EU. In or out?

[Trev]

"Just like how we lost British Leyland 75k a week from Gov subsidy but not allowed due to EU Competition Rules, to keep 100% our only British car Production or 5,000 unemployed then BMW turned up got the new plans for the Mini for free ok took on the work force but took all the profit out of the U.K. and the rest is history. Now we can’t keep British Steel afloat sold out by TM sticking to EU rules the last of steel production gone forever once it’s broken up.
Vote Brexit Party if you want to save British Steel."

BL failed because the cars were shi*te, the company was sh*te, the managers couldn't manage and the unions didn't want to let them anyway. Propping it up any more (governments of the time had already poured millions into it, that's how it became BL in the first place from a mish mash of failing British car brands) would have cost us all, as tax payers, even more money to support a business that couldn't compete in the global arena. BMW coming in actually ensured that car manufacturing continued on the site for people to have well paid jobs and careeers.

.... and therein lies the issue with withdrawing from the global environment, everyone else isn't going to so we will end up going along with whatever the 'big boys' decide anyway, whether it's business rules and regulations, environmental actions, political machinations or even, God forbid, military actions. We're just not a big enough market, influence or economy to go it alone and no amount of turning the clock back, unless we can all get back to the wooden sail boat era, is going to make that happen.

[OB1]

Everyone knows that globalisation has caused the failure of British Steel... cheap Chinese imports by dumping inferior steel turned away by America in Mr Trump's trade war. BS was already on a loser when it bought the company from TATA for a pound… a thriving asset does not normally cost a pound?

Sorry to come back to this a day later, but it is something that has been trotted out by Trump and his cohorts for a number of years and is now being parroted by those that would like to see the UK go back to the good [sic] old days. Well, I'd rather not take Trump's word for things, especially when they involve China: a country that I have visited many times during my 30s and 40s.

The claim is that inferior Chinese steel is being dumped on the US and now the EU. So I did some digging and found that, whilst China is producing more steel than they need and that they are selling it for around $30 a tonne less than it costs to produce, I could find no reference to the inferior quality. If it was to a lower production standard, surely it would be rejected anyway? So, for me, that has debunked the quality issue in the original statement.

The second issue is that they are selling the steel at a loss, otherwise known as subsidised. As it was widely reported over the past couple of days, British Steel has previously asked the UK government for a "bailout" in order to keep on trading. There is another word for a bailout and that would be a subsidy. So, whilst it's bad for the Chinese to subsidise their steel in order to sell it, it's perfectly fine for British Steel to ask for the same thing? That sounds like double-standards to me.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate with the above, but someone needs to fact-check these things rather than believing everything you read or hear because it fits with your personal bias. I would totally agree that we should prioritise British industries over the rest of the World, however, I don't agree with propping up failing companies (like we did with the coal mines and the banks) that are haemorrhaging money just to keep that industry British.

[Brenhden]

Everyone knows that globalisation has caused the failure of British Steel... cheap Chinese imports by dumping inferior steel turned away by America in Mr Trump's trade war. BS was already on a loser when it bought the company from TATA for a pound… a thriving asset does not normally cost a pound?

Sorry to come back to this a day later, but it is something that has been trotted out by Trump and his cohorts for a number of years and is now being parroted by those that would like to see the UK go back to the good [sic] old days. Well, I'd rather not take Trump's word for things, especially when they involve China: a country that I have visited many times during my 30s and 40s.

The claim is that inferior Chinese steel is being dumped on the US and now the EU. So I did some digging and found that, whilst China is producing more steel than they need and that they are selling it for around $30 a tonne less than it costs to produce, I could find no reference to the inferior quality. If it was to a lower production standard, surely it would be rejected anyway? So, for me, that has debunked the quality issue in the original statement.

The second issue is that they are selling the steel at a loss, otherwise known as subsidised. As it was widely reported over the past couple of days, British Steel has previously asked the UK government for a "bailout" in order to keep on trading. There is another word for a bailout and that would be a subsidy. So, whilst it's bad for the Chinese to subsidise their steel in order to sell it, it's perfectly fine for British Steel to ask for the same thing? That sounds like double-standards to me.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate with the above, but someone needs to fact-check these things rather than believing everything you read or hear because it fits with your personal bias. I would totally agree that we should prioritise British industries over the rest of the World, however, I don't agree with propping up failing companies (like we did with the coal mines and the banks) that are haemorrhaging money just to keep that industry British.

Well to play devils advocate to your devils advocate Maybe the important thing here is whether we think steel is essential or not. If its not essential let it go and move on. If it is it should be nationalised and subsidised.

If we cannot function without steel then not having our own source of it a risk that leaves us open to pressure from countries we get it from. Imagine if we did that with electricity and shut all our power stations and got it all from France. The first time we fell out with France we would be f$%ked. Interestingly coal works the opposite way round, we leave it in the ground and we'll always have it so if we really need it one day we can start mining it again.

Its clear that we can't compete with cheap foreign steel but do we need our own supply anyway. If the difference between Chinese steel and British steel is only £30 a tonne then couldn't we just use UK steel for Navy, Trains, power stations etc and pay the extra? As long a that money goes into our economy (rather than into some overseas conglomerate) then it's money well spent?

[OB1]

Well to play devils advocate to your devils advocate Maybe the important thing here is whether we think steel is essential or not. If it's not essential to let it go and move on. If it is it should be nationalised and subsidised.

If we cannot function without steel then not having our own source of it a risk that leaves us open to pressure from countries we get it from. Imagine if we did that with electricity and shut all our power stations and got it all from France. The first time we fell out with France we would be f$%ked. Interestingly coal works the opposite way round, we leave it in the ground and we'll always have it so if we really need it one day we can start mining it again.

It's clear that we can't compete with cheap foreign steel but do we need our own supply anyway. If the difference between Chinese steel and British steel is only £30 a tonne then couldn't we just use UK steel for Navy, Trains, power stations etc and pay the extra? As long as that money goes into our economy (rather than into some overseas conglomerate) then it's money well spent?

One thing missing from your advocacy is that the steel industry isn't a closed loop, i.e. the raw material (ore) doesn't come from the UK, unlike coal so, regardless of it being subsidised, we are dependent on a third country and I wouldn't be surprised if that country was China!

[Trev]

Well to play devils advocate to your devils advocate Maybe the important thing here is whether we think steel is essential or not. If it's not essential to let it go and move on. If it is it should be nationalised and subsidised.

If we cannot function without steel then not having our own source of it a risk that leaves us open to pressure from countries we get it from. Imagine if we did that with electricity and shut all our power stations and got it all from France. The first time we fell out with France we would be f$%ked. Interestingly coal works the opposite way round, we leave it in the ground and we'll always have it so if we really need it one day we can start mining it again.

It's clear that we can't compete with cheap foreign steel but do we need our own supply anyway. If the difference between Chinese steel and British steel is only £30 a tonne then couldn't we just use UK steel for Navy, Trains, power stations etc and pay the extra? As long as that money goes into our economy (rather than into some overseas conglomerate) then it's money well spent?

One thing missing from your advocacy is that the steel industry isn't a closed loop, i.e. the raw material (ore) doesn't come from the UK, unlike coal so, regardless of it being subsidised, we are dependent on a third country and I wouldn't be surprised if that country was China!

The largest supplier of iron ore is Australia (a friend is a mine engineer there), the UK imports its iron ore from Australia, Brazil and yup, China

[Pint Master]

"Just like how we lost British Leyland 75k a week from Gov subsidy but not allowed due to EU Competition Rules, to keep 100% our only British car Production or 5,000 unemployed then BMW turned up got the new plans for the Mini for free ok took on the work force but took all the profit out of the U.K. and the rest is history. Now we can’t keep British Steel afloat sold out by TM sticking to EU rules the last of steel production gone forever once it’s broken up.
Vote Brexit Party if you want to save British Steel."

BL failed because the cars were shi*te, the company was sh*te, the managers couldn't manage and the unions didn't want to let them anyway. Propping it up any more (governments of the time had already poured millions into it, that's how it became BL in the first place from a mish mash of failing British car brands) would have cost us all, as tax payers, even more money to support a business that couldn't compete in the global arena. BMW coming in actually ensured that car manufacturing continued on the site for people to have well paid jobs and careeers.

BL produced more than their fair share for rubbish but they were on the up due to their partnership with Honda which started with the Triumph Acclaim which wasn't a bad car and I am sure BL would still be going today but for series of bodyblows it received Thatcher almost gifted BL to British Aerospace who proceeded to asset strip the business before selling it to BMW for about £500 million at this point Honda walked away ,BMW really only wanted it for Land Rover and Mini , Jaguar had already been sold to Ford ,BMW did put a bit of effort in helping to build the Rover 75 but they parted company pretty soon afterwards selling it to Towers and his shower for £10, the pension fund was reduced and they disposed of what other assets they could.The Rover City Car was built in India by TATA and badged Rover it was bought in to save the company but it was an unbelievably bad car approaching 50% were rejected by their owners.
But for Thatcher/British Aerospace BMW and Towers I think Longbridge would still be running today.

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

Someone I know was working for BMW during Longbridge.

What did for them was the high value of the £ against the € at the time. They had bet on the £ staying relatively low, and were tooling up to build products that the Europeans would buy.

At one point it was costing BMW £1 million a day to keep Longbridge open. The legacy of BMW's venture into the UK is an engine factory at Hams Hall, a body-pressing plant in Swindon and the MINI assembly plant in Oxford.

Longbridge was just too big and too old to ever be a competitive car factory, whoever owned it. It first went bust in 1901, and the only times it seems to have done well were wartimes.

[Pint Master]

I visited Longbridge a few times in the late eighties and it was antiquated but it almost looked modern compared to Vauxalls Cavalier production facility in Luton ,never went to Dagenham but Im guessing that was the same.These factories needed massive investment to make them competitive difficult to do not made easier by the massive EU funds poured into Spain and Eastern Europe to build modern car factories.

[Trev]

These factories needed massive investment to make them competitive difficult to do not made easier by the massive EU funds poured into Spain and Eastern Europe to build modern car factories.

Agreed but not impossible, BMW, Honda and Nissan have all managed it

[Jak*]

I went round Dagenham in the early eighties and visited Toyota in the mid nineties. The difference was phenomenal. It was like Dagenham has constructed the building round the assembly line. Toyota was almost clinically clean. It was a similar contrast between Meriden and Hinckley. One of the downsides of this for the UK, is if we Brexit is that you can see that Toyota and Triumph could just pick up the machinery and move it abroad, whereas that would have been impossible at Dagenham, I think the building would have collapsed if you had tried to move anything.
Cheers Jak