• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

There is a big difference between regaining control over migration, and actually making changes to the current flows.

So they want control back but still claim that they can't stop immigration? Ha!! If Britain wants to continue to bring over tons of 3rd world erst they will do that. Why? Because countless British governments have done that since 1997 under Blair. As someone noted in another thread, the EU actually brought over more ethnic Europeans (white immigrants and non Muslims) into Britain then Britain would of received without the EU.

The massive Muslim population and non-European population was the UK governments own doing.

All leaving the EU does is now prevent the UK from having to accept bullsh!t 'refugee' quotas.

And look I can understand the leave campaign. But if their big issue is mass immigration, Muslim immigrantion, and non-European immigration then they need to look at their own government. Because their own government is more responsibile for that then the EU ever was.
 
Yup, they are going to try to rush this integration before movements from other nations to disolve the union can gain traction. Should be an interesting race. The EU turned totoletarion far more quickly then I would have imagined.

You also have to laugh at the notion of including Turkey, I swear these fucking morons exist in a completely different reality. They are going to have freedom of movement with an integrated Islamic state? Are they fucking insane?

Sounds pretty fucked
 
So they want control back but still claim that they can't stop immigration? Ha!! If Britain wants to continue to bring over tons of 3rd world erst they will do that. Why? Because countless British governments have done that since 1997 under Blair. As someone noted in another thread, the EU actually brought over more ethnic Europeans (white immigrants and non Muslims) into Britain then Britain would of received without the EU.

The massive Muslim population and non-European population was the UK governments own doing.

All leaving the EU does is now prevent the UK from having to accept bullsh!t 'refugee' quotas.

And look I can understand the leave campaign. But if their big issue is mass immigration, Muslim immigrantion, and non-European immigration then they need to look at their own government. Because their own government is more responsibile for that then the EU ever was.

I agree the diversification/multiculturism/mass migrations strategy isn't an EU specific thing, but at least they CAN look at their own government. At least moreso now.
 
In addition, many Britons of Arab descent voted Leave because they think while Arab refugees have legitimate reasons to come there, Poles could just work in their own country and there would be more jobs for their people.
 
There is a big difference between regaining control over migration, and actually making changes to the current flows.

Do you think the next British government would be willing give up the single market for that?
 
Do you think the next British government would be willing give up the single market for that?

I don't know the rules when it comes to market access and migrant access and refugee quotas.

It is reported that other countries are lining up to negotiate new trade deals with the UK now so they have some options. I doubt the EU will freeze the UK out of their markets either way unless they want to make a statement.

It's a tricky balance.

The British government is still run by private industrialists and bankers either way, so economics and globalization is always going to play a big part.

And Britain is to be 'properly diversified' as part of the same strategy deployed onto all Western nations with or without the EU by the looks of it.
 
UK single market access ‘not a realistic option’ without accepting EU rules
Harry Cockburn
Tuesday 28 June 2016

eu_bash.jpg

The UK cannot bypass the key liberties of the European Union, such as free movement of people, and retain its access to the single market, Germany’s foreign policy spokesman Jurgen Hardt has said.

Mr Hardt said: “The single market is the harmonised market with four liberties – you can move your money as you want, you can send goods where you want, you can do services where you want, and you have the free movement of employees and citizens.

“Taking [these aspects] out of the single market to keep Britain in is not a realistic option,” he told the BBC.

Mr Hardt’s comments follow similar statements from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said the UK cannot “cherry pick” the terms of its departure from the EU.

Ms Merkel said for Britain to “keep the privileges” of access to the single market, it would have to accept basic EU values such as the free movement of people, just as Norway does.

Boris Johnson, who is among the favourites to run for Conservative Party leadership when David Cameron steps down, has said “there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.”

But EU officials have made it clear that this will come at a price, and one which will be at odds with the very reason many Britons voted to leave the union.

Immigration has been a central issue for many who voted to leave the EU. Mr Johnson and UKIP leader Nigel Farage both campaigned for Leave saying they wanted to introduce an Australian-style points system for immigration.

“You cannot have your cake and eat it”, said an EU diplomat in response to Mr Johnson’s claims the UK could enjoy access to the single market without obeying EU rules, the Guardian reports.

Mr Johnson previously remarked that when it comes to cake, he is “pro having it and pro eating it”.

But the diplomat added: “It is a pipe dream. You cannot have full access to the single market and not accept its rules. If we gave that kind of deal to the UK, then why not Australia or New Zealand? It would be a free-for-all.”

For now, Ms Merkel says Britain’s exit from the EU will not begin until the UK officially triggers article 50.

David Cameron has refused to do so, leaving it for his successor to begin the formal Brexit process.

As Britain’s economy reels from the referendum result, triggering article 50 is becoming an increasingly unenviable task for the next prime minister, particularly for those candidates like Mr Johnson and Michael Gove, who campaigned on reducing immigration, and may yet be forced to accept major concessions to retain access to the single market.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...arket-eu-rules-freedom-movement-a7107281.html
 
The EU does business with the US, Canada, and many other nations. So obviously it will do business with the UK.

It's just the details that will be negotiated.

Their language makes it sound like the they would freeze out the UK which obviously isn't realistic.
 
The EU does business with the US, Canada, and many other nations. So obviously it will do business with the UK.

It's just the details that will be negotiated.

Their language makes it sound like the they would freeze out the UK which obviously isn't realistic.
Yes, the presentation here is pure political grandstanding. The UK would do just fine ignoring Europe completely and only dealing with North America, it would be moronic for the EU to exclude the UK the way they are suggesting. Its all just pantiwaist whining, imagine if they were as tough on Turkey as they suggest they will be on the UK? What a pathetic group of nations the EU has become.
 
The EU does business with the US, Canada, and many other nations. So obviously it will do business with the UK.

It's just the details that will be negotiated.

Their language makes it sound like the they would freeze out the UK which obviously isn't realistic.

Yes, the presentation here is pure political grandstanding. The UK would do just fine ignoring Europe completely and only dealing with North America, it would be moronic for the EU to exclude the UK the way they are suggesting. Its all just pantiwaist whining, imagine if they were as tough on Turkey as they suggest they will be on the UK? What a pathetic group of nations the EU has become.

WTF are you guys talking about?! :eek:

Nobody in the E.U is even REMOTELY suggesting to "freezing out" or "excluding" doing business with the UK! Where the hell do you people get your information from?? o_O

Since I don't think you are liars, perhaps what's happening here is that you guys are really, REALLY behind on this whole "EU single market access" business (which is kinda incredible in itself since it's one of the most important argument on the "Remain" side leading up to the vote), and are trying to wrap your mind around something you not yet fully understands.

Simply put: the countries that agreed to follow the EU rules would gain access to the EU Single Market, that means ONE deal for all, with no trade barriers, tariffs, and customs while doing business with any country in the entire European Union.

All EU members follow those rules, and for that all EU members enjoys preferential access to the EU single market.

That includes the United Kingdom, for the time being.

Now, there are certain countries that are NOT members of the EU, but willingly to play by the EU rules in order to have that highly-coveted single market access. That's the "Norway model" we were talking about back in Brexit Discussion v1.

It's okay if the post-Brexit U.K decide NOT to follow EU rules anymore (including the mandatory Freedom of Movement), as they can always negotiate a regular trade deal with the E.U (or with each member individually), pay the tariffs, and go through customs while doing business in Europe, just like how any other countries in the world are doing business with the E.U right now.

The question here is are the people in the "Leave" camp willing to sacrifice the access to the EU single market, in order to "take back control" like they promised. You simply can have one or the other, but not both.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the presentation here is pure political grandstanding. The UK would do just fine ignoring Europe completely and only dealing with North America, it would be moronic for the EU to exclude the UK the way they are suggesting. Its all just pantiwaist whining, imagine if they were as tough on Turkey as they suggest they will be on the UK? What a pathetic group of nations the EU has become.

Grandstanding for sure. Just part of negotiation tactics I suppose.
 
I think you're really, REALLY behind on this whole "single market access" business.

It's fine if the post-Brexit U.K decide not to follow those rules (include the Freedom of Movement), as they can always pay the tariffs and deal with customs in order to do business with the EU, just like any other non-EU countries are doing right now.

The question here is are they willing to do that.
What tariffs do the US and Canada pay? Not a single significant one. That's kind of the point. Even if CETA doesn't go through (has it already?) the actual real trade barriers between Canada and the EU are minimal at most. The US's agreement is even more open.

If the UK gets a deal in line with either of those, then its free trade in all but name. Thats the joke here.
 
I think you guys really, REALLY behind on this whole "single market access" business.

It's fine if the post-Brexit U.K decide not to follow those rules (include the Freedom of Movement), as they can always pay the tariffs and go through customs in order to do business with members of the EU, just like any other non-EU countries are doing right now.

The question here is are they willing to do that, after so many years of doing business in Europe without tariffs and customs.

It will come down to negotiations. What the end result will look like is hard to say, but yeah that is a big question on the freedom of movement. EU businesses will have had access to the UK markets the same way so it's not like the UK has no chips on the table.
 
What tariffs do the US and Canada pay? Not a single significant one. That's kind of the point. Even if CETA doesn't go through (has it already?) the actual real trade barriers between Canada and the EU are minimal at most. The US's agreement is even more open.

If the UK gets a deal in line with either of those, then its free trade in all but name. Thats the joke here.

The negotiation for the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership probably wouldn't be complete until 2020, but it's insane to even contemplate that the U.K has the clout to be making deals on par with the U.S. That's why nobody is crazy enough to bring up the U.S model when debating which trade route Britain should take when doing business with Europe after Brexit.

Since the E.U already made it clear for years that there will never be another "a` la carte" deal like the Switzerland model, the three realistic options for Britain is either gonna be the Norway model, the Canada model, or falling back to the bare minimum with WTO rules.

It took FIVE YEARS for the Canada-EU trade deal negotiation to conclude, and in the end it largely cover products, not services. That means the British financial/banking industry is royally fucked if they go with the Canada model. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole damn industry in Britain will collapse as soon as another E.U powerhouse inevitably replaces them as the new European financial hub.

Going by the Norway model (which is what they're arguing over right now) means all that promises about borders and immigration controls made by the Leave camp is instantly out the window. No Freedom of Movement = No Single Market Access. It is that simple. It is that clear.

But I'm sure all the avid participants of our "Brexit" series of discussion already knew all that. I made sure that this topic is extensively covered in Brexit Discussion v1, as the options for the new U.K-EU trade deal is one of the most important factors that ALL British voters on Sherdog should know BEFORE heading to the poll for this Vote of the Century.

It's kinda stupid if they didn't.

Actually, it would be incredibly stupid.

See guys? We're on v4 now! THIS is the advanced level of discussion that we should be having in here, not arguing over signs! :cool:
 
Last edited:
The negotiation for the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership probably wouldn't be complete until 2020, but it's insane to even contemplate that the U.K has the clout to be making deals on par with the U.S. That's why nobody are crazy enough to bring up the U.S model when debating which trade route Britain should take when doing business with Europe after Brexit.

Since the E.U already made it clear for years that there will never be another "a` la carte" deal like the Switzerland model, the three realistic options for Britain is either gonna be the Norway model, the Canada model, or falling back to the bare minimum with WTO rules.

It took FIVE YEARS for the Canada-EU trade deal negotiation to conclude, and in the end it largely cover products, not services. That means British's financial/banking industry is royally fucked if they go with the Canada model.

Going by the Norway model (which is what they're arguing over right now) means all that promises about borders and immigration controls made by the Leave camp is instantly out the window. No Freedom of Movement = No Single Market Access. It is that simple. It is that clear.

But I'm sure all the avid participants of our "Brexit" series discussion already knew all that. I made sure that it's extensively covered in Brexit Discussion v1, as the options for the new U.K-EU trade deal is one of the most important factors that ALL British voters on Sherdog should know BEFORE heading to the poll for this Vote of the Century.

It's kinda stupid if they didn't.

Actually, it would be incredibly stupid.
Ya, sorry but really your just plain wrong here. Clout has nothing to do with it. In the long run the EU will make the deal that they think is in their own best economic interest, why wouldn't they? Again the UK is a net economic importer, why would the EU want to damage that.

You clearly know very little about the Canada EU deal. The reason that the British financial industry was cock blocked from Canada is the exact same reason that they were blocked from moving from New York to Toronto. Because they are a useless pile of shit economically that brings no value to the nation as a whole and acts to undermine the stability of the banking industry as a whole. They were blocked BY CANADA, not by the EU. In other words, the EU wanted service reciprocity and Canada said Fuck you. They also said fuck you on many of the IP changes that the EU was trying to bully the country of 35 million people into. They could do this because the EU wanted access to Canadian natural resources far more then Canada wanted access to anything made in the EU.

Not that any of that is even remotely relevant since the only functional point of referencing the Canada/EU trade deal was to show that a country significantly smaller and further away then the UK did just fine in negotiating a trade deal. The only thing that would stop a deal just as suited to both sides is spite.

Leverage is clearly not what you think it is. Access for goods to the EU marketplace is a forgone conclusion. They may throw up some minor token barriers but in the end it will be virtually nothing. That's the reality regardless of of the outcome because to do otherwise doesn't serve the purposes of either negotiating party.

I have also stated from the beginning that the UK/EU split will be superficial at best since both sides actually involved with the negotiations don't even want it. The only people who want it are the actual UK citizens who realistically have no representation at the negotiations. This will be as toothless a split as they can possibly create and still sell it to the English.
 
You guys should go into international politics with your unerring ability to predict exactly what people will do in the future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...reform-on-the-table-for-brexit-talks-suggest/

France has suggested it is prepared to reach a deal to allow Britain to limit free movement of EU migrants while retaining access to the Single Market.

Michel Sapin, France’s finance minister, said that “everything is on the table” as he appeared to break ranks with the rest of the European Union.

Until now European leaders have insisted that Britain must continue to let in EU migrants if it wants to enjoy the benefits of free trade.

But Mr Sapin told BBC Two’s Newsnight on Wednesday night: “Everything will be on the table because Britain will make proposals, and we will negotiate all these aspects with a desire to come to an agreement.

That is something that is very important for the UK with all the questions about financial services. So we discuss everythingMichel Sapin
“Britain won’t be in the same position as it was beforehand. Things will change. Things have already changed. We return to zero. As we say in France, a clean slate.

“When we negotiate with a country, a third party, Norway, Switzerland to take countries that are very close, we discuss all subjects: under what conditions there is freedom of movement of people; freedom of movement of goods; of capital.

“That is something that is very important for the UK with all the questions about financial services. So we discuss everything.”

The comments represent a significant boost to Britain. Earlier this week, Mr Cameron attempted to lay the groundwork for Brexit negotiations by warning European leaders that they will have to reform free movement if Britain is to retain close economic ties with the continent.
 
After Brexit, the race is on to replace London as Europe’s startup capital

june-27-rtxb5hy-e1467027758543.jpg

“Thanks to Brexit,” reads the title of an email from the Dublin commissioner for startups sent this morning.

“Thanks to Brexit we have a new opportunity to attract Europe’s serial or first-time entrepreneurs to set up shop in Dublin,” the email, from the organization tasked with boosting tech startup activity in Ireland’s capital, continues. “With Brexit comes opportunity. Let’s not waste it.”

London’s favored status among startups seeking a European base is in peril, and its counterparts on the continent are wasting no time in announcing themselves as worthy alternatives. Besides Dublin, there’s Berlin, already home to successes including Rocket Internet and Soundcloud; Amsterdam, which has spawned the major payments player Adyen; and Stockholm, with Spotify and Minecraft’s maker, Mojang.

These cities have good reason to capitalize on the UK’s separation from the European bloc. Labor from the EU gives a significant boost to British tech startup headcounts. With Brexit, and a possible end to the free movement of labor for EU citizens, UK startups could find themselves starved of the crucial workers they need to expand.

A survey by Wayra, a startup incubator owned by Spanish carrier Telefonica, last year found that one in three UK tech startup workers came from outside the country. That 34% was made up of 20.7% from EU countries, and 13.3% from elsewhere. The most common non-UK nationalities were Irish, American, and Spanish, the survey found.

Some of the brightest stars in London’s startup firmament are already pulling the trigger on Brexit contingency plans. The American Damian Kimmelman, founder of the corporate data firm DueDil, told Forbes that he couldn’t put his company’s expansion plans at risk because of talent pipeline shortages. “We’re scaling far too quickly to jeopardize our ability to scale because we have to hire people in the UK,” he said. “From today onwards we are an international company. We’re not a British one.”

Taavet Hinrikus, the Estonian co-founder of money-transfer company Transferwise, one of the UK’s rare “unicorns” with a valuation of over $1 billion, told the Guardian that his firm is unlikely to continue growing headcount at its London headquarters. His firm has grown from 40 to over 400 people in under three years. Transferwise would now consider moving its HQ elsewhere, although no final decision has been made.

Fintech in peril

Transferwise’s next moves bear watching, not only because of its sky-high valuation and high-profile marketing stunts, but because it’s a big player in financial technology, a niche that the British government has been trying to nurture. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has loudly pronounced his wish for London to be the world’s “fintech capital.” To that end, he has opened his residence to host fintech founders and industry luminaries. And he has even appointed a fintech “special envoy” to improve London’s chances.

Fintech is also a segment of the tech economy that’s particularly vulnerable to Brexit’s uncertainties. That’s because of financial services “passporting,” which allows a firm regulated by one EU member-state to offer its services across the bloc without the need to obtain additional authorization from regulators in new markets it enters. This is particularly advantageous for fintech firms such as Transferwise, which are in the business of moving money around.

Passporting allows Transferwise to be regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, but offer remittance services across the EU without additional hurdles. That means that the fintech firm can keep its staff in the UK while offering those services across Europe, without the need for physical branches elsewhere, says Tim Dolan, a partner at law firm King and Wood Mallesons. But, he says, “If there is a Brexit … it means the UK can’t take advantage of the passport, and it suddenly falls away.”

Money-transfer and payments startups would be hardest hit by the end of EU passporting, Dolan observes. That includes Transferwise and WorldRemit, another British fintech star; as well as European firms with sizeable UK presences like Adyen and Stripe.

The end of passporting for British firms doesn’t mean UK fintech firms will have to stop doing business with the continent, but it does mean an administrative headache and added cost. British companies seeking to take advantage of EU passporting would have to set up a subsidiary in an EU country, and obtain permissions from that member state’s financial regulator. Its EU subsidiary would then have passporting rights across the bloc.

There is still huge uncertainty around what sorts of regulatory and trade deals the UK will work out, and indeed, whether Brexit will actually happen, but for the risk-averse fintech startup seeking a hedge, the big question is what European city might offer a suitable landing point?

Dublin, as mentioned earlier, would be happy to oblige. “Having a large cluster of fintech startups ourselves, it would be a no-brainer place for them to come too,” says Niamh Bushnell, Dublin’s startup commissioner.

Of course, the net effect of Brexit on Ireland’s economy is likely to be negative, Bushnell acknowledges, and it may also be bad news for Irish startups looking to sell goods and services in the UK. But the opportunity for Dublin is too good to pass up, she says. “We’re set up to welcome those companies in.”

http://qz.com/717626/after-brexit-the-race-is-on-to-replace-london-as-europes-startup-capital/
 
Last edited:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d35362a0-3c57-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4D2tYgJt0

India accentuates the positive on Brexit
As the UK’s Brexit vote sparks widespread global dismay, some lawmakers and businesspeople in India are seeing the upside of their former colonial power’s decision.

Indian policymakers believe New Delhi could quickly negotiate a new trade agreement with a Britain disentangled from the EU, which has failed to conclude talks on a trade deal with India.

“The UK is going to look to build its relationships with the rest of the world, and will seek to pursue new opportunities with us,” Jayant Sinha, India’s deputy finance minister, told the Financial Times.

Talks on an India-EU trade deal began nearly a decade ago but quickly stalled. Swapan Dasgupta, an independent member of parliament close to the ruling Bharatiya Janata party, said concluding an India-UK trade deal would be far easier.

“If an FTA [free-trade agreement] negotiating unit is 25 constituent countries with their own pluses and minuses, you are not going to get to some sort of common ground where the losses balance the gains,” he said. “But there is a far greater chance of it with the UK. We understand each other, and there is very little clash in what we want.”

BK Goenka, chairman of Welspun Group, a textile and pipe manufacturer with revenues of about $3bn a year, agreed that Brexit would open new opportunities. “For us, I think it will be better,” he told the Financial Times. “Tariffs on both sides will come down. It’s a win-win scenario for both our countries.”

Mr Goenka said he would seek to take advantage of the relatively weak pound to acquire UK textile brands and distribution companies. “This is the time to invest in the UK,” he said.
 
OUT INTO THE WORLD Britain to open immediate Brexit trade talks with Australia and South Korea

Business Secretary Sajid Javid says UK is 'open for business' despite the economy's post-referendum slump

BRITAIN is set for immediate trade talks with Australia and South Korea – the Business Secretary revealed yesterday.

Sajid Javid said senior politicians in both countries had called for deals in the past 48 hours as he insisted the UK was “open for business”.

Business Secretary today announced that Britain was opening trade deals with Australia and South Korea, with other offers coming thick and fast
And sources said that both Canada and India have separately approached the Foreign Office for talks following last week’s Brexit vote.

New Zealand Premier John Key over the weekend said he may rip up travel plans in order to fly to Britain in the coming months to discuss a trade deal.

The huge boost came as Siemens said it was putting its wind power investment plans in the UK on hold and Visa warned it could move hundreds of jobs to Europe in the wake of last week’s ‘Out’ vote.

But France’s economy minister Emmanuel Macron insisted the Brexit vote would have “no consequences” on the £18 billion Hinkley Point power plant being developed by French energy giant EDF.

Speaking yesterday Mr Javid told businesses thinking of ditching investment that they may regret “hasty decisions”.

And he pointed out that Chinese telecoms giant Huawei had confirmed that a planned £1.3 billion investment in the UK would be going ahead.
In a statement following a meeting with business chiefs, Mr Javid said: “My message for them was very clear, Britain is open for business.

“Yes, the financial markets are still reacting to the result.

“But the fundamental facts remain unchanged.”

Mr Javid- who backed staying in the EU – added: “This government is still 100 per cent committed to making the UK the best place in Europe to start and grow a business.”
Brexit bosses insisted during the EU Referendum campaign that world leaders would beat down a door to do free trade deals with Britain if it voted Out.

David Cameron insisted that by leaving the single market, Britain faced tariffs on imports and a tortuous decade negotiating new agreements.

Mr Javid yesterday said Trade Minister Lord Price had been in contact with many of the biggest investors in Britain.

And he said the former Waitrose boss would be visiting key markets such as China, Hong Kong and Brazil.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13589...e-trade-talks-with-australia-and-south-korea/
 
Europe will still want our cars - but we need the single market, says British auto industry
Alan Tovey
29 June 2016

81635072_jaglandrover-BUSINESS-small_trans++gsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdEbgHFEZVI1Pljic_pW9c90.jpg

Continued access to the single European market is vital to the future success of Britain’s car industry, according to the automotive trade body.

The warning came as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) reported record turnover for the car industry for the year, growing 7.3pc to £71.6bn in 2015, with employment in the sector 17,000 higher at 814,000.

But this performance is heavily dependent on access to the EU, with 80pc of the 1.7 million cars rolling off UK production lines being exported. Europe accounts for about half of the market for British-built cars.

The outcome of last week’s referendum places question marks over that performance with the prospect of export levies being introduced as trade deals secured through the EU unwind.

However, speaking at the launch of the SMMT’s figures, Adrian Hallmark, group strategy director at Jaguar Land Rover, said he was confident that Britain was such an important market for European car manufacturers that they will force trade deals to be hammered out to protect reciprocal sales.

“If you look at the volumes German premium manufacturers sell in UK, I can’t imagine they would want to see such a market opportunity being cut off,” said Mr Hallmark. “It would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.”

He added that JLR - which is Britain’s biggest car maker, producing 500,000 vehicles a year with 40,000 staff in the country - is committed to the UK and that plans for its new factory in Slovakia were unaffected by referendum.

Johan van Zyl, Toyota head of Europe and Africa, echoed the sentiment, saying that the company would remain in Britain at the least in the medium term.

“We plan on a six-year cycle because of the time it takes to develop new cars and decisions over that period are made,” said Mr van Zyl, whose 2,600 UK staff produce 190,000 vehicles a year. However, he raised the prospect of long-term investments being diverted. “We will now study how we can have a sustainable and profitable business in the UK still.”

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, said the size of the car industry meant it was a priority for the Government despite the disarray caused by the Brexit vote. Mr Hawes, who attended a summit of business leaders yesterday called by business secretary Sajid Javid, said there was a “clear will” from the industry to remain in some form of single market.

Mr Javid is due to address the SMMT conference later today in what will be his first major public appearance since the vote.

However, none of the car chiefs would be drawn on the likely impact on jobs of the Leave vote, with Mr Hawes stating “we are not going down that road, it is business as usual at the moment and we are not leaving [the EU] for at least two years”.

Mr Hallmark said the vote would not result in job losses in the industry in the short term, though in the longer term the situation was less clear and dependent on what sort of deal was negotiated between Britain and the EU.

Some impact is expected on sales of cars in the UK, with consumer confidence likely to take a knock from the referendum, although the SMMT boss added that interest rates remained low, meaning that major purchases such as cars remain relatively cheap.

The industry had been expecting sales of 2.7 million vehicles this year, and the SMMT said it was too early to forecast how this would change, though did note that sales were already slowing ahead of the referendum after the previous record year.

Prior to the vote, output from UK car production lines in 2016 was up more than 10pc on the previous year’s level, though it is thought the previous forecast that production will hit two million by 2020 will now be pushed back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ant-our-cars---but-we-need-the-common-market/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top