture stuff. Its the costs relative to the EU and US etc that matter
The UK manufactures more stuff than ever before in its history. Do you realise that? The "decline" of British manufacturing is only a relative decline - other parts of the world grew their manufacturing base faster.
You can't compare total annual industry investment to a single manufacturer project cost. JLR are not going to be investing £1bn in a single year; and they've just been handed a £500M loan guarantee - if stuff doesn't work out, the taxpayer will be holding a significant chunk of the bag.
You can certainly argue that Brexit isn't the sole cause, but it's definitely a large factor. While the overall market for cars is declining, the switch from ICE to electric should actually stoke demand. Some of the most productive car manufacturing plants in the EU are located in the UK and either being closed or are in danger of closing; if Brexit played no part then it would make no fiscal sense to close British plants.
When things turn ugly the weakest suffer the most. With the Brexit, hard or soft, the UK is positioning itself as a weaker country than it was inside the EU. If the car industry is going to suffer, it's going to suffer more in the UK than in the EU.
Obviously it could turn out that Brexit will be good for the UK, but IMHO not in the immediate future. It will take time.
I think plenty of people that voted Leave put other concerns - identity, sovereignty, community etc - above the strictly economic. And why shouldn't they? We don't only live for money, do we?
Tying your identity to your country's can never end well, because every country has a nasty past and is full of despicable acts, which are very difficult to come to terms with. The UK, for instance, with its conduct when bombing Dresden, or when dealing with the famine in Bengal.
I am not sure how the EU is imposing upon the community of the UK, when it famously has some of the most stringent requirements for immigrants.
So the British are not permitted their own identity now?
Both Dresden and the famine you cite are debatable.
But anyway you are mistaken if you think I am advocating. I'm not. I am observing/speculating that I think many people that voted leave looked at the economic arguments and rated those lower than intangible feelings about identity etc. I don't think this is controversial! Politicians everywhere even when they make economic arguments couch them in emotional terms in order to sell them. It's standard politics.
I'm saying tying your identity to a nation is a cesspit to begin with. cf George Carlin's fantastic views [0]
For shits and giggles, I'd LOVE to see you take a gander at justifying the inferno that was Dresden, and for extra credit, Churchill's: "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion".
I'm all ears cause I'm Indian, see.
PS: I hope you don't get the impression that I think you're advocating for brexit. I do get that you're just explaining the Why. But I do not agree that it ISN'T controversial. Thanks to the shenanigans of the Leave dickheads, Britain has fucked not only itself, but a lot of other things as collateral.
> I'm saying tying your identity to a nation is a cesspit to begin with.
Well, good luck in your re-education programme for the majority of the world's citizens then that identifying with their nation is horrific. Who are you, or anyone else to stand in judgement?
My view on Britain's history is that Europe/the World was a bad neighbourhood back then, and to apply today's standards is dishonest. And how far back do you want to go? Also I could throw in that India itself dealt out some pretty unpleasant ethnic cleansing during partition if you like. I suppose that's all the UK's fault as well though.
I think you are being a little bit Mary Poppins in calling out the shenanigans of the Leave side alone. It's all just politics, Leave did nothing especially egregious. Even the £350m pledge is now shown to have been accurate. UK politics sadly is becoming one long history of lies, broken manifesto pledges and xxxxing over of the British public.
> the £350m pledge is now shown to have been accurate.
Wut? It's today's news that the government has already spent £ 4 billions to brexit preparations, with the prospect of spending more from here to October and beyond. There won't be any "dividend" from brexit, let alone 350m a week.
I do NOT associate my identity with my nation though. I associate it with my hobbies and work. Indian conduct has been equally abhorrent, that is my point, yes. EVERY nation.
The reason I'm spewing bile is because of this fallacy that both sides, Leave and Remain, were equally bad. I see the same thing when people say climate deniers should be given equal airtime, or when people say the US Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
> I do NOT associate my identity with my nation though. I associate it with my hobbies and work. Indian conduct has been equally abhorrent, that is my point, yes. EVERY nation.
No worries. But you don't get to determine how other people feel, or to tell them what to think. Acting like you do is just as dangerous as nationalism.
Edit: question for you: you said 'saying tying your identity to a nation is a cesspit to begin with' - so to take the First Nation peoples in Canada as an example (and I know there are a multiplicity of different groups here) - going by your statement it might be thought best to deprive them of ties to their traditions and history, because this equates to them tying their identity to a nation (group of people). Agree, or not? And if not, how is their situation different to any other nation?
> The reason I'm spewing bile is because of this fallacy that both sides, Leave and Remain, were equally bad. I see the same thing when people say climate deniers should be given equal airtime, or when people say the US Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
That's just your opinion. What makes you the omniscient, perfect judge? There are people on the other side that would argue the direct opposite of what you say - 17.4m or so of them perhaps. You would argue that they are all just stupid/ignorant/evil etc?
Dresden was a major transport hub for weapons and other supplies going to the eastern front. The area bombed was a decent approximation of the area used for that transport. It was also an area where many people lived and with many priceless buildings.
As for Churchill and India, he got 100,000 tons of wheat shipped to India, during a war. India has been invaded seven times, right? Did any of the other six ship comparable quantities of drought aid across either the Himalayas or the ocean when there were droughts in a part of India?
I agree with you in principal but Brexit wasn't a direct economics vs sovereignty trade-off. It's not clear that the UK will actually benefit in the categories you mentioned as a result of Brexit.
I'm not arguing on the rationality or otherwise, just saying that the dry economic arguments aren't necessarily the ones that have traction with voters. I don't think that's a controversial thing to say.
On those other issues I would say it's more subtle, in that leaving the EU at least opens the door to genuine controls on migration, for example, but the major parties are united in their refusal to offer the choice to the public.
Can you be extremely clear on what you mean by this, and what you expect to achieve by restricting migration of EU nationals to the UK and UK nationals to the EU? And also acknowledge that the UK's controls on non-EU migration are extremely onerous and not a matter of EU policy?
As with another poster, you are mistaking me advocating for these things, whereas I am just observing.
The argument is made that leaving the EU for more or less tangible feelings around sovereignty, identity etc. is futile because leaving the EU won't deliver changes in those areas. What I'm saying is that I agree it won't on its own deliver changes, but that it at least opens the door to changes in those areas. However, genuine change would require a political party to offer genuine controls on migration, for example, which none of the major parties are offering (Brexit Party arguable). Even Boris is offering an amnesty for illegal migrants already in the UK, and not offering any hope that migration will go down under a points based system.
I don't think it's sensible to argue that we are not on the path towards a United States of Europe, and that leaving opens the door to a different future, I mean, why would the fight to keep the UK in be so fierce unless there were a lot at stake?
It's futile arguing on the substance with me as if I'm advocating for it, I'm not, I'm just analysing.
But none of those have a substance, they're mostly products of the newspapers misleading people! The idea that the UK somehow lacks "genuine controls on migration" is a total fiction, but Brits who haven't been through them or don't know people who have believe it because the newspapers have lied to them.
Can't reply to your post below, but - net migration to the UK is running at hundreds of thousands per year, which is apparently causing all kinds of tensions with public services and society. You can't just hand wave that away by saying that the public are stupid for believing lies in the papers, and I would say this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen, and what's more I would say is inaccurate when the evidence of migration is glaringly obvious in pretty much any town of a reasonable size. No one needs to read the papers to know the country is changing before our eyes. And perhaps that's ok - if people are offered the choice and vote for it.
In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny.
> this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen
A lot of people would deny this, but I'm at the stage where I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends. I count both EU and non-EU immigrants among my colleagues. Are you saying I should choose loyalty to random idiots I've never met but happen to share a birthplace with over people I actually work with and like?
> evidence of migration is glaringly obvious
People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people.
> In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny.
Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry.
> I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends
Appreciate your honesty, but you live in a society and other people have strong opinions also. Your opinion doesn't trump theirs, no matter how heartfelt it is or righteous you might feel
> People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people.
Yes? And? So what? I'm not allowed to believe the evidence of my own eyes now else I'm racist?
> Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry.
Immigration could be drastically reduced if there were the political will, but all major parties are fiercely pro-immigration. And you are having a laugh if you are seriously arguing that the drastic change observable is all British nationals.
There's no point in us going much further as neither of us will convince the other. Bottom line: voters should be offered a choice, and that choice should be respected no matter how hateful you might think the motives. It's called democracy and it's all we have between us and the Gulags. Efforts to undermine it and free speech should be resisted at all costs.
I guess Brexit is a great blame if you want to close a factory.
Even-though, after-Brexit UK won't be part of the EU. A UK factory will export cars to the EU with mandatory customs fee and taxes. If your cars have to clear customs anyway why not build them in Ukraine?
Most of the companies actually don't mention Brexit in public communications, because they are trying to avoid alienating the government (as much as half their UK customers). They were hoping to have the public purse cover their trouble and continue with business as usual.
In the end, only Jaguar-LandRover (arguably the more "British" manufacturer) seems to have partially managed to pull that off with a 500m loan; everyone else (even Nissan, who supposedly got some guarantees in writing from the previous administration) decided it's not worth the trouble and is in the process of slowly divesting.
If you look at the case of Japan, they've just signed a free trade agreement with the EU, so at the same time barriers are going down there, barriers are going up in the UK. Given that the Japanese car companies only came to the UK to access the single market, why would they stay now that Japan is 'closer'?
Actually I think most companies are going out of their way to avoid blaming Brexit. No point in alienating 52% of the UK market even if it is the case.
Indeed, brexit (though America don't call independence day Amexit!) for many hasn't happened and what we have is a case of still being in the EU and many trying to chuck everything in the way to keep us there. So really it's more how the leave process is being derailed left and left-again, that has and does cause the issue. After all, until it happens, everything is based upon perception and pushing a doom picture utterly suits those who wish to not leave the EU.
Put another way, nobody blamed joining the EU for the demise of way more manufacturing and indeed the coal industry. Yet that is what happened. Cheaper EU coal imports, then eventual erosion of manufacturing bit by bit. But that gets overlooked oddly enough.
Still the UK shifted from manufacturing to services, albeit many EU trade deals and indeed their own members, kinda fall foul in how they handle services with the EU actually looking at punishing members for not opening up their services market.
But in fairness, whilst the EU is not perfect - nothing is perfect.
> Indeed, brexit (though America don't call independence day Amexit!)
The US never voted to leave the EU; they were never part of the EU, and openly fought against the French in the 7 Years War. The US voted to leave the British Empire -- and fought a war for it (with some French help later, of course).
Nearest I can tell Brexit is a confluence of UK Conservatives and foreign interests spreading Agi-Prop to A) enrich themselves at the expense of the UK as a whole, B) to split the UK from the EU in a geo-political sense, and C) to, in all likelihood, crush the UK economy.
> Put another way, nobody blamed joining the EU for the demise of way more manufacturing and indeed the coal industry. Yet that is what happened. Cheaper EU coal imports, then eventual erosion of manufacturing bit by bit. But that gets overlooked oddly enough.
Coal was on the way out regardless of European integration. The US was never in the EU and coal still vanished; Donald Trump pandering to the coal industry is not and will not bring it back. Likewise, staying out of the EU would have been, at best, a temporary stay of execution for the UK coal industry.
(a) 2017 and 2018 were also post-brexit-referendum years with investments getting pulled left and right
(b) The £1bn will be spread over many years, almost none of it this year.
(c) Low global car demand leads to reduced investment. The investments that get cut first are the ones where labour is already expensive, skilled labour is about to get much harder to get and supply chains are about to be screwed up massively. Guess where that is.
That investment is actually a loan backed by the British government to the tune of £500m - https://www.am-online.com/news/manufacturer/2019/07/16/jlr-s... - in other words, it's less an investment by a company that believes in investing in the UK but rather the government buying some good news. Without government stumping up the loan guarantee it wouldn't have happened.
If anything they've been pro-Brexit for years in inviting Farage on to talk far more than any other minor party figure, especially one who's not an MP.
Ok, what name would you use for this 3-year long period between the vote and the planned exit date where the damage is already being done as a result of the brexit vote?
It stills has an impact on investment. Having no visibility around the future relationship between the UK and all the countries around the UK is not that great for planning...
You're getting downvoted for making a stupid comment with little to back it, not because you're a martyr who braved the downvotes in order to make sure the truth would out.
How would you succinctly sum up what many people were thinking?
Saying it is Brexit isnt really any more substantive but doesn't seem to be a flaggable offense, so the only crime seems to be humour, which seems to be an entirely reasonable way of dealing with the situation.
You're kidding, right? The BBC have extensively covered the gilets jaunes, including the response of the police and government. They've interviewed protesters, interviewed police, written lengthy articles examining the cause(s) of the protests, and indeed published articles covering the police's tactics throughout the events.
etc. You can find hundreds of additional articles. It's absurd how more and more frivolous and meritless these attacks on the BBC are becoming as time goes on.
One of the reasons I think, is that the bbc app has a "popular" tab which I think is all most people bother with, and that never has gilets jaunes news. I get all my gilets jaunes coverage from twitter. I'm also not entirely conviced that the "popular" tab is entirely what is popular vs what we the bbc (and above) would like to be popular.
Of course they are mostly older articles; the protests have dwindled to the mere hundreds, down from over 300,000 nationwide. During the height of the protests, they were covered extensively by the BBC -- it's misleading to criticise their coverage with "BBC in 2019".
The BBC's latest article, which I linked, was 14 July. The BBC aren't alone in this: it's also the most recent French protest to be covered by Reuters, CNN, and other major news organisations.
The Hong Kong protests are still a major, significant event. The French protests have dwindled and are no longer as relevant.
No, they're pointing out that the French protests have been covered in depth. There's no particular reason they should have equal coverage. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997.
I don't believe they merit equivalent courage today, in nearly August 2019. No news organisation is covering the protests in France now as fervently as they were when the protests were at their zenith. The recent protest on 14 July (which the BBC covered) numbered only a few hundred, down from hundreds of thousands[1] in prior months.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/22/what-went-w...
"The UK steel industry has been in decline for some time because of a variety of factors such as overcapacity in EU steelmaking and Chinese state-subsidised firms flooding the global market with cheap product. An industry that employed 323,000 people in 1971 now employs less than a tenth of that, at 31,900. The closure of the Redcar steelworks in 2015 was a significant blow to the sector and left the UK with only two blast furnace steelworks, which make steel from raw materials: Scunthorpe and Tata Steel-owned Port Talbot in south Wales. There are also four electric arc furnaces in the UK, which make products from recycled steel. There are three of these sites in Sheffield and one in Cardiff."