RE: Ineos Grenadier may be built in France

[CS Garth]

DonkeyApple said:

Or grenadier.

Maybe the signs of the French connection were hidden in plain sight since the very beginning.

The Ineos French Grenade Lobber

Edited by CS Garth on Sunday 12th July 11:03

[DonkeyApple]

CS Garth said:

DonkeyApple said:

Or grenadier.

Maybe the signs of the French connection were hidden in plain sight since the very beginning.

The Ineos French Grenade Lobber

Edited by CS Garth on Sunday 12th July 11:03

Oui. La Granade est le grand prétendant des imbéciles arriérés. La grosse blague.

Mind you, it might become more popular than the G Wagon for donning some Lacoste and heading to the Cartier Cup. Ideal for people who don’t want to buy British, or can’t afford a real, original Defender but want to experience the nostalgia of the 20th century driving experience and can sign a rental agreement.

It’ll be nice to have another option but no one is going to take it seriously above an old Defender, a new one, a GWagon or a Lamdcruiser. Or probably a pick up or van. But they aren’t out to conquer the world just find 25,000+ customers a year to break even.

[B10]

Sway said:

ATG said:

Sway said:

InitialDave said:

ATG said:

Stuart70 said:

InitialDave said:

Condi said:

How can he build a plant here, with no idea what if any costs are involved with shipping parts from the EU to the UK and then completed cars back again? The EU is the obvious choice and always will be because even if they agree 0 tariffs, that can change with a change of the wind.

If he hadn't been a supporter of Brexit, with all the above being blatantly obvious beforehand, I would agree with you.

But he was, and it was, so my attitude is somewhat one of he helped make this bed, and he should bloody well lie in it.

He is, by fking off and building his factory somewhere he could make money.
More fool the other idiots who voted for Brexit... believing him that there was a bright new manufacturing future in Britain.

Particularly when the economist in chief of the Brexit movement, Patrick Minford, said the UK car industry would need to be "wound down" if we left the EU and that Brexit would "eliminate manufacturing".

My reply was regarding the idea that this is a sensible business decision etc under the circumstances we are currently in/are likely to be in due to Brexit, which is one a few people seem to be voicing.

Yes, in that sense, it's a good business decision, and the one I might well make myself - but I am not pro-Brexit, I wasn't pro-Brexit, and I did not support Brexit and so directly assist in said circumstances coming to pass.

It's the combination of the two factors together that's the issue. Supporting the Brexit guff, then not putting his manufacturing plant where his mouth is.

So all the "good business decision" shows, as per Stuart70's reply, is that his Brexit support was for his own ends.

Not surprised, just disappointed.

ATG - Minford proposed a model whereby those industries/businesses relying on subsidies or hiding behind tariff barriers (would that be incentives to locate factories by any chance?) rather than being innovative and competitive would fail. That's not a bad thing...

Being pro-Brexit does not, despite what so many remain supporters in this thread would have you believe, mean that you're anti International trade and business.

Ineos are very clear on this - that there is an emerging overcapacity in the automotive manufacturing base globally. This is enhanced and sped up by Covid.

So there's a ready made plant going for a song. Would you really want a firm to pass that up, instead building on a greenfield site a brand spanking new building "just because"?

Depending on their sales market targets, this could end up costing more per unit than locating in Wales. Offsetting the capital costs of the factory more than makes up for that, in a big way.

Eh? Who ever said that Brexiteers were anti-free trade? Global Britain and free trade is great. The problem is that Brexit makes that harder to achieve.

The idea that being in the EU is about hiding behind trade barriers is nuts. It's about putting yourself inside a market where you get tariff free access to a load of customers. We've taken ourselves out of that market and the EU isn't going to drop its tariffs to a non-member. We haven't taken a step towards deregulating world trade. We've just shoot ourselves in the foot while reducing our ability to influence EU and global trade policy.

Of course Ineos's decision is rational. Who has said otherwise? No manufacturer should feel any loyalty to a country or vice versa. Companies should be focused on productivity and consumers should focus on value. Nationalism just creates inefficiency and market distortion. Go that route and you end up claiming that Danone is a vital national champion because your country needs a strategic supply of yoghurt.

We've already signed continuity FTAs with over 80% of the current trade covered by agreements that isn't EU.

We're still negotiating a deal with the EU - but also our largest single trading partner, plus some more that we don't currently have as the 28 different interests of the EU couldn't align. Let's not forget CETA had over 80k people on the streets of Berlin alone protesting against mooted changes to food standards that didn't actually exist.


Minford is a proponent of unilateral removal of import tariffs - they're the "subsidies" that he's referring to when he said manufacturing would likely die. Already that's not the case, with the critical industries still being protected by those tariffs (on top of increased logistics costs).

In other words, your attributed quote to Minford is highly misleading, and the UK's approach to trade in a post brexit world is a positive one.

According to the government website, updated in June 2020 it states "ambition is to secure FTAs covering 80% of UK trade within the next three years", I cannot find anywhere that we actually have as of now 80% of trade value FTAs secured. Can you direct me to your proof please?

[Sway]

B10 said:

Sway said:

ATG said:

Sway said:

InitialDave said:

ATG said:

Stuart70 said:

InitialDave said:

Condi said:

How can he build a plant here, with no idea what if any costs are involved with shipping parts from the EU to the UK and then completed cars back again? The EU is the obvious choice and always will be because even if they agree 0 tariffs, that can change with a change of the wind.

If he hadn't been a supporter of Brexit, with all the above being blatantly obvious beforehand, I would agree with you.

But he was, and it was, so my attitude is somewhat one of he helped make this bed, and he should bloody well lie in it.

He is, by fking off and building his factory somewhere he could make money.
More fool the other idiots who voted for Brexit... believing him that there was a bright new manufacturing future in Britain.

Particularly when the economist in chief of the Brexit movement, Patrick Minford, said the UK car industry would need to be "wound down" if we left the EU and that Brexit would "eliminate manufacturing".

My reply was regarding the idea that this is a sensible business decision etc under the circumstances we are currently in/are likely to be in due to Brexit, which is one a few people seem to be voicing.

Yes, in that sense, it's a good business decision, and the one I might well make myself - but I am not pro-Brexit, I wasn't pro-Brexit, and I did not support Brexit and so directly assist in said circumstances coming to pass.

It's the combination of the two factors together that's the issue. Supporting the Brexit guff, then not putting his manufacturing plant where his mouth is.

So all the "good business decision" shows, as per Stuart70's reply, is that his Brexit support was for his own ends.

Not surprised, just disappointed.

ATG - Minford proposed a model whereby those industries/businesses relying on subsidies or hiding behind tariff barriers (would that be incentives to locate factories by any chance?) rather than being innovative and competitive would fail. That's not a bad thing...

Being pro-Brexit does not, despite what so many remain supporters in this thread would have you believe, mean that you're anti International trade and business.

Ineos are very clear on this - that there is an emerging overcapacity in the automotive manufacturing base globally. This is enhanced and sped up by Covid.

So there's a ready made plant going for a song. Would you really want a firm to pass that up, instead building on a greenfield site a brand spanking new building "just because"?

Depending on their sales market targets, this could end up costing more per unit than locating in Wales. Offsetting the capital costs of the factory more than makes up for that, in a big way.

Eh? Who ever said that Brexiteers were anti-free trade? Global Britain and free trade is great. The problem is that Brexit makes that harder to achieve.

The idea that being in the EU is about hiding behind trade barriers is nuts. It's about putting yourself inside a market where you get tariff free access to a load of customers. We've taken ourselves out of that market and the EU isn't going to drop its tariffs to a non-member. We haven't taken a step towards deregulating world trade. We've just shoot ourselves in the foot while reducing our ability to influence EU and global trade policy.

Of course Ineos's decision is rational. Who has said otherwise? No manufacturer should feel any loyalty to a country or vice versa. Companies should be focused on productivity and consumers should focus on value. Nationalism just creates inefficiency and market distortion. Go that route and you end up claiming that Danone is a vital national champion because your country needs a strategic supply of yoghurt.

We've already signed continuity FTAs with over 80% of the current trade covered by agreements that isn't EU.

We're still negotiating a deal with the EU - but also our largest single trading partner, plus some more that we don't currently have as the 28 different interests of the EU couldn't align. Let's not forget CETA had over 80k people on the streets of Berlin alone protesting against mooted changes to food standards that didn't actually exist.


Minford is a proponent of unilateral removal of import tariffs - they're the "subsidies" that he's referring to when he said manufacturing would likely die. Already that's not the case, with the critical industries still being protected by those tariffs (on top of increased logistics costs).

In other words, your attributed quote to Minford is highly misleading, and the UK's approach to trade in a post brexit world is a positive one.

According to the government website, updated in June 2020 it states "ambition is to secure FTAs covering 80% of UK trade within the next three years", I cannot find anywhere that we actually have as of now 80% of trade value FTAs secured. Can you direct me to your proof please?

There's a vast difference between 80% of the entirety of UK exports being under FTA, and 80% of the existing FTA covered trade having continuity agreements in place..

The continuity agreements signed are on the gov website.

22% of our trade is with the US and China. Neither under FTA.

[Strathglass Highlander]

Will we see a change from a BMW engine to a Mercedes one. A G-Wagen Grenadier?

[B10]

Sway said:

There's a vast difference between 80% of the entirety of UK exports being under FTA, and 80% of the existing FTA covered trade having continuity agreements in place..

The continuity agreements signed are on the gov website.

22% of our trade is with the US and China. Neither under FTA.

Indeed, that is why I asked the question because your earlier post about the 80% did not make that it clear. It implied that 80% of our trade value came from FTAs that had been continued. So in actual fact the signing of 80% is down to the amount of FTAs signed which is irrelevant really as their value is what important so cannot be used as misleading pro Brexit argument; 805 headline looks good but means little. The fact that we do not FTAs with the USA or China is not relevant because we have had negotiated trade agreements with them via the EU. Now w we do our own agreements that will be hard and cannot be drawn up on a fag packet or cut and pasted from Canada.

[SpeckledJim]

ATG said:

Eh? Who ever said that Brexiteers were anti-free trade? Global Britain and free trade is great. The problem is that Brexit makes that harder to achieve.

The idea that being in the EU is about hiding behind trade barriers is nuts. It's about putting yourself inside a market where you get tariff free access to a load of customers. We've taken ourselves out of that market and the EU isn't going to drop its tariffs to a non-member. We haven't taken a step towards deregulating world trade. We've just shoot ourselves in the foot while reducing our ability to influence EU and global trade policy.

Of course Ineos's decision is rational. Who has said otherwise? No manufacturer should feel any loyalty to a country or vice versa. Companies should be focused on productivity and consumers should focus on value. Nationalism just creates inefficiency and market distortion. Go that route and you end up claiming that Danone is a vital national champion because your country needs a strategic supply of yoghurt.

Hasn't it very recently done just that for Canada and Japan?

[Sway]

B10 said:

Sway said:

There's a vast difference between 80% of the entirety of UK exports being under FTA, and 80% of the existing FTA covered trade having continuity agreements in place..

The continuity agreements signed are on the gov website.

22% of our trade is with the US and China. Neither under FTA.

Indeed, that is why I asked the question because your earlier post about the 80% did not make that it clear. It implied that 80% of our trade value came from FTAs that had been continued. So in actual fact the signing of 80% is down to the amount of FTAs signed which is irrelevant really as their value is what important so cannot be used as misleading pro Brexit argument; 805 headline looks good but means little. The fact that we do not FTAs with the USA or China is not relevant because we have had negotiated trade agreements with them via the EU. Now w we do our own agreements that will be hard and cannot be drawn up on a fag packet or cut and pasted from Canada.

My exact words were "We've already signed continuity FTAs with over 80% of the current trade covered by agreements that isn't EU.". I'm really not sure how that implies what you're suggesting at all.

We don't and didn't have free trade agreements with the US or China, the EU hasn't managed to agree them. The evidence shows that individual nations are far more capable at agreeing these things (see Switzerland as an example of an European nation entirely capable in gaining more agreements than the EU).

There is a real brexit positive in this - the new UK devised inward tariff schedule is significantly less complex (reducing errors and back office costs from thousands of businesses) as well as cutting tariffs on non-domestically produced yet vital materials to UK businesses and consumer to zero. The schedule should also show an increase in UK income, as the remaining tariffs will go 100% to the Exchequer instead of only 20%.

Inward processing relief also still applies, massively reducing the risk/costs associated to importing materials for inclusion in subsequently exported goods.

Edited by Sway on Monday 13th July 12:56

[B10]

Sway said:

B10 said:

Sway said:

There's a vast difference between 80% of the entirety of UK exports being under FTA, and 80% of the existing FTA covered trade having continuity agreements in place..

The continuity agreements signed are on the gov website.

22% of our trade is with the US and China. Neither under FTA.

Indeed, that is why I asked the question because your earlier post about the 80% did not make that it clear. It implied that 80% of our trade value came from FTAs that had been continued. So in actual fact the signing of 80% is down to the amount of FTAs signed which is irrelevant really as their value is what important so cannot be used as misleading pro Brexit argument; 805 headline looks good but means little. The fact that we do not FTAs with the USA or China is not relevant because we have had negotiated trade agreements with them via the EU. Now w we do our own agreements that will be hard and cannot be drawn up on a fag packet or cut and pasted from Canada.

My exact words were "We've already signed continuity FTAs with over 80% of the current trade covered by agreements that isn't EU.". I'm really not sure how that implies what you're suggesting at all.

We don't and didn't have free trade agreements with the US or China, the EU hasn't managed to agree them. The evidence shows that individual nations are far more capable at agreeing these things (see Switzerland as an example of an European nation entirely capable in gaining more agreements than the EU).

There is a real brexit positive in this - the new UK devised inward tariff schedule is significantly less complex (reducing errors and back office costs from thousands of businesses) as well as cutting tariffs on non-domestically produced yet vital materials to UK businesses and consumer to zero. The schedule should also show an increase in UK income, as the remaining tariffs will go 100% to the Exchequer instead of only 20%.

Inward processing relief also still applies, massively reducing the risk/costs associated to importing materials for inclusion in subsequently exported goods.

Edited by Sway on Monday 13th July 12:56

Working for a UK manufacture, who are actually on budget this year despite CV and export internationally, we see no benefits from Brexit. The UK versions of CE and REACH have not been thought out, nor the costs to be bared by manufacturers. We were a major player in one of the main trading entities, now we are on own run by simplistic idiots. Comparing us with Switzerland is distracting, they are pseudo EU. Our nearest fit would be Canada or Japan.

[Sway]

B10 said:

Sway said:

B10 said:

Sway said:

There's a vast difference between 80% of the entirety of UK exports being under FTA, and 80% of the existing FTA covered trade having continuity agreements in place..

The continuity agreements signed are on the gov website.

22% of our trade is with the US and China. Neither under FTA.

Indeed, that is why I asked the question because your earlier post about the 80% did not make that it clear. It implied that 80% of our trade value came from FTAs that had been continued. So in actual fact the signing of 80% is down to the amount of FTAs signed which is irrelevant really as their value is what important so cannot be used as misleading pro Brexit argument; 805 headline looks good but means little. The fact that we do not FTAs with the USA or China is not relevant because we have had negotiated trade agreements with them via the EU. Now w we do our own agreements that will be hard and cannot be drawn up on a fag packet or cut and pasted from Canada.

My exact words were "We've already signed continuity FTAs with over 80% of the current trade covered by agreements that isn't EU.". I'm really not sure how that implies what you're suggesting at all.

We don't and didn't have free trade agreements with the US or China, the EU hasn't managed to agree them. The evidence shows that individual nations are far more capable at agreeing these things (see Switzerland as an example of an European nation entirely capable in gaining more agreements than the EU).

There is a real brexit positive in this - the new UK devised inward tariff schedule is significantly less complex (reducing errors and back office costs from thousands of businesses) as well as cutting tariffs on non-domestically produced yet vital materials to UK businesses and consumer to zero. The schedule should also show an increase in UK income, as the remaining tariffs will go 100% to the Exchequer instead of only 20%.

Inward processing relief also still applies, massively reducing the risk/costs associated to importing materials for inclusion in subsequently exported goods.

Edited by Sway on Monday 13th July 12:56

Working for a UK manufacture, who are actually on budget this year despite CV and export internationally, we see no benefits from Brexit. The UK versions of CE and REACH have not been thought out, nor the costs to be bared by manufacturers. We were a major player in one of the main trading entities, now we are on own run by simplistic idiots. Comparing us with Switzerland is distracting, they are pseudo EU. Our nearest fit would be Canada or Japan.

I also work for a UK manufacturer (one for whom 90% of our outputs are exports outside the UK/EU, and where our supply chain is spread from the West Coast US through to New Zealand) - we are seeing benefits.

Everyone is different.

Switzerland's trade agreement footprint is very different from the EU's - hence they have FTAs the EU don't.

Canada also has a pretty decent list of FTAs they've agreed with partner nations.

[BMW A6]

Confirmed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55236852

[Ares]

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

[Brooksay]

Ares said:

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

Socialist France v Socialist Wales, in other words.

Ah well, fk him.

[ATG]

Ares said:

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

Perhaps you could give some examples to a Tory voter of the hurdles that you claim Welsh Labour have been trying to "find" and then "throwing" in the way?

[Ares]

ATG said:

Ares said:

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

Perhaps you could give some examples to a Tory voter of the hurdles that you claim Welsh Labour have been trying to "find" and then "throwing" in the way?

Planning, threats of recouping money, conditions of investment, infrastructure, insistence of union involvement, political interference between Wales & Westminster....and the repeated denigration of Sir Jim over his tax status. Allegedly.

The carrot was greater than the stick, but the stick played a part. Allegedly.

[shalmaneser]

Ares said:

ATG said:

Ares said:

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

Perhaps you could give some examples to a Tory voter of the hurdles that you claim Welsh Labour have been trying to "find" and then "throwing" in the way?

Planning, threats of recouping money, conditions of investment, infrastructure, insistence of union involvement, political interference between Wales & Westminster....and the repeated denigration of Sir Jim over his tax status. Allegedly.

The carrot was greater than the stick, but the stick played a part. Allegedly.

Insisting a union gets involved! You'd never get that in France.

This guy sounds like a bit of a snowflake.

[Ares]

shalmaneser said:

Ares said:

ATG said:

Ares said:

Anti-business Labour run Wales throwing every hurdle they can find Vs Incentivised ready made car plant in France.

Hardly a difficult decision.

Perhaps you could give some examples to a Tory voter of the hurdles that you claim Welsh Labour have been trying to "find" and then "throwing" in the way?

Planning, threats of recouping money, conditions of investment, infrastructure, insistence of union involvement, political interference between Wales & Westminster....and the repeated denigration of Sir Jim over his tax status. Allegedly.

The carrot was greater than the stick, but the stick played a part. Allegedly.

Insisting a union gets involved! You'd never get that in France.

This guy sounds like a bit of a snowflake.

Yes. Sir Jm is known for being a snowflake

[Condi]

He says why himself....

Jim said:

In a statement, Ineos Automotive said: "The site's location on the French-German border, only 200km from Stuttgart, gives excellent access to supply chains, automotive talent and target markets."

And you can read between the lines that those benefits are going to be there come what may with regards to Brexit.

Only a suicidal businessman would build something in the UK which required access to EU parts suppliers now.

[Unknown_User]

I guess one positive we can take from INEOS moving production to France is the Brexies can use their spiffiest new blue passports when they visit the factory!

[DonkeyApple]

Condi said:

He says why himself....

Jim said:

In a statement, Ineos Automotive said: "The site's location on the French-German border, only 200km from Stuttgart, gives excellent access to supply chains, automotive talent and target markets."

And you can read between the lines that those benefits are going to be there come what may with regards to Brexit.

Only a suicidal businessman would build something in the UK which required access to EU parts suppliers now.

The Welsh Govt would have had to have subsidised the business forever to offer a competitive package when that factory became available and at a time when it has no money to do so. It's a tremendous shame but commercially a no brainer but I suspect that what rubs with many is that he was one of the men who duped a large portion of the nation politically.

That said, where are his ports for exporting globally and his costs for using them? He's saved money on importing EU components but he may still lose out when it comes to exporting his finished product. How many of his target markets have great EU trade deals that are guaranteed to be better than exporting from a Welsh dock in the years to come?

Saving 10% on components is going to be a lower amount than paying 10% on the finished RRP. That aspect remains a considerable variable.