Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

I don't see the point on posting such partisan commentators. There are plenty on both sides and it's only their opinion at the end of the day. Time has proven the remain campaign to be based on unrealistic scaremongering. There were lies and exaggeration on both sides, same as in all elections. The results are in, there's no point trying to fight the campaign again.

 

BTW does anyone have any objections to me changing the name of this thread to "The Brexit Thread" or any other suggestion?

He's an expert on European Constitutional Law for goodness sake.  His opinion is about as informed as it is possible to get but by all means just ignore it because his informed conclusions fly in the face of the deceitful and manipulative leave campaigners who were able to be so by capitalising on the fact that so many people were nowhere near as informed as this guy.

 

It's like saying you're going to ignore advice from your doctor saying not to eat at Maccy Ds everyday because his opinion is just as partisan as the voice on the advert telling you how good their food is.

 

The result may be in but it's still perfectly fair game to maintain misgivings with the whole ordeal given how important the decision is and how depressingly unprepared and clueless the policymakers on the victorious side continue to appear to be now that they've got their way.

[lgfualol]

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

He's an expert on European Constitutional Law for goodness sake. 

Experts? What do they know? 

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

He's an expert on European Constitutional Law for goodness sake.  His opinion is about as informed as it is possible to get but by all means just ignore it because his informed conclusions fly in the face of the deceitful and manipulative leave campaigners who were able to be so by capitalising on the fact that so many people were nowhere near as informed as this guy.

 

It's like saying you're going to ignore advice from your doctor saying not to eat at Maccy Ds everyday blooPecause his opinion is just as partisan as the voice on the advert telling you how good their food is.

 

The result may be in but it's still perfectly fair game to maintain misgivings with the whole ordeal given how important the decision is and how depressingly unprepared and clueless the policymakers on the victorious side continue to appear to be now that they've got their way.

Experts can be bias too. When you have a court case the lawyers on both sides are experts but can argue the opposite of the other.

 

There are lawyers,economists, businessmen and politicians on both sides. Quoting 1 doesn't prove anything.

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

We could always have private discussions, like ttip.

 

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

So it's OK that Vote Leave lied about this during the campaign, because it's now common knowledge that they were lying? 

 

Vote Leave made that claim about immediately negotiating new trade deals on 15th June.

Surely people aren't gullible enough to think that we aren't going to be in informal talks about this over the next two years are they? We probably even are now, the trade department isn't just going to be sat on it's arse for 2 years waiting for Brexit to happen before sitting down with other countries outside the EU.

 

Alf, you've followed politics long enough to realise that what people say to the World isn't always what is going on behind closed doors, of course the Australian government isn't going to openly admit they are breaking the law.

Whatever happens, I'm just glad in the future the trading deals Britain is negotiating won't be able to be veteod by places like Wallonia - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/24/belgium-eu-ultimatum-canada-trade-deal-ceta-wallonia

 

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

He's an expert on European Constitutional Law for goodness sake.  His opinion is about as informed as it is possible to get but by all means just ignore it because his informed conclusions fly in the face of the deceitful and manipulative leave campaigners who were able to be so by capitalising on the fact that so many people were nowhere near as informed as this guy.

 

Carl you seem to still have this incredible viewpoint than everyone on the leave side was lying and everyone on remain was truth telling, I've seen numerous posts now about things leavers said but not a single mention of what happened to the planned emergency budget, the DYI recession, EU army etc - I think it's time we accepted both sides lied there arses off to try and get the vote they wanted, unfortunately one of them had to win. You lot just thought on your side you would be fine as we'd never have to see your lies providing the vote went your way, well we can and any moral highground you have on this has already long vanished.

 

[Guest MattP]

53 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Experts can be bias too. When you have a court case the lawyers on both sides are experts but can argue the opposite of the other.

 

There are lawyers,economists, businessmen and politicians on both sides. Quoting 1 doesn't prove anything.

No reason at all for a British based person who is an expert on EU law to want us to remain in it is there?

[Guest MattP]

Informal discussions appear to perfectly legal and we are already involved in them, how any court could decide what is formal and informal I have no idea, but I don't think this law is something we really need to be to bothered about looking at it.

 

Maybe @Alf Bentley could ask this question at the debate tonight?

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724999/Brexit-trade-deal-Australia-politics-Steven-Ciobo-Liam-Fox-Lord-Price-Article-50-EU-Europe

 

 

Quote

 

Australian officials yesterday appeared to deliver a blow to Britain's Brexit plans by announcing negotiations on a free trade deal could not legally take place until after the EU exit has been finalised.

But Express.co.uk learnt a working group has already been set up between Britain and Australia so an informal deal can be drawn up and ready to sign as soon as the UK's divorce from Brussels is complete.

Steven Ciobo, Australia's Foreign Minister, said he received advice formal Brexit chats would be "illegal" but said he hoped negotiations would be conducted "efficiently and promptly" in the New Year.

However, according to the Department for International Trade's website, a meeting of the Australia-UK trade working group, fronted by Lord Price, is scheduled to take place later this year – before Theresa May will have even invoked Article 50.

Express.co.uk asked the Department for International Trade if it was legal for that meeting to take place.

A spokeswoman responded: "Formal discussions can't be done, but there's nothing stopping informal discussions and, indeed, they are already in place."

The British-Australian trade deal is thought to take around a year to set up, so starting so early could mean it will be ready to go as soon as Brexit becomes official.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Surely people aren't gullible enough to think that we aren't going to be in informal talks about this over the next two years are they? We probably even are now, the trade department isn't just going to be sat on it's arse for 2 years waiting for Brexit to happen before sitting down with other countries outside the EU.

 

 

Carl you seem to still have this incredible viewpoint than everyone on the leave side was lying and everyone on remain was truth telling, I've seen numerous posts now about things leavers said but not a single mention of what happened to the planned emergency budget, the DYI recession, EU army etc - I think it's time we accepted both sides lied there arses off to try and get the vote they wanted, unfortunately one of them had to win. You lot just thought on your side you would be fine as we'd never have to see your lies providing the vote went your way, well we can and any moral highground you have on this has already long vanished.

 

 

Whether or not informal talks are ongoing is speculation either way. If such secret talks are happening, it begs the question why the Leave side announced that there would be immediate trade negotiations if they knew this had to be done secretly. Anyway, there's a big difference between informally finding out what other countries might want/accept and formally negotiating a binding legal treaty.

 

Certain Remain predictions as to immediate consequences of a Brexit vote have not happened. The predicted recession has not happened - yet. Nobody sane would confidently predict that it definitely won't happen over the next couple of years and growth is widely expected to plummet. There was no immediate emergency budget, but the Bank of England pumped in loads of money (possibly averting a recession) and the Govt tore up its longstanding plans to eliminate the deficit by 2020 - the basis of its economic policy and for 6 years of "austerity". An autumn budget statement is also due next month and difficult choices are anticipated: http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/26/uk-will-have-84000000000-black-hole-fuelled-by-brexit-6215662/. The Remain side actually made very little of some other potential consequences - a significant rise in inflation is now expected off the back of the fall in the pound and I don't remember much "scaremongering" about that.

 

There are (partly) inaccurate predictions and exaggerations, such as those you mention - and there are blatant lies. It was known at the time (as Dougan points out) that trade negotiations couldn't start immediately yet Leave claimed they could. It was known that there was no £350m per week to be handed back to the NHS, yet Leave claimed there was. Webbo's idea that we shouldn't discuss Leave lies because they are now "common knowledge" makes me laugh. Presumably the same applies to Blair's Iraqi WMDs, mass immigration from Eastern Europe or the lack of a post-Brexit recession....we shouldn't discuss such issues as they're now "common knowledge". 

 

 

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

No reason at all for a British based person who is an expert on EU law to want us to remain in it is there?

 

In the video (from 12:00), Dougan said that the massive post-Brexit review of UK/EU law required to untangle the relationship would keep him in work for years. Even then, we'll need to understand EU law as it will affect most of our immediate neighbours and major trading partners. For that matter, there are academic experts in US law and we've never been in the USA.

 

 

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Informal discussions appear to perfectly legal and we are already involved in them, how any court could decide what is formal and informal I have no idea, but I don't think this law is something we really need to be to bothered about looking at it.

 

Maybe @Alf Bentley could ask this question at the debate tonight?

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724999/Brexit-trade-deal-Australia-politics-Steven-Ciobo-Liam-Fox-Lord-Price-Article-50-EU-Europe

 

 

 

 

Debate questions had to be submitted by Friday so I won't be able to ask this question. I did submit a couple of other questions on post-Brexit Ireland/Scotland and on how/whether the EU can reform itself to avoid other countries leaving.

I'll let you know if I get to mouth off! 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Experts can be bias too. When you have a court case the lawyers on both sides are experts but can argue the opposite of the other.

 

There are lawyers,economists, businessmen and politicians on both sides. Quoting 1 doesn't prove anything.

 

Ultimately, anybody can argue anything. You wouldn't be able to convince the Flat Earth Society that the world is round.

 

But the credibility of experts depends greatly on the quality of their evidence.

 

Leave claimed there would be immediate negotiations over new trade deals that would come into force after the 2-year Brexit process. Dougan claimed there would be no such negotiations. There are no such negotiations (bar any of Matt's secret, informal talks). The evidence tends to support Dougan.

 

I believe that you are a member of the Communist Party and that Messi has just signed for LCFC. Quoting experts who disagree "doesn't prove anything". 

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Whether or not informal talks are ongoing is speculation either way. If such secret talks are happening, it begs the question why the Leave side announced that there would be immediate trade negotiations if they knew this had to be done secretly. Anyway, there's a big difference between informally finding out what other countries might want/accept and formally negotiating a binding legal treaty.

 

Certain Remain predictions as to immediate consequences of a Brexit vote have not happened. The predicted recession has not happened - yet. Nobody sane would confidently predict that it definitely won't happen over the next couple of years and growth is widely expected to plummet. There was no immediate emergency budget, but the Bank of England pumped in loads of money (possibly averting a recession) and the Govt tore up its longstanding plans to eliminate the deficit by 2020 - the basis of its economic policy and for 6 years of "austerity". An autumn budget statement is also due next month and difficult choices are anticipated: http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/26/uk-will-have-84000000000-black-hole-fuelled-by-brexit-6215662/. The Remain side actually made very little of some other potential consequences - a significant rise in inflation is now expected off the back of the fall in the pound and I don't remember much "scaremongering" about that.

 

There are (partly) inaccurate predictions and exaggerations, such as those you mention - and there are blatant lies. It was known at the time (as Dougan points out) that trade negotiations couldn't start immediately yet Leave claimed they could. It was known that there was no £350m per week to be handed back to the NHS, yet Leave claimed there was. Webbo's idea that we shouldn't discuss Leave lies because they are now "common knowledge" makes me laugh. Presumably the same applies to Blair's Iraqi WMDs, mass immigration from Eastern Europe or the lack of a post-Brexit recession....we shouldn't discuss such issues as they're now "common knowledge". 

 

In the video (from 12:00), Dougan said that the massive post-Brexit review of UK/EU law required to untangle the relationship would keep him in work for years. Even then, we'll need to understand EU law as it will affect most of our immediate neighbours and major trading partners. For that matter, there are academic experts in US law and we've never been in the USA.

 

Debate questions had to be submitted by Friday so I won't be able to ask this question. I did submit a couple of other questions on post-Brexit Ireland/Scotland and on how/whether the EU can reform itself to avoid other countries leaving.

I'll let you know if I get to mouth off! 

On Dougan, I was making a cheeky point that wasnt serious, course I realise people can be specialists in external subjects, probably not the right thread for it. (I actually do remember watching the video at the time and being quite thankful the Remain camp were putting people like Bob Geldof and Eddie Izzard out to the public on Question Time rather than people like him)

 

I don't think any fiscal body is now predicting a recession, of course it could happen but the idea we were voting for one was fanciful, there were blatent lies from both sides, we know the emergency budget was a blatent lie, we know Cameron saying he would stay on was a blatent lie. It's obviously no excuse but maybe it got a point where they both realised they were doing so so they couldn't care less anymore, the whole thing has become a little silly from all sides, the Green party candidate for the mayor of London is still standing by her assertion Brexit means all spouses who are EU nationals will be deported, I'm sure some of the radical Kippers are still standing by things we all know to ridiculous.

 

As I say, I wish I had known about it earlier as I would have liked to attend, I love being jeered and heckled by my peers at things like this.

 

My last post today as I'm a busy man, but please report back on the debate, I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

My last post today as I'm a busy man, but please report back on the debate, I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

 

I thought dominating and shaping the foxestalk politics threads was your life mission - never mind your full time job!

 

 

[Barky]

Think the pound dropping has protected us from recession so far. Not great itself, though, i'm already feeling the pinch on petrol and my winter escape looks more expensive than ever.

[Nick]

The future's black.

 

 

[Wymsey]

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Ultimately, anybody can argue anything. You wouldn't be able to convince the Flat Earth Society that the world is round.

 

But the credibility of experts depends greatly on the quality of their evidence.

 

Leave claimed there would be immediate negotiations over new trade deals that would come into force after the 2-year Brexit process. Dougan claimed there would be no such negotiations. There are no such negotiations (bar any of Matt's secret, informal talks). The evidence tends to support Dougan.

 

I believe that you are a member of the Communist Party and that Messi has just signed for LCFC. Quoting experts who disagree "doesn't prove anything". 

Daniel Hannan is an obviously intelligent person, a degree in modern history from Oxford, speaks fluent French and Spanish. He's been an MEP for 17 years, he knows how the system works, he's scrutinised all the European Laws that have come out in his time in Brussels . It would be fair to call him an expert but don't post his videos, articles on here because you'd all say "well he would say that, he's biased" and you'd be correct. there'd be no point. I never post anything political from the Daily Mail because it would just be laughed at, but that doesn't stop people posting stuff from the Guardian which is just as biased.At the end of the day what people say is just opinion, facts are facts and can't be dismissed so easily.

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Daniel Hannan is an obviously intelligent person, a degree in modern history from Oxford, speaks fluent French and Spanish. He's been an MEP for 17 years, he knows how the system works, he's scrutinised all the European Laws that have come out in his time in Brussels . It would be fair to call him an expert but don't post his videos, articles on here because you'd all say "well he would say that, he's biased" and you'd be correct. there'd be no point. I never post anything political from the Daily Mail because it would just be laughed at, but that doesn't stop people posting stuff from the Guardian which is just as biased.At the end of the day what people say is just opinion, facts are facts and can't be dismissed so easily.

 

Yep. You want facts, stick to physics. Only honest field left.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

Yep. You want facts, stick to physics. Only honest field left.

Unless you believe in string theory. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Unless you believe in string theory. 

Oh Gods, don't get me started on that.

 

Things larger than one proton, please

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Daniel Hannan is an obviously intelligent person, a degree in modern history from Oxford, speaks fluent French and Spanish. He's been an MEP for 17 years, he knows how the system works, he's scrutinised all the European Laws that have come out in his time in Brussels . It would be fair to call him an expert but don't post his videos, articles on here because you'd all say "well he would say that, he's biased" and you'd be correct. there'd be no point. I never post anything political from the Daily Mail because it would just be laughed at, but that doesn't stop people posting stuff from the Guardian which is just as biased.At the end of the day what people say is just opinion, facts are facts and can't be dismissed so easily.

 

We all have our particular biases of outlook. But we can still challenge our views by listening to others we might not agree with.

 

Please do post any good Hannan videos/articles you come across. I'd read/watch them, time permitting. From TV interviews I've seen, he's in the 10% of politicians (regardless of party) who actually think for themselves and don't unthinkingly parrot a party line. I don't share most of his political outlook (apart from the libertarian bit), but have heard him make some good points and arguments.

 

I'd be a lot less interested in reading stuff from the Mail, not because of its bias but because of the quality of its arguments. The quality of Guardian articles varies greatly: some present well-thought-out arguments supported by evidence, others are full of lefty / wet liberal assumptions and don't make a proper case. In my experience, the Mail is generally like a down-market version of the Guardian at its worst, but from the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

If you want to challenge yourself by listening to one argument that you might expect to disagree with, I'd choose Dougan's videos (and not, say, the speeches of Remain politicians). His arguments are about as evidence-based and self-questioning as it's possible to be (we all have some bias).

 

As for facts, people often can't agree about what is or isn't a fact - evidence for opinions is good, though.

[Webbo]

Brexit will not cause UK trade 'disruption' - WTO boss
Roberto Azevedo dismisses fears Britain could suffer a sudden seizure of trade during or after its negotiations with the EU.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-not-cause-uk-trade-disruption-wto-boss-10632803

[Carl the Llama]

15 hours ago, MattP said:

Carl you seem to still have this incredible viewpoint than everyone on the leave side was lying and everyone on remain was truth telling, I've seen numerous posts now about things leavers said but not a single mention of what happened to the planned emergency budget, the DYI recession, EU army etc - I think it's time we accepted both sides lied there arses off to try and get the vote they wanted, unfortunately one of them had to win. You lot just thought on your side you would be fine as we'd never have to see your lies providing the vote went your way, well we can and any moral highground you have on this has already long vanished.

 

My incredible viewpoint is that the remain campaign was generally based on solid information with an unfortunate number of twats in high places making stupid noises and with that in mind I think the less I say about my comparative view of the leave campaign the better.  Don't want to anger you into any more outbursts apparently confusing me with Osborne and co ("you lot..." ).  Sure the emergency budget never happened but I think that's kind of the problem:  It was a pretty transparent charade and nobody really believed it was going to happen whereas a large percentage of voters did believe that the NHS would get up to £350m/week, did believe that we have no control of our borders did believe that the UK would become overcrowded with Turks within a matter of years and so on.

 

For my part I strongly argued that the economy would at the very least see a short term drop in the pound followed by a medium term decline in the general economy and after that who knows.  I'm yet to be proven wrong on those accounts so I'm a pretty lucky liar I guess.

[davieG]

UK economy grows 0.5% in three months after Brexit vote

10 minutes ago

 

From the sectionBusiness

Share

Image copyrightPA

The UK economy grew faster than expected in the three months after the Brexit vote, official figures have indicated.

The economy expanded by 0.5% in the July-to-September period, according to the Office for National Statistics.

That was slower than the 0.7% rate in the previous quarter, but stronger than analysts' estimates of about 0.3%.

"There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote," the ONS said.

The economy was boosted by a strong performance from the services sector, which grew by 0.8% in the quarter.

Welcoming the figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Phillip Hammond said: "The fundamentals of the UK economy are strong and today's data show that the economy is resilient."

Transport, storage and communication were the strongest performing service industries, growing by 2.2% quarter on quarter. Motion picture, video and TV programme production, sound recording and music and computer programming drove the growth.

ONS chief economist Jo Grice said "A strong performance in the dominant services industries continued to offset further falls in construction, while manufacturing continued to be broadly flat."

This is the first estimate of economic growth for the period, using less than half the data that will be used for the final estimate.

Analysis: Jonty Bloom, business correspondent

The economy has slowed slightly but by nothing like as much as feared and the Office for National Statistics says that "the pattern of growth continues to be broadly unaffected following the EU referendum".

That pattern is, however, a rather unbalanced one. The only sector of the economy that continued to grow was services, up by 0.8%; agriculture, manufacturing production and construction all shrank.

Brexit supporters will take these figures as a sign that warnings about the economic costs of voting to leave the EU were nothing more than scaremongering. Remain supporters will argue that only prompt action by the Bank of England saved the economy and that worse is to come.

While growth in the services sector was robust, construction was down by 1.4% and industrial production fell by 0.4%. Within that manufacturing output fell by 1%.

"In manufacturing, the contraction in output should be attributed to some unwinding of the massive growth spike seen in the second quarter, rather than industry scaling back production for any referendum related reasons. While the large service sector showed activity expanding at a robust pace," said Lee Hopley, chief economist at the EEF, the manufacturers' organisation.

"In line with the raft of survey data the GDP estimates confirm that it has been more or less business as usual but it doesn't tell us, however, if this will continue for the foreseeable future."

No details of consumer spending were released in this set of figures but Howard Archer of IHS Global Insight said: "It looks certain that third-quarter growth was also heavily dependent on consumers' willingness to keep spending, supported by still decent purchasing power and high employment.

"Consumer spending also clearly benefited from the weakened pound encouraging spending by overseas visitors to the UK. The weakened pound also supported foreign orders for UK goods and services."

[The Railway Man]

10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

My incredible viewpoint is that the remain campaign was generally based on solid information with an unfortunate number of twats in high places making stupid noises and with that in mind I think the less I say about my comparative view of the leave campaign the better.  Don't want to anger you into any more outbursts apparently confusing me with Osborne and co ("you lot..." ).  Sure the emergency budget never happened but I think that's kind of the problem:  It was a pretty transparent charade and nobody really believed it was going to happen whereas a large percentage of voters did believe that the NHS would get up to £350m/week, did believe that we have no control of our borders did believe that the UK would become overcrowded with Turks within a matter of years and so on.

 

For my part I strongly argued that the economy would at the very least see a short term drop in the pound followed by a medium term decline in the general economy and after that who knows.  I'm yet to be proven wrong on those accounts so I'm a pretty lucky liar I guess.

Fact-check: FALSE

 

I've just been through your profile and scanned all your posts from June, at no point do I see this prediction anywhere, what you do have instead is about 150 posts of you saying there is no problem at all with the EU and in virtually every single one you describe anyone voting to leave it as racist, xenophobic, bigoted etc.

 

You could argue people like you are one of the reasons why the country voted to leave the EU, reading it certainly riled me up again and removed any doubt I had about my vote.

[The Railway Man]

18 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

We all have our particular biases of outlook. But we can still challenge our views by listening to others we might not agree with.

 

Please do post any good Hannan videos/articles you come across. I'd read/watch them, time permitting. From TV interviews I've seen, he's in the 10% of politicians (regardless of party) who actually think for themselves and don't unthinkingly parrot a party line. I don't share most of his political outlook (apart from the libertarian bit), but have heard him make some good points and arguments.

 

I'd be a lot less interested in reading stuff from the Mail, not because of its bias but because of the quality of its arguments. The quality of Guardian articles varies greatly: some present well-thought-out arguments supported by evidence, others are full of lefty / wet liberal assumptions and don't make a proper case. In my experience, the Mail is generally like a down-market version of the Guardian at its worst, but from the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

If you want to challenge yourself by listening to one argument that you might expect to disagree with, I'd choose Dougan's videos (and not, say, the speeches of Remain politicians). His arguments are about as evidence-based and self-questioning as it's possible to be (we all have some bias).

 

As for facts, people often can't agree about what is or isn't a fact - evidence for opinions is good, though.

Great post fellow, this should be about challenge and evidence, trying to open your eyes and ears to other viewpoints.

 

Debates like this should be about exactly that, I just went through a lot of the thread pre-referendum and half of it from certain posters was just name calling.

[davieG]

Nissan to build new models in Sunderland

By Chris JohnstonBusiness reporter

9 minutes ago

 

From the sectionBusiness

Share

Image copyrightNISSAN

Nissan has confirmed it will build both the new Qashqai and the X-Trail SUV at its Sunderland plant in the first major development for the car industry since the Brexit vote.

The Japanese company's commitment to Britain's biggest car plant had been in doubt following the referendum.

Carlos Ghosn, Nissan chief executive, said government "support and assurances" allowed it to decide to make the two new cars in Sunderland.

The decision will secure 7,000 jobs.

Mr Ghosn said he welcomed Prime Minister Theresa May's "commitment to the automotive industry in Britain".

Last month, he warned that Nissan might not invest in the Sunderland plant unless the government guaranteed compensation for costs related to any new trade tariffs resulting from Brexit.

Mrs May described the announcement as "fantastic news", adding: "This vote of confidence shows Britain is open for business."

A Downing Street spokesman could not give any details of the government's promises to the company.

Business Secretary Greg Clark said: "The fact Nissan have not only made a long-term commitment to build the next generation Qashqai and X-Trail at Sunderland, but decided to upgrade their factory to a super-plant, manufacturing over 600,000 cars a year, is proof of the strength of the sector."

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionJaguar Land Rover is another major car manufacturer in the UK

Building the X-Trail SUV is an unexpected addition to the model line-up at Sunderland, which makes almost one in three cars built in Britain and produced 475,000 vehicles last year - 80% of which were exported.

The Sunderland plant opened in 1986 and has produced almost nine million cars over the past three decades.

Export growth

Production of the next Qashqai model is expected to begin in 2018 or 2019.

The UK's car industry is performing strongly, with almost 1.3 million vehicles produced in the nine months to September - a 10.5% increase on the same period last year.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of industry body the SMMT, said on Thursday: "British-built cars are in demand across the world, as demonstrated by the double-digit growth in exports this year, resulting in more than a million cars produced for international markets.

"Future growth will depend on securing our international competitiveness and the barrier-free access to major global markets that has enabled UK Automotive to thrive."

[The Railway Man]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

UK economy grows 0.5% in three months after Brexit vote

10 minutes ago

 

From the sectionBusiness

Share

Image copyrightPA

The UK economy grew faster than expected in the three months after the Brexit vote, official figures have indicated.

The economy expanded by 0.5% in the July-to-September period, according to the Office for National Statistics.

That was slower than the 0.7% rate in the previous quarter, but stronger than analysts' estimates of about 0.3%.

"There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote," the ONS said.

The economy was boosted by a strong performance from the services sector, which grew by 0.8% in the quarter.

Welcoming the figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Phillip Hammond said: "The fundamentals of the UK economy are strong and today's data show that the economy is resilient."

Transport, storage and communication were the strongest performing service industries, growing by 2.2% quarter on quarter. Motion picture, video and TV programme production, sound recording and music and computer programming drove the growth.

ONS chief economist Jo Grice said "A strong performance in the dominant services industries continued to offset further falls in construction, while manufacturing continued to be broadly flat."

This is the first estimate of economic growth for the period, using less than half the data that will be used for the final estimate.

Analysis: Jonty Bloom, business correspondent

The economy has slowed slightly but by nothing like as much as feared and the Office for National Statistics says that "the pattern of growth continues to be broadly unaffected following the EU referendum".

That pattern is, however, a rather unbalanced one. The only sector of the economy that continued to grow was services, up by 0.8%; agriculture, manufacturing production and construction all shrank.

Brexit supporters will take these figures as a sign that warnings about the economic costs of voting to leave the EU were nothing more than scaremongering. Remain supporters will argue that only prompt action by the Bank of England saved the economy and that worse is to come.

While growth in the services sector was robust, construction was down by 1.4% and industrial production fell by 0.4%. Within that manufacturing output fell by 1%.

"In manufacturing, the contraction in output should be attributed to some unwinding of the massive growth spike seen in the second quarter, rather than industry scaling back production for any referendum related reasons. While the large service sector showed activity expanding at a robust pace," said Lee Hopley, chief economist at the EEF, the manufacturers' organisation.

"In line with the raft of survey data the GDP estimates confirm that it has been more or less business as usual but it doesn't tell us, however, if this will continue for the foreseeable future."

No details of consumer spending were released in this set of figures but Howard Archer of IHS Global Insight said: "It looks certain that third-quarter growth was also heavily dependent on consumers' willingness to keep spending, supported by still decent purchasing power and high employment.

"Consumer spending also clearly benefited from the weakened pound encouraging spending by overseas visitors to the UK. The weakened pound also supported foreign orders for UK goods and services."

 

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Nissan to build new models in Sunderland

By Chris JohnstonBusiness reporter

9 minutes ago

 

From the sectionBusiness

Share

Image copyrightNISSAN

Nissan has confirmed it will build both the new Qashqai and the X-Trail SUV at its Sunderland plant in the first major development for the car industry since the Brexit vote.

The Japanese company's commitment to Britain's biggest car plant had been in doubt following the referendum.

Carlos Ghosn, Nissan chief executive, said government "support and assurances" allowed it to decide to make the two new cars in Sunderland.

The decision will secure 7,000 jobs.

Mr Ghosn said he welcomed Prime Minister Theresa May's "commitment to the automotive industry in Britain".

Last month, he warned that Nissan might not invest in the Sunderland plant unless the government guaranteed compensation for costs related to any new trade tariffs resulting from Brexit.

Mrs May described the announcement as "fantastic news", adding: "This vote of confidence shows Britain is open for business."

A Downing Street spokesman could not give any details of the government's promises to the company.

Business Secretary Greg Clark said: "The fact Nissan have not only made a long-term commitment to build the next generation Qashqai and X-Trail at Sunderland, but decided to upgrade their factory to a super-plant, manufacturing over 600,000 cars a year, is proof of the strength of the sector."

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionJaguar Land Rover is another major car manufacturer in the UK

Building the X-Trail SUV is an unexpected addition to the model line-up at Sunderland, which makes almost one in three cars built in Britain and produced 475,000 vehicles last year - 80% of which were exported.

The Sunderland plant opened in 1986 and has produced almost nine million cars over the past three decades.

Export growth

Production of the next Qashqai model is expected to begin in 2018 or 2019.

The UK's car industry is performing strongly, with almost 1.3 million vehicles produced in the nine months to September - a 10.5% increase on the same period last year.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of industry body the SMMT, said on Thursday: "British-built cars are in demand across the world, as demonstrated by the double-digit growth in exports this year, resulting in more than a million cars produced for international markets.

"Future growth will depend on securing our international competitiveness and the barrier-free access to major global markets that has enabled UK Automotive to thrive."

 

So much for Brexit putting a bomb under the economy then