Britain's Brexit subsidies for carmakers could top wage bills

Oops. Brits must be kicking themselves in the butt. Brexit's going to prove costly.

No, nobody knows that as terms have yet to be negotiated. The UK has a large population and is important for other European countries and vice versa. However, as Japan does, the domestic market soaks up a lot of demand. Current economic conditions in the UK are positive and there is growth-the sky won't fall !

UK on its path to bankruptcy...wait and see.

Brexit = 7-10 years of pain, before any gains are seen...with the right to self-determination being the long-term benefit.

Oops. Brits must be kicking themselves in the butt.

No, just you in yours at the first opportunity.

I note the usual arm-chair economists ready for instant judgment ignoring facts as usual...facts how well the economy is growing, how much trade is being attracted and how the World beyond the stagnating and corrupt EU administration is beckoning.

And before 'doomers' gleefully comment on how a few judges thought we should ask our Parliament to trigger article 50 (the favoured mechanism for leaving the EU).....'we' already have, parliament already ok'd how 'we' might proceed and be careful with 'hasty judgement'. Great Britain is out of the EU in mind...the body will follow.

Nearly all of the people who voted Leave did so knowing that there would be some sort of cost economically. If anyone had any serious doubts then they voted to Remain.

The biggest difference was between the Leave voters who expected and still expect a realistic and reasonable price for independence with a higher return within an few years and the project fear spokespeople who predicted a calamity that just hasn't happened.

Good on the POMS for getting out of the Euro experimental bureaucratic disaster. They'll be better off in the long run after a bit of short term pain. UK is one of the few countries at the moment to make a decent hard decision instead of continually kicking the can down the road !

The UK has a large population and is important for other European countries and vice versa.

Its not an even balance, once article 50 is invoked the EU clearly has the advantage (its market is about 7 times larger). About half of the UKs exports go to the rest of the EU, the threat of having tarriffs slapped on those (and loss of other priveleges like for services) is a big shadow over the UKs economy.

The rest of the EU on the other hand relies on the UK as a market for a much smaller proportion of its exports (around 10% IIRC, though it varies from sector to sector). The UKs reciprocal power of threatening to put tarriffs on those just isnt as powerful owing to that inequality.

I note the usual arm-chair economists ready for instant judgment ignoring facts as usual

Not sure about the arm-chair economists (are we to assume you aren`t one and have a Phd in economics?) but actual economists are almost unanimous in the view that Brexit is going to be bad for the economy. If you could direct me to a single peer-reviewed paper in which an actual economist has said that Brexit is going to be a net positive to the UK economy I would be very interested in reading it.

Brexit = 7-10 years of pain, before any gains are seen...with the right to self-determination being the long-term benefit.

Well, I agree with the first part, though I think it might be a decade or two rather than 7 - 10. Our very own 'lost decades'. But 'right to self-determination'? We already had that. All EU members do. So all we've done is decided to have a decade or two of pain for no gain.

And before 'doomers' gleefully comment on how a few judges thought we should ask our Parliament to trigger article 50

Are you complaining about a decision made by the British High Court about the supremacy of parliament? I thought the whole point of Brexit was to ensure that they would be making such decisions? What do you want us to do now, 'take back control' from our own high court? And give it to who next, the Queen? Bring back the feudal system?

Parliament will still vote to trigger article 50 I think; but hopefully the vote will ensure we avoid the harder versions of Brexit, retain single market membership, and therefore avoid having to pay the automotive industry's tariffs to persuade them to stay as described in the article.

Brexit supporters really need to think carefully about what they are actually supporting. The illusion of sovereignty and rejection of the political elites is going wear off quite quickly when reality starts to set in. Rupert Murdoch's explanation of why he supported Brexit says it all:

'That’s easy, when I go into Downing Street they do what I say. When I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

This Nissan episode is the UK's first step down the road to the type of crony capitalism we already see in the US, where well connected companies are given special deals by politicians and the tax code runs to over 20,000 pages of loopholes for specific companies and industries. These sorts of deals are usually illegal under EU rules.

@rainyday

This argument of 44% of Britain's exports go to the EU proves why the UK has a strong position. People often quote the percentages without realising what the figures are.

UK to EU exports (around 44% but maybe lower due to the Rotterdam effect)

€230 billion

EU to UK (about 8%)

€290 billion

I don't think Germany and France can afford to lose around €60 billion annually for trade tariffs.

First year accounting and finance students learn about the economic consequences of introducing customs duties. Concentrating on the short to medium turn political belligerence from the fallout of Great Britain's rejection of a European Union unfit for purpose would be more to the point.

Nissan’s, Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota, Bentley, Honda, etc etc off shore supply chains are supported by a FX strategy embracing high-frequency stat-arb, with Quants hedging to zero against currency fluctuations right through the chain, long straddling options etc. It not like an episode of the Two Ronnie's, running round Europe buying "fork 'andles"....

Events have move on a tad in the last twenty four hours. Her Majesty's Government has in all intents and purposes has had its ability to trigger article 50, utilizing royal prerogative, denied by Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice the country’s most senior judge, whose judgement, worded in such a forthright manner to appear appeal-proof.

“The court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.

“In the judgment of the court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers. The court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants

“For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”

This judgement to be the subject of an appeal heard by the 11 Justices of the Supreme Court early December, if upheld, will set in motion the ground for parliament to engineer a second referendum on the strategy behind the triggering of article 50 introducing amendments to the bill. I am of the option, from day one, that a method would be found to circumvent the June referendum result.

I don't think Germany and France can afford to lose around €60 billion annually for trade tariffs.

But the UK can afford to lose almost 4 times that much?

The absolute numbers aren`t very relevant to the question of bargaining power - the political pressure on the UK government to protect that 44% of its trade (by making concessions) is going to be way more than the political pressure on the EU to protect 8% of its trade, even if the absolute numbers are similar in size.

All rather exciting don't you think? The Government has all but thrown in the towel, and is resigned to having to introduce a bill, that will effectively have to pass through both the Lords and commons for debate and amendments .

With a majority of just ten, the stage is set for a killer amendment tt demand that a second referendum, worded with dollops of ambiguity and vagueness, thus smothering any plausible exit route from the EU. So the Government will have little choice other than to call a General Election to secure an increased majorly. Consider this, Theresa Mays' cabinet brexit means brexit hollerings bluff is about to be called.

With a majority of just ten

Dont forget that DUP's 8 MPs and Ukip's single MP will also vote for Brexit, increasing the majority - as long as May can get all her MPs to vote in line, that is. I suspect that Parliament will still vote for Brexit; I suppose a second referendum or a general election might happen, but my realistic hope is that the process and negotiations involved in the Article 50 debate will avert the 'hard Brexit' scenario and therefore avoid the worst of the financial consequences.

Nearly all of the people who voted Leave did so knowing

Now, there's a big claim!

I don't think Germany and France can afford to lose around €60 billion annually for trade tariffs. yes but your assuming that all the manufacturing in the UK that exports to the EU will stay within the UK. Once the tarriffs start to bite UK manufacturing will slowing move from the UK into the EU. Any losses that the EU may make from UK tariffs will be made up in more investment within the EU and the jobs taken away from the UK. EU clearly has the trade advantage now as the UK relies much more heavily on the EU than the EU relies on the UK. The EU will continue to make being within the EU more advantageous than not, and rightly so.

@rainyday

You're trying to say figures aren't important but in your first post you base your argument on percentages. Can't see how you can ignore the figures and quote percentages as they as one and the same.

@ SenseNotSoCommon

It's not really a claim. It's fact. Not sure if you remember £9 million being spent on leaflets to be posted through everyone's doors to tell them of catastrophic economic consequences if people voted Leave. Cameron time and time again told us the economy would pay dearly. George Osborne told everyone every family would be £4300 worse off. The BBC at every opportunity gave plenty of air time to anyone who gave a likewise opinion for nearly 4 months. How anyone could get through all that without hearing prophecies of economic doom is beyond me. So yes, people who voted Leave did so in spite of all that.

@wtfjapan

You say manufacturers will move over to the EU. I doubt it. Knowing France and Denmark will be having EU referendums within the next 24 months will make people think twice before moving operations.

Ultimately, whichever things go over in the UK, it is too late now. Even before the negotiations are halfway through, there'll be other countries out the door and the EU won't have any negotiating strength.

How anyone could get through all that without hearing prophecies of economic doom is beyond me.

Just promise 'em 350m a week for the NHS.

Hi Yoshitsune, 55% of Conservative PMs activity stumped for remain. Over 72% of all Commons PMs are remain supporters. Theresa May won't risk a Commons defeat - In or out, Brexit is exactly what it says on the tin, there is no shake it all about half way house.

Keeping that in mind, if Her Majesty's Government fails to reverse Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice ruling, December 7th, at the Supreme Court. Prepare soon after for Theresa May to make the trip to Buckingham Palace to dissolve her Government, and call a General Election for late January early February. A humble question? Your views on the outcome and implications?

The Government have been afforded little or no safe political space to manoeuvre. The ruling handed down offers no compromise for interpretation. It is a all or nothing scenario.

It is worth noting Yoshitsune, the financial backers represented by the prestigious law firm Mishcon de Reya, remain shrouded in secrecy, after refusal of Mishcon de Reya to reveal their identities.

Rest assured these vested interests intent in maintaining the status quo may neither be philanthropic or humanitarian.

Well , If tariffs will be levied, it will likely be a quid-pro-quo, meaning that UK will have substantial income from tariffs on imported cars, with which to compensate the outlays. Germany with its renowned acramkers for example exported goods to the tuine of 90billion Euros to UK in 2015, but imported for only 40 billion. So tariffs would deal Germany a heavy blow (in fact, Opel already announced readuced workshifts in a German plant due to reduced UK demand), but we Germans are used to a govenrment that sells out our interests to bolster their European pipedream. Secondly, the pound already took a beating with a depreciation of 10%+ vis-a-vis the Euro, making UK-made cars cheaper on the continent and making up for any proce increases due to 10% tariffs. In the end, the BRitish will consume less imported goods, and will have to produce more by themselves - which is exactly the right answer to the crazy trade deificits they ran the last decades.

You say manufacturers will move over to the EU. I doubt it. well it will when UK cant be competitive with selling its good within the EU, companies will move to cheaper labor countries within the EU and without any tariffs. You keep forgetting there are our 20 countries within the EU. Big corporations within the EU are already pressuring their governments into refusing tariff-free access for UK goods unless they follow the EU principles. The UK needs all EU member states to agree on any future free market for its goods, with the kick in the nuts the UK has given the EU I doubt that will happen. Then you've got the Scotland dilemma, if they leave the UK is screwed. The UK has a minefield to navigate in the coming years.

Brexiteers are praying that the EU will collapse as that's the only way itll save their bacon. I wouldn't bet my future on that happening.

Rocknroll,

True that many Tories campaigned for remaining, but many Labour MPs also campaigned for leaving. Thing is though, the way they campaigned doesn't tell us how they will vote next year on triggering Article 50 - those who represent constituencies that voted to leave are likely to vote to trigger Article 50 even if they personally campaigned against Brexit before the vote. I don't think it's a given at all that Parliamemt will vote Brexit down, so I don't expect to see May call an election before Parliament votes. Should Parliament vote against triggering Article 50, that's when I'd expect her to call an election to try and win a clear majority and mandate. And I think that if it comes to that, the Tories will win a majority and mandate.

You say all or nothing, but that's not really true. Yes, it's in or out; but out can happen a multitude of ways. It may well now play out that the only way May can get Parliament to vote to approve a bill on triggering Article 50 is by writing said bill with guarantees of negotiating to remain in the single market whilst leaving the EU.

WHO DO EU THINK YOU ARE? Handful of EU campaigners led by foreign-born multi-millionaire Gina Miller derail Theresa May’s Brexit plans

bleats today's front page of tabloid The Sun, Britain's best-selling newspaper, questioning the authority of a foreign-born multi-millionaire (British citizen) to challenge Brexit, but conveniently ignoring its own ownership by another foreign-born multi-millionaire and political meddler par excellence who has never had British citizenship.

Once asked by London Evening Standard's Anthony Hilton why he was so opposed to the EU, the latter foreign-born multi-millionaire declared 'That’s easy. When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

Who's zoomin' who?

You're trying to say figures aren't important but in your first post you base your argument on percentages. Can't see how you can ignore the figures and quote percentages as they as one and the same.

I said nothing of the sort, figures are important but you have to subject them to a rational analysis. I will say it again, the proportional significance of EU trade is much larger than to the UK than UK trade is to the EU, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post. If you can come up with a convincing reason why this would not play to the disadvantage of the UK in negotiations then I am all ears. In the meantime don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of ignoring things just because I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why I think they are not useful unless you consider them in relative terms.

Hi Yoshitsune, Neither the EU negotiators or the UK Government can afford to flinch. At the forefront of the Lisbon treaty are four key principles, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.

Originally enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. All are front and foremost contained within the Single European Act. The European Commission, it's institutions and Parliament cannot countenance any deal that ultimately dilutes any of these four key principals, all four cherish as pillars.

This is the very definition of a rock and a hard place.

The ultimate goal of the current High Court action is to maintain UK membership of the European Union.

To achieve this there will have to be orchestrated a second referendum. For this second referendum to have any pretense of democratic legitimacy will require Parliament to fashion the referendum around the proposal that the exit is from the European Union rather than the single market.

The very suggestion creates a paradox that will provide the opportunity in the Commons or the Upper House to amend the bill that includes a form of ratification to the eventual settlement for invoking Article 50 by the British people. This will take a considerable amount of time. 12 months is wishful thinking. The whole process could be held up in the Lords (upper house) indefinitely.

So a General Election provides an alternative, to increase the conservative majority on the principal that MP's selected adhere to the 23rd June mandate.

@sense

The Mail has a corker today too - our High Court judges are now branded 'enemies of the people'. The very same High Court that the Mail, Sun, and Brexiteers at large have been insisting they wanted to save from the 'EU dictatorship'. Really quite amazing; their argument now seems to be to scrap rule of law and parliamentary democracy, to be replaced with a Brexit-branded rubber stamp. More than a little scary.

@rocknroll

Well, the referendum we had this year most definitely was on leaving the EU and not on leaving the single market. I have accepted that we are to leave the EU, and am now arguing in favour of remaining in the single market when we do so.

The scenario you outline is certainly a possibility, among multiple possibilities. As I said already, I think Parliament as it presently is will be asked to vote on a bill to trigger Article 50 before any general election is called; only if that bill is voted down do I expect a general election before 2020. Right now, the most likely scenario I see is Article 50 triggered in summer 2017 and the adoption of a soft(er) Brexit negotiation stance.

The ultimate goal of the current High Court action is to maintain UK membership of the European Union.

Not so. The goal of the action is to ensure the correct legal procedure is followed under UK law, regardless of whether we leave or remain.

Hi Yoshitsune, No member state can have access to the single market without, enshrining , so agreeing to those four key principles, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, also adhering to the Customs Union, and ensuring EU law i.e recognition of the ECJ,and subsequently interpreted and applied EU laws accordingly..

So keeping this in mind, there is no real option on the table.

This High Court action is to prevent the UK Government exercising its royal prerogative to trigger article 50 independently, bypassing the sovereign wishes of a democratically elected parliament. In reality and excuse my cynicism, this action is to find a work around to make sure the UK, by hook or crook retains its EU membership.

Why enter into a negotiation, only two year later, to achieve a result or position, one already enjoyed in the first place?

The bill/act of parliament won't be to trigger or invoke Article 50. It will be to define ratification in the form of a second referendum. the difference will be to secure rejection and accordingly smother Brexit.

No member state can have access to the single market without, enshrining , so agreeing to those four key principles

I'm well aware of that. I am hoping that we remain in the single market.

This High Court action is to prevent the UK Government exercising its royal prerogative to trigger article 50 independently, bypassing the sovereign wishes of a democratically elected parliament.

And the high court is right to rule that parliament should not be bypassed. The ruling doesn't necessarily mean that the UK will remain in the EU as you're claiming; it just ensures that parliament plays the role it is supposed to.

The bill/act of parliament won't be to trigger or invoke Article 50. It will be to define ratification in the form of a second referendum. the difference will be to secure rejection and accordingly smother Brexit.

I hope you're right, but I don't think you are.

Once reaching the upper house, Lord Mandelson, Lady Wheatcroft, Lord Heseltine, amongst thirty others will, delay the bill and add amendments. One of which will be a clause/motion to force a second referendum.

Lady Wheatcroft.....'Yes I would. And I would hope while we delayed things that there would be sufficient movement in the EU to justify putting it to the electorate, either through a general election or a second referendum'

Yes, I recall her saying that back in July or August. As I said I hope you're right, but I'm not going to indulge myself in wishful thinking. I've already said which outcome I see as most likely as things stand - although I've just read that a Tory MP just resigned, as a result of which talk is stirring of May not choosing but being forced into an early election.

One of which will be a clause/motion to force a second referendum.

One of which could be a clause/motion to force a second referendum.

My use of the verb will defines a possible future occurrence, not a foregone conclusion.

Conservative MP Stephen Phillips resignation could be as much a fatal compulsive drive for promotion. Stephen James Phillips, QC, a gifted, successful barrister and judge had a equally inflated singular sense of awareness of his own value and self worth. An incendiary combination for front line politics, whose inherent elitism provides the worst examples of immorality, turpitude, and lack of moral principles.

My support for Brexit was/is the strongest appeal to provide a wake up call at least economically for the European Commission, Parliament, it's Institutions and Council. A shock to the system to reform and restructure the underlying inherent fiscal and monetary flaws within the Euro zone. My misjudgement was to believe that common sense would prevail.

I won't harp on about the obvious, the German and Italian banking crisis. The social and economic chaos, admittedly self inflicted in Southern Europe . The appalling open door immigration policy, leaving tens of thousands drowned and thousand more at risk of the people smugglers.

The most infuriating is the conceited, cyclically shameless behaviour of Messrs Tony Blair and Nick Clegg.

Sometimes one needs to walk away, excepting the price will be high and the consequences mean suffering the costs.

I have no illusions, this High Court action is an attempt to circumvent a referendum, the democratic will of the people that at the ballot box for better or for worse mandated a exit from the European Union.

To camouflage a reversal under the fakery of a soft exit is reckless and contemptuous. Compromise will be essential from both from the EU and the British Government. However if it mean that the UK government has to weaponise the use of its veto, and withhold it contributions then so be it., Juncker and Schulz have brought this upon themselves.

Brexiteer MP Andrew Rossendell demanded BBC1 revive playing God Save the Queen at the end of the night to celebrate Brexit.

Here's how BBC2's Newsnight programme obliged him:

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

A miss quote....

Queen - We Are The Champions.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSTivVclQQ0

My use of the verb will defines a possible future occurrence, not a foregone conclusion.

Hence my suggestion that you select a more appropriate word; could, may, might, take your pick.

Wonderfully wordy character assassination of Philips, apropos of very little.

My misjudgement was to believe that common sense would prevail.

Common sense is markedly absent from this entire omnishambles.

I won't harp on about the obvious, the German and Italian banking crisis. The social and economic chaos, admittedly self inflicted in Southern Europe

Why even bring them up? Irrelevant to UK legal proceedings.

The appalling open door immigration policy, leaving tens of thousands drowned and thousand more at risk of the people smugglers

There is no 'open door immigration policy'. That's a Brexit falsehood.

The most infuriating is the conceited, cyclically shameless behaviour of Messrs Tony Blair and Nick Clegg.

Blair and Clegg and a squirrel?

To camouflage a reversal under the fakery of a soft exit is reckless and contemptuous.

A soft exit is the best outcome at this point. Those who wanted to remain in the EU don't have to suck it up and accept the hardest possible form of Brexit; a softer exit is the sensible compromise.

I chose the verbs will (future) in place of could (past), to demonstrate my conviction that the upper house will introduce an amendment/addition to the yet to be determined act/bill, so blocking Brexit by means of a second referendum will prevail.

Immigration in the context of Brexit is misnomer, the open door policy advocated by Angela Merkel, and endorsed by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker is something different altogether and has little or nothing in common with Brexit, i.e free movement of labour, representative of a requisite of continued membership of the European Union.

Marcus Walker and Anton Troianovski 2015 Wsj article covers the bullet points impartially.

Behind Angela Merkel’s Open Door for Migrants

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-angela-merkels-open-door-for-migrants-1449712113

Merkel and Juncker, arrogantly, at no point even considering a process of consultation with any of the other 27 member states, so evaluating a coherent policy or strategy. Nope, the resultant anger and razor wire is a direct response of their incompetence.

A softer exit, detect a slight movement. A softer approach to perhaps the free movement of labour or a prolonged period of time before access to benefits? .....

The link between the current legal proceedings and the economic/banking crisis of Southern and Central European refers to timing. All the net contributors will have to increase their contributions, the question is by how much. At present the commission has categorically denied the scenario. However the Multiannual Financial Framework is hiding a multitude of extra spending...

The Multiannual Financial Framework explained - The MFF: the EU long-term spending plan.....

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/introduction/index_en.cfm

the resultant anger and razor wire

What a relief Britain ignored the Daily Mail's rantings in the 30s and 40s, thus not depriving itself of great cohorts of recent and contemporary academia, business and political life.

chose the verbs will (future) in place of could (past), to demonstrate my conviction that the upper house will introduce an amendment/addition to the yet to be determined act/bill, so blocking Brexit by means of a second referendum will prevail.

Ok fair enough, let's not get into a silly internet semantic merrygoround. I understand you were stating your conviction, but don't consider it the most likely scenario.

I wonder why you describe a second referendum as 'blocking Brexit'. If a second referendum were to have a result in favour of Brexit, then it wouldn't block Brexit; if it were to have the opposite result, then that would show that many had changed their minds in light of realising what it actually meant and that they'd been sold a pack of lies, and then Brexit wouldn't go ahead - having been 'blocked' by the electorate.

the open door policy advocated by Angela Merkel

...doesn't exist. If there were an open door immigration policy, people wouldn't be dying in the Med. They'd just fly over and exercise their open-door rights.

A softer approach to perhaps the free movement of labour or a prolonged period of time before access to benefits?

I want us to remain in the single market. I couldn't really care less if that involves some sort of labour control, if that's even possible to negotiate - I doubt it is, as you also clearly have stated, but if the govt can somehow negotiate that, and it helps to calm those ferocious ants in the Brexiteer pants, then it would be a sensible outcome.

All the net contributors will have to increase their contributions

Completely irrelevant to the matter of Parliament and our independent judiciary. Stop trying to introduce general anti-EU attacks to the discussion, I'm not interested.

Clearly we both have very different views, and are unlike to agree, find common ground, in relevance, fundamental definition, or even the outcome.

Every aspect of the process from the current/on going high court action to UK budget obligation, even Brexit itself is linked and interdependent both politically and economically effecting future generations to come.

TBH, I don't see how May can refuse subsidies to ALL EU exporters now after the astonishing Nissan deal

"Brits must be kicking themselves in the butt."

No, because all the doomsday reports like this have been wrong. Beyond wrong, in fact, with booming UK economy undermining the Remainers' basic assumptions.

Even in the worst case, the UK would reciprocate with tariffs of its own on all the expensive Mercedes, BMWs, etc., and use the revenue to subsidize their carmakers at home. More UK motorists would also be inclined to buy homegrown, boosting local factory production.