Brexit factor lacking in Industrial Strategy, say MPs The government has failed to account for the Brexit factor in its long awaited Industrial Strategy, according to a report by MPs today. The Science and Technology Committee welcomed the government’s Autumn Statement pledge of an additional £2bn a year of science and research funding. However, it said that should be viewed as …
The current proportion [of GDP spent on R&D] is 1.7 per cent, below the average of 2.4 per cent and "substantially below the leading backers of innovation — countries like South Korea, Israel, Japan, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, which contribute over 3 per cent of their GDP to this area."
If only we had the productivity to support a higher R&D spend.
I recently watched part of the of the committee hearing, where members of the Lords were questioning the minister about the industrial strategy; and he didn't really seem to have any solid answers to any of their questions. Just a vague suggestion that there might be opportunities for growth
that was pretty much the message from a recent YouGov poll - "the vote was last year, why hasn't it happened already? Why are they taking so long?"
Then again, this was about the same time as a poll that showed a majority of Leave voters surveyed want to bring back the death penalty, a sizeable proportion want to bring back corporate punishment in schools, selling goods in pounds and ounces, and even some wanted "traditional" light bulbs.
"Brexit lacking in Strategy"
Is that really a shock? The referendum was only offered by the tories to stop UKIP from kicking their backsides, they didnt intend on managing a brexit. Throughout the campaign Cameron refused to negotiate such an option and ensured there could be no preparation for it (he insisted he would stay to negotiate).
The only ones with a strategy to exit didnt get elected. And they were greatly scuppered by a desperate effort of Cameron.
"The cheques will be delivered by the government fleet of flying pigs." just as soon as we've tinkered with the NI and other rules enough to cover the costs, so we don't actually have to do any original thinking ... or, worse still, come up with a policy against which we could actually be measured ...
Will we get a "special" agreement to trade with the USA on Trumps terms - that is, worse than we currently have under the EU? It will be our very own agreement though.
We will have less diplomatic influence so that will not lead to opportunities.
Cutting back on science means that there is less innovation and the opportunities it brings.
If we are going to do more arms business with the Saudis, there may be some opportunities. We may be able to sell to various other tin-pot totalitarians around the world. Perhaps North Korea may want some help? Syria has few friends. We could sell to Ethiopia and Eritrea and profit from their troubles. There are plenty more opportunities like these. </cynicism>
There will be the be opportunities in building a new land border with the EU if Scotland leaves the UK and rejoins the EU.
Face it, we are likely stuffed until enough ageing UKIPpers pass on and our kids can get us back in.
Still not to worry.
It will be BAU till Brexit.
Of course last time I checked the EU is looking for 50Bn to settle the outstanding UK obligations, that's 3 and a bit years of UK contributions (about 14Bn net) to the EU before the UK starts to see any addition funds it can put into its own companies, and "Take back control" as the beloved blond haired buffoon Foreign Secretary kept telling you.
What the EU wants and what we will give it should be vastly different. We have always put more in than we got back so the only plausible bill is the one we give to the EU for our share of the 'investments' back. Of course I doubt our politicians have the spunk or backbone to drive that one.
@Dave15
Ah, the man who judges success and value through an excel spreadsheet. I'm glad the human race does not use your metrics when deciding to have children, otherwise the human race ill be dead soon.
The equation is not as simple as we put so much in, put we only got so much back, but more the value in what the shortfall paid for.
In terms of R&D there was not even a shortfall, the UK was very good at getting the EU to pay for research projects.
So the government have said in the short term they will stump up the difference, but how do you value the value of sitting on the top table when the projects are decided, how do you value influence in large basic research projects. How do you value the loss of worldwide influence of universities, business and government in cutting edge research and the subsequent loss of top foreign researchers and academics?
Answer: You can't , but you would be a fool to assume that the value is not considerable to UK PLC
That is what makes it a negotiation.
As is the question of wheather it takes place before, after or in parallel with the talks for a UK/Europe trade deal, as the two are not the same. In fact I'm not sure if the same countries the EU nominates to do one will also do the other, and if so how it will be split.
I would suggest that if they take place in parallel (and HMG has enough clueful staff and a good plan) they will trade things the UK needs and wants (like travel records of all non UK people coming into the UK) against what the EU wants IE the UK's agreed contributions to assorted multinational programmes, including the pension pot for UK former EU staff (and staff who will become "former" when the EU pulls out but who are still eligible to be paid an EU pension in the UK).
No doubt both sides will be totting up the figures for the various line items and come to different ideas of what each is owed by the other.
All in less than 730 days, since the talks have not even started.
I sometimes wonder just how many of those Brexit votes were made by independently wealthy Ex-pats living abroad who have no real involvement in the UK, other than some historical grudge against whoever was in power when they left its shores.
Government should stop buying foreign stuff... spanish tanks, german police cars, yankee planes (you know the ones that promise everything but never fly)
Spend those billions on setting up factories to build our own here, using our own labour. You never know we might just cut unemployment and create a UK manufacturing base that can earn the country money by exporting.
"Easy solution."
Anybody with any life experience knows that there are no easy solutions, esp. not to complex problems.
"Government should stop buying foreign stuff... "
If you stop imports you also kill exports. So that doesn't work, esp. as the UK defence sector exports a lot.
"... create a UK manufacturing base that can earn the country money by exporting."
That's something I would wholeheartedly support. Unfortunately for the last few decades the policies of successive governments (and the financial sector, and society as a whole) has been to focus on financial and creative services not on supposedly dirty manufacturing (the trend has been to offshore that). So right now the UK has a shortage of skilled, technical people who can make and build things (hence the need to bring in immigrants to do that). Right now folk in the UK seem to be more interested in getting a degree in sports studies rather than mechanical engineering, or work in a call centre rather than do TIG welding. Rejigging the education sector to train people with those skills would take at least a decade (and there would be a teacher shortage), rebuilding the manufacturing industry at least as long. And you would still need to develop export markets (can't close your own economy to imports cos of reciprocity). I'm usually an optimist but there's simply no way you can do that within a few years.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
