How voting against the EU has implications: TTIP?

If we stay in the EU it'll be interesting to see what happens at Nissan when the Qashqai is ready for replacement..will they up sticks to pastures new (and cheaper) or will they refit Sunderland?

...but if we exit the EU, that should greatly simplify the matter for Nissan

 

I am not aware of the BBC getting money from the EU other than for projects that have been co-funded with other nations through special media funds, Spirals being a good example, have you got any further information on that, I'd be curious to find out.

 

 

A quote published last year gives the following:

"BBC bias in favour of the EU 'project' has been obvious for years. However, figures on the Financial Transparency website of the European Commission now indicate just how deeply the BBC benefits from the goodwill of the EU elite. Between 2007 and 2013 the BBC was paid more than £22m by the European Union.

"These funds are not identified as EU money in the BBC's annual report."

Report made by MEPs.

---------- Post added 27-03-2015 at 12:24 ----------

 

 

Of course we need the EU, the import/export deficit is precisely one of the reasons why! The UK is a net-importer, always has been, being part of the EU protects the market that the UK imports most from, leaving that market means the UK loses a hell of a lot of protection. Another reason why is also in your post - China and other big foreign markets are looking to invest in the UK as it is part of the EU, Nissan has already come out saying that it will have to review its UK operations should the UK leave the EU.

 

People too readily assume that being part of the BIGGEST internal market in the world is irrelevant to the inward investment in the UK, incredibly naive.

So it makes economic sense to sell something for £1 and buy something for £2 - regularly???

We had trading profit BEFORE the EEC (now EU).

---------- Post added 27-03-2015 at 12:28 ----------

Yep... how is the UK's continued membership going to stop them? It won't..it's a bit of a strawman to suggest that our leaving the EU would force the companies out..they'll be going anyway..

Would they? In spite of what a lot of people say, we still have one of the best and most diligent work people here.

I am not aware of the BBC getting money from the EU other than for projects that have been co-funded with other nations through special media funds, Spirals being a good example, have you got any further information on that, I'd be curious to find out.

A quote published last year gives the following:

 

"BBC bias in favour of the EU 'project' has been obvious for years. However, figures on the Financial Transparency website of the European Commission now indicate just how deeply the BBC benefits from the goodwill of the EU elite. Between 2007 and 2013 the BBC was paid more than £22m by the European Union.

 

"These funds are not identified as EU money in the BBC's annual report."

 

Report made by MEPs.

The EU MEDIA Fund is as old as the hills:

In general the MEDIA Programme of the European Union supports phases before and after the production of audiovisual works. The production phase is mainly financed by national and regional financiers and funds as well as private sources. MEDIA's main objectives are:

• to strengthen the development and the quality of European audiovisual works, reflecting and respecting Europe’s cultural identity and heritage
  
• to increase the circulation of European works within Europe and beyond
  
• to strengthen the promotion and competitiveness of European films
  
• to facilitate cooperation and networking and access to finance
  
• to encourage the development and use of digital technologies.

The target groups are the many different players of the audiovisual industries: Producers, distributors, sales agents, film schools, training providers, film festivals, film markets, cinema owners, technology providers and others.

There's nothing 'secret' about the BBC getting EU grants to incentivise filming, TV and media production throughout the EU and beyond rather than just in the UK:

A number of countries around the world, including the UK, offer incentives to stimulate film, television and other media production. The BBC, together with other broadcasters, producers and film makers, has accessed these incentives for many years. The schemes are most frequently offered when a drama, documentary or other programme is filmed in a particular location. These schemes are often run by film councils or governmental or regional organisations. Grants are also available from the EU Media Fund.

The Beeb is very far from being the only media producer and broadcaster supported by the EU. That's just French news, there's just as many in German and Italian (about, unsurprisingly, German and Italian media producers and broadcasters), and I've not looked at others. Though I doubt the Greeks are getting much these days

So...the Beeb has long been getting back a portion of the UK's contribution to the EU budget as subsidies under the EU's MEDIA program (and sub-programs of same). Big wow

Would they? In spite of what a lot of people say, we still have one of the best and most diligent work people here.

I'm not doubting the diligence or capabilities of British workers but if it costs £10 to make a thingamajig here and £5 to make exactly the same thingamajig to exactly the same quality and with exactly the same reliability somewhere else then what do you think the manufacturer will do?

Would they? In spite of what a lot of people say, we still have one of the best and most diligent work people here.

That article is recent, but it's not a new phenomenon. At all.

And that's precisely why truman's thingymajig costs £10 to make here, and £5 elsewhere.

Sorry Magilla, but I agree with tzijlstra, they have failed not just miserably, but in my view completely!

Each to their own but I can't seriously see how you can say that with any credibility since they have covered it in some detail if you bother to look.

---------- Post added 27-03-2015 at 15:15 ----------

A quote published last year gives the following:

 

"BBC bias in favour of the EU 'project' has been obvious for years. However, figures on the Financial Transparency website of the European Commission now indicate just how deeply the BBC benefits from the goodwill of the EU elite. Between 2007 and 2013 the BBC was paid more than £22m by the European Union.

 

"These funds are not identified as EU money in the BBC's annual report."

 

Report made by MEPs.

The BBC anual report is not made by MEP's, also, the quote to which you refer was by UKIP MEP and Financial Affairs spokes Steven Woolfe, who seems to completely forget to mention the money went to the BBC World Service Trust, BBC's international development charity, and is not used for news gathering activites (despite claiming such in the next sentence that you omitted).

Essentially, you've posted a quote from UKIP that wrongly associates EU money with making programs that aren't favourable to UKIP, while trying to make it sound like it's come from a reputable source by associating it with MEPs.

How very UKIP of you!

In conjunction with L00bs' post, I'm afraid you've been sold a lemon on this one.

I'm not doubting the diligence or capabilities of British workers but if it costs £10 to make a thingamajig here and £5 to make exactly the same thingamajig to exactly the same quality and with exactly the same reliability somewhere else then what do you think the manufacturer will do?

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 12:25 ----------

Essentially, you've posted a quote from UKIP that wrongly associates EU money with making programs that aren't favourable to UKIP, while trying to make it sound like it's come from a reputable source by associating it with MEPs.

 

How very UKIP of you!

 

Yes, it was UKIP MEPs made the report, but figures were from the European Commission itself.

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

Global organisations make decisions like this based on a multitude of factors and generally write hundreds of reports on establishing the most adequate positions for their investment. In the case of Coventry it is probably a lot to do with the fact that the (South) Midlands have an awful lot of expertise in the car-making industry and there are a lot of short supply-chain implications (ie. it is a lot cheaper to get your gearbox from Birmingham than from Tianjin if your factory is in Coventry).

In terms of supply-chain process Britain remains an interesting place to settle, in terms of tax-pressure it remains an interesting place to settle, in terms of skill it remains an interesting place to settle. But now think about the following: How many EU immigrants will come to work at that factory? A considerable amount one would guess, 15%? 20%? So what happens when Britain shuts the borders to them? The organisation has to ensure that it can find sufficiently capable and qualified personnel in Britain - a valuable commodity in short supply as it is.

Yes, it was UKIP MEPs made the report, but figures were from the European Commission itself.

Yes, and they were fully legit figures, the BBC took part in projects co-funded by the EU, and? Only someone looking to damage the EU would project those figures to mean the BBC was pro-EU. If that is the case you'd better start hounding all the universities, road-building companies, financial institutes etc as well.

The BBC should not be pro-EU, they should be unbiased and be prepared to fairly criticise and point out problems caused by Britain being in the EU and the EU in general.

Yes (reading "GB" as "UK").

So how do you explain the Chinese investment in Coventry? Toyota? Ford? Nissan?

 

As I said before let's see what happens when Nissan need to replace the Qashqai in Sunderland..will they build it here or go cheaper..Haven't Ford recently closed a load of production capacity over here and moved it to Turkey where costs are cheaper?

"When cancer patient Paul Giles heard that the EU-US trade deal known as TTIP might affect health services in the UK, he travelled to Brussels to find out more. But Paul’s questions were met with silence.

That’s because the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is being negotiated behind closed doors. In fact, the EU has confirmed that all key documents relating to the agreement will remain closed to the public for 30 years. But why all the secrecy?

Governments and big business are relying on lack of public awareness in order to rush through TTIP and seal the deal without too much resistance. But what are they afraid of? They know there would be an outcry if people knew what was in store.

If TTIP goes ahead it will cost at least one million jobs. It will pave the way for the introduction of genetically modified food into Europe. It will irreversibly extend the privatisation of key public services such as the NHS. And it will give US corporations the power to sue the UK and other states for loss of profits when these governments introduce public policies designed to protect their citizens.

With the EU aiming to get the agreement signed by the end of 2015, we’ve got just one year to halt this atrocious deal. But the problem is, not enough people know about it. It’s not on TV, the mainstream media are hardly covering it, and all the negotiations are happening in secret. That’s where you come in. We need you to help spread the word about the deal set to hand a scary amount of power to big corporations and privatise even more of our public services.

With your support, we can stop this devastating trade agreement before it’s too late.

We’ll be in touch again soon,

John Hilary"

https://www.facebook.com/waronwant

https://twitter.com/WarOnWant

Or he asked the wrong people. All he had to do was Google it:

Have fun reading.

On the NHS.