By on July 18, 2016

Vauxhall-Astra-297766

Britain’s recent vote to leave the European Union could cause General Motors to up and leave the country, industry analysts predict.

Production of Vauxhall and Opel vehicles could shift across the Channel if the EU places import tariffs on vehicles bound from Britain, LMC Automotive said in a report, ending GM’s decades-long presence.

The report judged GM the likeliest of all automakers to leave the UK in the event of a Brexit. Currently, the automaker builds Vauxhall and Opel vehicles at two British assembly plants — Ellesmere Port and Luton, England. If GM pulls up stakes, some assembly would likely be moved to Germany or Poland, the report said.

The Luton plant, which builds commercial Vauxhall vehicles, was recently upgraded and is expected to stay open until 2025. However, the Ellesmere Port plant, which builds Opel and Vauxhall Astras, could be living on borrowed time. LMC said there is a “high” risk of the plant moving to mainland Europe once the next-generation models arrive, possibly by 2021.

Garel Rhys, a professor at the Cardiff Business School, told Automotive News that Ellesmere Port’s problems go beyond vehicle tariffs. The 52-year-old plant relies mostly on imported parts, with locally sourced parts making up only about one-quarter of its inventory.

“It has a low anchorage, so in that sense, it’s the most vulnerable,” Rhys said.

The UK and EU haven’t forged an agreement on what cross-Channel trade will look like, so for now, automakers are playing wait and see.

[Source: Automotive News] [Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

68 Comments on “General Motors Might Stage its Own Brexit, Says Report...”


  • avatar
    orenwolf

    This is part of why the UK needs to hurry up and press the exit button – the longer there is uncertainty, the more corporations will be unwilling to invest further in the UK. There needs to be clarity on how the UK will trade with the rest of the world, and quickly.

    One of the primary industries in the UK is financial, the effect of that industry (much of which is EU-based) leaving would be catastrophic to the economy, and bankers don’t tend to be pro-risk kinds of people – there will be a drop in investment as well if they don’t get a move on.

    Dragging their feet Is not a good plan.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      orenwolf,
      The UK has dug itself into a big hole. The UK needs as much trade as possible to exist. It might make the more extreme in society feel warm and fuzzy making statements like;

      “we’ll bring back jobs”, “we’ll make the UK British again”, etc. People who conisder this are insecure about their own country.

      The ones who voted to exit the EU without understanding the implications are the real stupid ones.

      The UK becoming insular and inward looking will only damage the country.

      There us already talk of financial institutions (banks, etc) moving many jobs back to the EU. London is the world’s largest finance centre, this all could be lost with the billions that go with it.

      Scotland and Ireland are not happy with the Brexit. Maybe their future is not the UK. I would think that if I lived in one of those countries.

      Britannia is slowly sinking and will become a shadow of its former self.

      I feel sorry for the UK.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        It will be interesting to see, for sure, but I doubt anything that dire will happen, simply because those most affected in your list above (banks, rich xenophobic types) are exactly the sorts you would expect to influence things to NOT screw them over.

        Uncertainty is what kills markets. Reducing that period of uncertainly, IMHO, needs to be paramount. Then whatever will happen can happen, and people, governments, and corporations can react accordingly. But with the situation right now? What corporation is going to pour any money into the UK at all right now? Other than non-goods tech companies, almost everyone else is impacted by not-yet-discussed trade agreements.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        They may be the first, but they certainly won’t be the last to leave. They’ll need to do it in an orderly fashion and I would think there has been planning going on for some time now on how to best transition. They’ve weighed the positives and negatives and the people have made their decision. Democracy in action.

      • 0 avatar
        mtmmo

        “The ones who voted to exit the EU without understanding the implications are the real stupid ones.”

        And the same can be said about those who voted Remain. The vote has been taken, the results are known, time to move on. At least now the UK will save their net contribution of $8.5 Billion a year the EU was costing them.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      You have it backwards. Dragging it out increases the odds that Brexit won’t happen, which would be good for the UK.

      The challenge for the Tories is to find a graceful way out of it without having its supporters retaliate by voting for the UKIP (which was what prompted this dumb non-binding referendum in the first place.) If she is fortunate, then Theresa May will be able to shift the blame to Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, the Greens, et. al. without alienating the Britain Stands Alone crowd.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        I think you’re likely correct about the source of the delay. However, I think they are underestimating the effect *of* that delay. I already have suppliers in my day job asking about the UK in the wake of Brexit and the uncertainty therein.

        While in the long term, if “nothing happens”, business will probably return to normal, in the short term, a lot of damage can be done with “risk” being valued greatly for the UK.

        I haven’t (and won’t) really comment on the trade effects of Brexit, the topic is too complex. I *do* think that clarity is needed, though, and soon. Whether or not that’s an official “We’re waiting” stance (rather than a “Well yes, we’ll hit the button soon.. but not until X.. then Y.. then Z” approach), or, at least start trade negotiations already so the uncertainty is reduced. Markets, banks, and investors are fickle, IMHO more fickle than the Tories may believe.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Unfortunately, May the new PM, is backing Brexit, after both of it’s authors wimped out.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Steph Willems
      What is the situation with Ford?

  • avatar
    threeer

    Whatever will the celebs on Top Gear drive? Oh, wait a minute…

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    Don’t know for a fact, but assume Europe (Germany) has more to lose exporting autos to Britain than other way around in a tit-for-tat car-tariff trade war.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Problem is that Brits will pay more, they have no choice now. Germans, and the rest of the world, can get their cars from anywhere.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        heavy handle,
        UK citizens will pay more from now on, even without the motor vehicle manufacturers moving out of the UK.

        The devaluation of the Pound will push up prices of all imported goods and services.

        There will be a loss of jobs and income for UK citizens.

        Let this be a lesson for those who think immigrants, off shoring jobs, demonising certain religions, etc is all that is wrong with a country.

        People who vote for those who support making a country insular to sate their insecurity will be the losers, along with the rest of a nation.

        The US will be at a similar point soon with their Federal Election.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          My sense was that Britain isn’t trying to become ‘insular’, but less wide-open, and to be able to exercise more control over its own fate.

          How did they ever survive for the millenium prior to 1973?

          If the EU is so great, why hasn’t every European nation joined it, and why hasn’t every European country adopted the Euro?

          One clue is found in why US territories don’t vote to become states – they don’t want to pay full US taxes.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            SCE,

            How did GB survive prior to 1973?
            Mass unemployment, low standard of living, rationing for years longer than their European neighbours, a lack of basic (but foreign-sourced) necessities, dying industries, especially those that depended on exports.

            People tend to forget that the country was in serious economic trouble for most of the 20th Century.

            Those conditions made for some great Rock and Roll (as youth unemployment will do), but it’s not something one would normally want to go back to.

            I blame Dowton Abbey; those street urchins look so clean and healthy and cute!

          • 0 avatar
            Waaghals

            Initially you seem to be making the assumption that the UK would be doing just as well if it hadn’t joined or made a deal with the EU in 1973.

            While I’m not in a position to say that it couldn’t work out for them, that is quite an assumption to make.

            If you want to get access to the internal market you have to pay substantial sums to the EU every year – even if you are not a member.

            While I think the Euro as it stands is a bad idea, most member states have adopted it and the EU has had several membership expansions over the year.

            I actually have a slight eurosceptic streak, but I don’t think 100% participation of the European countries is necessary for the union to be considered “successful”.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            EU could still work as an apolitical trade union, but it doesn’t work as a technocratic dictatorship. Now the sheeple are p*ssed and they may actually start fighting back. Especially now since dozens of innocent natives are being murdered for no reason. Leftist, centerist, rightist; doesn’t seem to matter. All I see is a State running scared carrying out no action even as the bodies pile up.

            I for one hope the security services stand by the people when a genuine coup is initiated against the local gov’t of one of the occupied states. Evidently the fate of Ceaușescu and Mussolini isn’t on the mind of the technocrats, they think they are above such an outcome. I hope someone reminds them.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Here’s a question: Name a place in the world in which its member states traded some of their sovereignty in exchange for the free internal movement of labor and capital, plus a common currency.

            The answer, of course, is the United States of America.

            The irony is that all of these flagwaving Americans who think that Brexit is just oarsome are directing their scorn toward those who want to have a United States of Europe, i.e. those who want to make the EU more like us. The ignorance is unbelievable.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Ha!

            The States, with the exception of Vermont, Texas, and California, during their brief republics, and Hawaii until 1893, have not been truly sovereign since 1789. They are only granted powers not expressly assigned to the Federal government under the Tenth Amendment. The Federalist form of government came about as a response to inherent problems with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The US Constitution was not drafted to unite previously separate nation states, nor was it developed to facilitate a trade union or to supervise labor regulation mechanics.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

            The European nations had been expressly sovereign countries with unique language and culture for hundreds of years. The US States, after the Thirteen Colonies, were founded one after another and in most cases by settlers of neighboring states. Some variant of English and the US Dollar was already in place when these territories were founded. If you decimated the neighboring populations of some European countries and then over a hundred years replaced them with settlers from surviving nations, the whole “superstate” project would probably have worked much better as it would emulate the US experience to a greater degree.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Not so fast

            I see it didn’t take long for politics to rear its ugly head.
            And when politics gets in here, it shows nobody, or only a few, knows what they are talking about.
            And I will wager those here against the Brexit vote are liberals. I will wager most anti Brexit are more of the Internationalist Open Border One World One People yet somehow Multicultural mentality.

            The missing point here is the anger people in the UK feel about the EU becoming much more than originally agreed to. And the real benefactors were not the everyday folks in the UK.
            What once was sold as an economic unity is now suddenly a forced globalism.
            Instead of the free moving EU members and united economies…we ended up with a forced immigration policy totally determined by undemocratically positioned bureaucrats in Brussels.
            If this is not simple enough to understand, then you need to spend time in the UK and feel the pain.

            And this is likely not the end. These faceless bureaucrats are feeling the push from within all EU member countries and their unhappy people.

            Funny how nobody sees a revolution coming.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I would hope that you wouldn’t need Wikipedia to have heard of the Articles of Confederation.

            (And Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Anyone could have written it.)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I like to verify facts before making an argument.

            You keep saying this, and while I don’t disagree, you tend to never cite any source for pretty much anything you say. Ironically it was you years ago who inspired me to include citations as you were including them at the time.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I really shouldn’t have to provide links for an American audience about the Articles of Confederation.

            In any case, I have grown tired of posting links that people either don’t read or don’t understand. Those who are interested can verify the points that I make by looking them up.

            And does it really take much of an imagination to understand that those who would favor a United States of Europe model are borrowing heavily from that other United States? Really?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Politics surfaces and not in a respectful way. And things were going so well.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Loving America so much that you would resent Europeans who want to emulate our version of federalism just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

            I must have missed the part about how a union of nations that are located on one continent is an example of “globalism”. Last I checked, there were still six other continents in addition to Europe, but I may have missed the big changeover in this morning’s news.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            28-Cars-Later,
            I do believe the US had Dutch, Spanish, French, Germans, etc all attempting to gain a foothold. They had their communities all competing against each other.

            So, in effect the US didn’t start out as a pure Anglo entity as you are alluding to. It wasn’t much different from Europe. They did bring their culture, politics, religion and even their wars with them to North America.

            The boundaries for the US weren’t static, constantly changing as more and more was acquired and even purchased.

            North America is more apt than using the US as an example here. The US is relatively newer than the colonisation of North Amercia.

            I do believe there is more parallels with Europe to how the US formed than you are stating.

        • 0 avatar
          TheDoctorIsOut

          Nailed it.

      • 0 avatar
        morrinsville

        Biggest single market for German cars is UK
        ” fifth of all cars produced in Germany last year, or around 820,000 vehicles, were exported to the UK,’ Financial Times

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      It’s not about a tit-for-tat “trade war”, which is one of those things where both parties lose, and there is no way to even determine what lose and win really means.

      The German Auto industry isn’t going anywhere. Most certainly not to the UK in pursuit of that market.

      While the UK auto industry, like this article indicates, consists almost entirely of transplants. Who are there somewhere between primarily and only, due to the UK’s placement inside one of the world’s largest unified (kinda sorta) auto markets.

      What the EU has evolved into, is such an atrocity that it is hard to imagine anyone not benefiting from just calling it quits. But of all of Europe’s countries, the UK, given their only real competitive advantage is that they are the only country inside a giant market where people speak a language everyone understands, the UK is likely the one with the most to lose by standing outside.

  • avatar
    dusterdude

    The EU will make the UK pay somehow, so tariffs are definitely not out of question here.. The EU will want the UK to experience some pain, so as to discourage (or at least delay) other member countries ( IE Italy, Portugal, Spain) from exiting..

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      dusterdude,
      I do think the UK government is aware of this. The other day the UK started talks with Australia regarding the setting up of a FTA as the the UK currently works under the EU.

      It will cost billions of dollars for the UK to set up new trade agreements, political agreements, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I wouldn’t think any of those countries was in a position to exit the EU the way the UK is, but you’re right all the same.

  • avatar
    Trond

    The EU has a positive trade balance with the UK.

    So why tariffs? Well, possibly out of spite.

    Then the Brits can import their cars from Japan, Korea, Mexico, USA.

    Good for Lexus and Jaguar. Bad for BMW and Mercedes.

    It would be Germany`s loss. Won`t happen.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      Exactly why the only two good things the EU brings, Schengen and free trade won’t be leaving the UK any time soon. This is all scare tactics by the inept idiots like Juncker and Tusk. They caused this mess in the first place by over stepping the power and authority.

  • avatar
    FOG

    Just posting so I can continue to follow this thread. Very interesting topic.

  • avatar
    carguy

    The most likely outcome will be that the UK pays (more than they do now) for access to the common market, they will agree to abide by the freedom of movement and most businesses will stay where they are. For the UK, the sum total of the Brexit movement will be slightly higher EU fees and no influence in Brussels. No a great outcome but not the end of the world either.

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    The details of Brexit will be negotiated between England and the countries of continental Europe for one industry after another for the next few years. Terms of trade between these two blocs will fluctuate over this period. All you hear now is BS from different vested industry interests from both camps.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    One thing we can all probably agree on is that it will be extremely interesting to see how it plays out and just what the consequences (expected & unexpected) will be.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Great Britain’s vote to exit is more about being forced to accept more immigrants than it is about economics. As part of the EU Britain not only has to follow all the EU rules. Britain imports more than it exports and the biggest trade partner to suffer will be Germany which is why Germany is allowing GB more time to exit. I doubt many of the Western European countries will want to raise tariffs on GB because it would hurt their exports.

  • avatar
    don1967

    Speculation about GM’s future in the UK is but a tiny drop in the ocean of noise Brexit will generate.

    The E.U. was not the first international trade deal, nor will it be the last for the British. They are not a people known for rolling over and dying. To the contrary, aren’t they the ones who shoved the Magna Carta down their own King’s throat when he got a little too pushy? With the E.U. now dictating everything from immigration policy to banana curvature, the analogy fits.

    Social progressives will naturally disagree. If ever there was a new-world-order mega-government capable of engineering the “perfect society” through brute force, the E.U. was it. Progressives’ outrage over Brexit has nothing to do with long-term financial concerns; it’s about their prize social experiment beginning to unravel.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    I don’t know where you guys are getting your opinions, but they’re like bellybuttons – everyone has one. Some are innies, some are outies, some are full of lint.

    With Brexit, the UK has preserved its sovereignty and cut the line to a sinking ship: the dream of European elites that they can forge a “nation” big enough to compete with the US and China. The problem with intellectual elites is that whenever they’re in charge, they screw up. In this case, they tried to homogenize the various cultures of the member states in the most bullheaded and counterproductive way possible, with edicts from an unaccountable bureaucracy.

    Some of you need to study up on economics 101. The Pound’s devaluation is a fond wish of the Greeks, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese, and even the French, but impossible under the Euro. It’s the quickest and easiest way for a nation to balance its accounts and remain competitive, by making imports more expensive, and exports cheaper. Brits will pay more for French wine, but British products will be more competitive, preserving and increasing jobs over the long run.

    As for trade, the UK’s trade with Euro partners has been dropping over the years. That will now accelerate. The real loser is Germany, whose exports to the UK are too big to lose. You can expect Merkel to push for some kind of associate status for the UK in trade matters, despite the average Germans’ and other north Europeans’ desire to stick it to the UK. The German economy can’t afford that kind of pettiness.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Thank you!

      Ya know, I wonder if any of the pro EU here have any real insight into the past year’s issues with Italy, Greece and Spain.
      Is it really that hard to see the underlying issues with this whole EU experiment?
      Does anybody here really, truly believe the Germans and Italians and Greeks all are working at the same goals?
      Are the EU PIGS really on the same page as the Germans and French (well, lets not include the French)?
      Can the EU really support the debt from these others?
      Does anybody here really wanna bet their savings on this?

      I say great job, UK! Keep your cars and your jobs and your freedom.

    • 0 avatar
      cornellier

      Lorenzo your opinions would be less linty if informed by facts. The EU is an economic system, not, as you opine, “a sinking ship” [attempting] “to homogenize the various cultures”. As for Germany and France, yes the UK is a significant trading partner, but Europe would be worse off losing the entire EU than just losing the UK, and that’s where they’re negotiating from, with all that implies. Thanks. As you were.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        If it’s just an economic system, why do they need the Euro currency, and a central bank limiting the operations of national banks of the member states, and a flag (a ripoff of Betsy Ross), and a parliament (with no powers to enact or even propose legislation – that’s done by unelected committees and commissions), and a laundry list of clauses in the Maastrict and Lisbon treaties dictating immigration, naturalization, and other normally sovereign powers of independent countries?

        Germany’s trade with the UK is 40% of their total export trade, and that’s a fact you can look up, and any deal that endangers that trade endangers the entire German economy. The “Club Med” countries are deeply in debt to the northern European countries and have had extreme austerity imposed on them by Brussels bureaucrats – have you forgotten about what happened to Greece? The “haircut” included bank depositors losing some of their savings!

        The whole continent is restive under the bureaucratic thumb, and something’s got to give. The UK has gone it alone before, when the Habsburgs’ Charles V tried to unite Europe, When Philip II tried it, when Napoleon tried it, and when Hitler tried it. The UK was smart to keep the pound, and is smart to be getting out now, before the stucco hits the fan.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          Bravo.

          Glad GB now has at least a fighting chance of removing itself as a terminus of the IAC*.

          *Islamic Alimentary Canal

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “why do they need the Euro currency, and a central bank limiting the operations of national banks of the member states”

          Because they want to compete with the US dollar and to have a reserve currency just as the US does.

          It’s hilarious that American conservatives can’t figure out that those in the EU who favor greater centralization want the EU to be more like the United States. Aren’t Americans supposed to like the United States?

          And the UK maintains its own currency and central bank. It hasn’t been a member of the Eurozone.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Yes, that’s my point: the European elite is trying to build a European United States, whether the nations of Europe want it or not. It’s far beyond the original Common Market concept, what the UK originally joined, and they’ve chosen to break free of the process of yielding powers to a central government.

            If the Euro-elite had floated a federal republic like ours, or even a loose federation like we had originally, it might not have been accepted, but at least it would have been an honest, above-board move. Attempting to create a nation via an unelected regulatory bureaucracy interpreting the small print in a couple treaties is underhanded and un-democratic.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If this was 1789, then I suppose that you would have been an anti-federalist who was claiming that Washington, Hamilton and Madison hated democracy.

            Again, you guys miss that those who favor EU centralization want to be more like the United States, i.e. the country that you think is the best country on earth. The inconsistency simply makes no sense — either you like the United States and believe that the concept works, or else you don’t.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Wanting to be like the US and understanding why the US worked are two different things. Saying that EU capitulation is like the US revolution is like saying that Mark David Chapman was like John Lennon, except for the comparison of the EU to the US being more delusional.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Aside from a bunch of empty cliches, what exactly do you have to offer?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Other than propaganda and fantasies borrowed from Mother Jones, what do you have to offer? Do you really think that our founding fathers would have farmed out their leadership to a bunch of 2nd rate bureaucrats? What’s your motivation? Nobody is as stupid as you portray yourself here. You’d have starved years ago, simply from putting all your food in the wrong orifice out of confusion. Why aren’t you at least smart enough to see why your latest line of BS is insufficient to fool anyone?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So the answer to my question is that you have even more empty cliches to offer in addition to the earlier ones. Gee, that’s helpful.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Couldn’t you have looked up what cliche means before you made it your mantra?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The summary of your position is you no likey the EU ‘cuz Europe.

            You know even less about Europe than you do about the US, so your “insights” aren’t particularly interesting.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          I’m always curious where a statement like “Germany’s trade with the UK is 40% of their total export trade, and that’s a fact you can look up” comes from. Not just because it’s factually wrong – Germany’s total exports last year were about €1.2 trillion, of which the UK accounted for €89 billion, or about 7.5% (see for yourself at https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/ForeignTrade/
          TradingPartners/Tables/OrderRankGermanyTradingPartners.pdf?__blob=publicationFile – I had to break up the URL to un-screw the comment formatting, so you need to reassemble it after “ForeignTrade/”) – but because it’s stated with such absolute certainty. Like, is there some alternate internet where you can actually look things up and get “facts” to support statements like this?

          BTW, as a share of GDP, Britain’s exports to the EU represent 13%, while the EU’s exports to Britain represent 3%. And this is all before Scotxit and Northern Irelexit, of course, which stand to both shrink the UK and increase the portion of England’s GDP that requires trade with the EU.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            You’re looking at goods alone, not services, especially financial services. I was in error mentioning exports alone, I meant total trade, and even that term needs to be nailed down.

            I got the 40% from the (UK) Telegraph online, and I can’t recall the author of the Brexit article that made that claim. As with all statistics, it’s how the authors slice and dice the numbers, and how you google the right terms to track it down.

            The overall point is that the economic interaction between Germany and UK is of major importance to Germany, maybe much less important to the UK. A lot of the activity is financial, and London, “The City”, isn’t going to feel the break as much. London is the EU’s financial window to the world, while also being the Anglosphere’s window into Europe, and that won’t change overnight, if at all.

            In any event, the EU is run by Commissions, and the commissioners are largely from Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and they in turn work hand in hand with German ministers. Germany is the 800 lb. gorilla of the EU, the only state with a near veto – they just trot out judges who claim an act Germany doesn’t like violates the German constitution, which apparently trumps all treaties, and Germany gets what it wants. I jokingly claimed in another thread that the EU experiment could be seen as another attempt by Germany to conquer Europe, but without the death and destruction like last time. The Germans will probably accept the loss of the UK, as long as they get a working financial agreement they can live with.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            “London is the EU’s financial window to the world, while also being the Anglosphere’s window into Europe, and that won’t change overnight, if at all.”

            Of course it will. Any European regulation that requires a “European” entity in order to be compliant now excludes UK-based entities. How would London be the EU’s financial window to the world if it’s not in the EU?

            To see how my industry (financial services) is reacting to this, see https://next.ft.com/content/080f6a48-3fa0-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a or https://www.ashurst.com/doc.aspx?id_Content=12909 or a dozen other similar links. Basically everyone is making plans to bail out of London and figure out what other city in the EU will be the next financial center.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            What matters isn’t what percentage of the UK and the EU’s trade is with each other. What matters is the balance of trade. Is the UK a net importer? If so, it will impact their trading partners more.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            Seriously, Todd?

            So, in other words, if trade between the US and the Bahamas (where, currently, the US represents 80% of total imports and 66% of total exports) were disrupted, you think the US would be more severely impacted than the Bahamas, simply because the US is a net exporter to the Bahamas?

            I mean, really, this is your argument?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In a trade dispute between a market of 65 million and a market of 450 million, the larger of the two is probably going to win.

  • avatar

    What Britain basically wants… more EU countries may want to opt for: back to the ol’ common market, but without the Brussels red tape and tendency to stick its nose in everything that used to be decided per country.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      You can’t have the one without the other. Otherwise, how does the market common-ize itself? If you don’t have a single body deciding what passenger safety standards will be across the whole region, then manufacturers have to research and comply with two dozen different sets of safety standards, some of which may actively contradict each other. If everything is decided per country, then nothing is common.

      As others have noted, if the UK is extremely lucky, it will basically end up with the same deal as Norway: still subject to all the regulations and standards issued by the Brussels bureaucrats, but without any say in them. That’s literally their best-case scenario right now, other than backtracking on Brexit entirely.

  • avatar
    Tstag

    It would be daft if GM to leave the UK. Firstly it’s their biggest market. Secondly there is no way the government will allow the car industry to be damaged by Tarrifs. JLR is now such a massive employer in the U.K. That they can’t afford for them to fail.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: “Another thing is that I sneak up on deer all the time on my mountain bike.” No….you...
  • EBFlex: ORV is just off road vehicle. A more broad term than ATV or UTV. And again, those are not analogous. Those...
  • Kenn: When I walked by the open door of the GM’s office at a SoCal Toyota dealer, the day I took delivery of my...
  • slavuta: Before traveling to space he could take care of public transport. You should like this...
  • ToolGuy: I spend that $169/year on washer fluid and oil filters instead.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber