Intel's €80bn European chip plant investment plan not bound for UK because Brexit Intel is cutting the UK out of its European expansion plans based on the nation's decision to leave the EU, the world's biggest political and trading bloc. While the government voices ambitions for a high-value tech-based economy, Chipzilla has other plans. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger told the BBC this morning that the $77bn- …
@Geez Money
"Where else do governments get 1,000% return on investment?"
Why do you think the EU is coming out of this with return? Its more expensive to make these things in Europe. The EU will pay (aka EU tax payers will pay) to make chips the entire world can buy cheaper from Asia which means the price wont go up (they wont sell if they do) and the world gets more chips on the global market which suppresses the price. Aka the rest of the world benefits from this.
The UK will benefit from cheaper chips the EU taxpayer pays for then sells to us. We spend nothing and get the economic benefits! Our gov has just beaten 1,000% theoretical return.
@Geez Money
"Usually even if you don't read the article before going on to troll the comments, you would at least read the headline..."
The way I read return is money coming to you. Not money you spend. Thats not 80bn going to the EU gov. Thats 8bn of tax payer money going to intel. This is (see article) a "$77bn-revenue hardware giant" which doesnt make money by getting expensive people to do cheap work.
Sorry if you mistook that for trolling, just reasoned thought you might have missed.
@Geez Money
"Believe it or not a major corporation committing to pump minimum 80 billion into a local economy has huge local benefits."
If they were to pump 80bn into the local economy. 80bn investment is to buy in what is needed, from where they can get what they need. I dont know how much will go to the local economy but that will be less than 80bn.
I am happy about this. The global supply of chips will increase, prices fall and the world benefits. If US and EU tax payers want to buy us computer chips who are we to argue?
Jobs, supply chains, skills and knowledge, University partnerships, spin offs, supply chain independence and much more.
Look beyond a simple trade, this is no place for blinkered thought process. A nation needs to be doing the hard stuff, it's the spearhead and it drags the rest of the economy along behind it.
Do chip development, do fabbing, do space exploration, do extreme science, do modern economy stuff. Or have an insular island mentality and stew in your own shit.
@rtfazeberdee
"Very selfish thought there "me get cheap chips""
Dont be stupid. The EU chose to give money to Intel to make chips in Europe. I assume the EU has reasons (maybe security of supply maybe) and this comment section is full of moaning that the UK didnt or wouldnt pay Intel to do it here. As I said some people seem to think the UK lost out.
"even though there is no evidence for that."
Really? Assuming your in the UK have your fuel prices gone up when there was a shortage of petrol? It did here quite a bit. There is huge evidence that mass production reduced prices throughout the world due to increased supply. Supply and demand is real. Look at gas/energy prices currently. This isnt a disputed fact.
"What about all the jobs and supply chains that will be created and then tax that goes back into the local coffers?"
I have been waiting for someone to mention creating jobs. Jobs are a cost not a benefit. At one time almost everyone worked in a field picking crops and barely above starving. Now fewer people do that and more people do more productive jobs that are worth more than the base necessity of eating. And the tax to the local coffers is less than if those people did something worth more and the country just bought cheaper chips.
@Dinanziame
"...Wow. I guess it's really useless to continue this discussion..."
If you dont understand that jobs are a cost not a benefit then yes you wont be much use to the discussion. One of my favourite stories which may explain it to you-
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.” source- https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/
At one point almost everyone was in a field picking crops on the edge of starvation. Thats one way for everyone to be employed but we are richer because fewer people do that and instead do other things.
@Terry Barnes
"…and you think people building canals with spoons is equivalent to high-paying value-adding work like semiconductor fab how?"
If you read the article you will find the answer. You say high paying value adding work like semiconductor fabrication, Intel says differently. Its cheaper to do in Asia and the only reason they are looking at US and EU is the taxpayers money being given to subsidise the difference. Because the value of the work is less than the cost of doing it in the west.
"You’ve made yourself look more, not less, stupid."
Now you have been shown wrong will you retract that? Or try to justify how I somehow look stupid?
If you are investing 80bn, a lot of that goes into the local economy simply because of building the place, staffing it, transporting in and installing capital items (even if not bought locally - but more incentive to do that too), and building a consumables and output supply chain - and paying employee income tax, business tax, property rates etc for years to come, and paying salaries out into the local economy. It's a good return on investment.
You'd have to be a bit of a moron to conclude (1) this means Europeans are paying '8bn more for their chips' or (2) that the UK wouldn't have had to do something similar themselves (like when they paid Honda £800m just to *stay* here, not even invest, post Brexit).
The Brexiteer economic ignorance on display is depressing but not surprising.
@AC
"(1) this means Europeans are paying '8bn more for their chips'"
At least. What happens when the subsidies stop? Its cheaper to make this stuff in Asia so the EU tax payer must cover at least the difference.
"(2) that the UK wouldn't have had to do something similar themselves"
Of course the UK would do the same. Doesnt change the fact that its paying Intel to produce in Europe, hence more expensive.
"The Brexiteer economic ignorance on display is depressing but not surprising."
Your the one telling me that spending tax payer money for locals to pay tax is a clever thing. My previous comments have covered your first section.
@Terry Barnes
"Using your logic we would all be better off if every U.K. company shut up shop and moved to the EU"
Why? The UK does more productive things than fab chips for Intel. We know this because people in the UK do other things and buy these cheap chips. To make the chips here (or US or EU) we would have to pay as tax payers to make it worth fabricating chips here.
The UK got richer by letting Asia make our T-Shirts. Instead of making something worth so little we did other things worth more and bought the cheap items we want.
"Admit it, you supported a terrible self-harming decision and are too immature to recognise it."
You kidding? Assuming your in the UK you probably got vaccinated while the EU looked for its ass with both hands and a map. We were told how expensive the divorce bill was until we dodged the covid bailout fund. These are benefits seen very quickly from leaving. How many died waiting for the EU to actually place orders and get some vaccine and how many saved when the members abandoned the EU pact and bought their own?
I do not regret my vote to leave at all and am still amazed at the stupid claims made against the decision.
> How many died waiting for the EU to actually place orders and get some vaccine and how many saved when the members abandoned the EU pact and bought their own?
Which does somewhat prove the point that we could have done exactly what we did, but within the EU.
@MarkTriumphant
"Which does somewhat prove the point that we could have done exactly what we did, but within the EU."
Thats the UK supremacist argument. There is no way the UK would have gone alone, not one single member did. Instead they even cancelled their own plans to throw their lot in with the EU. So who here really wants to argue that the UK government is the best of the EU members? That the UK would have the foresight and balls to reject the pressure to join the EU scheme?
Then assuming the UK has a better government than the EU countries (we would probably have Cameron btw) and the UK does so well what would have happened? The EU would have stolen vaccine for the UK. They already almost threw up a hard border in Ireland to stop vaccine coming to the UK and raided manufacturing plants looking for vaccine for export.
There are also accusations that France did steal vaccine destined for the UK. Amusingly its the AZ vaccine that the French were railing against because of its connections to the UK.
"Assuming your in the UK you probably got vaccinated while the EU looked for its ass with both hands and a map."
Ah there it is, the usual quitling get out of jail free card - oooh vaccinations! And yet we have been overtaken on that too. Your constant unwavering support for brexit (which every business in the country, bar those set up specifically by Bozos pals to milk the taxpayer for PPE, has derided as a disaster)in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is almost worthy of respect. Almost.
@Mooseman
"Ah there it is, the usual quitling get out of jail free card - oooh vaccinations!"
You mean a very valid, if inconvenient for you, fact?
"And yet we have been overtaken on that too."
If you mean by the EU then no. If you mean some countries in Europe then yes, its amazing how quickly they turned the situation around when the member countries abandoned the EU procurement and got it themselves.
"Your constant unwavering support for brexit"
Which still seems to be going very well to the seeming frustration of those who wish it didnt.
"Which still seems to be going very well to the seeming frustration of those who wish it didnt."
some one must be wearing blinkers, 3 blindfolds and a fucking crash helmet backwards, to think what we are seeing now is "very well"
Stop closing your eyes and shouting la-la-la, it won't stop reality smacking you about the face with the fish we can't export
“Every business in the U.K.”.
Ahem. *I’m* a business owner in the U.K. My monthly revenue has increased strongly since 2016, and even more since the final Brexit date.
This year I got two major new customers, both located in APAC and defectors from my major competitor in Germany. They are brutally direct with me:
My products are no better than my competitor, and I am more expensive. But the contractual and political issues dealing with companies in the EU means that if there are any alternatives, any at all, they are being forced to look elsewhere. Being outside the EU is worth my 15% price difference to competitor from their POV. Although they constantly demand that 15% reduction to match competitor, for two months of price negotiations, I held the line and they signed the contract. I simply wouldn’t have those design wins without Brexit, end of.
Coincidence or not, on the day after the Commission sued AstraZeneca, my second major customer finally signed their contract, and also I got a contact from a third major potential customer on that same day, which I am still working to close. It was a very good day for me. Make of that what you will.
Justthefacts>>>Being outside the EU is worth my 15% price difference to competitor from their POV.
That is really interesting. So APAC buyers are willing to take a 15% mark up to deal with a non-EU supplier. Which market segment are you in?
But it is an admission that brexit has added a 15% surcharge on your products, yes?
We make micro-machined parts, using proprietary tech at the interface of CNC and additive manufacturing. Mostly industrial robotics and MEMS so far.
Cost impact of Brexit? Maybe £200 shipping on £500k of parts, but while that might be a problem in some businesses, really not mine.
Like most technologies, ours has strengths and weaknesses compared to its rivals. And both our technology and its rivals are improving in strides year-on-year. Within its strengths, our tech can be as much as 50% below the cost of rivals, on very specialised items with specific “tricky issues”. That’s what my business is built on. Where I’m seeing wins recently is starting to be more mainstream products - where I’m still over cost of my rivals.
Does that help your snark?
I wouldn’t say that Brexit has added or subtracted any surcharge of 15%. At the moment, my costs are higher because we are developing the business, but we have reduced those costs steadily over time, and continue to do so. We are competing against other established companies and technologies with longer heritage. All companies are improving their cost base every year….keep up, this is fairly standard!
As I said, our technology is proprietary, unusual,
"Does that help your snark?"
Nope. Interesting, as you are the 1st person I've come across exporting more easily after Brexit. But doesn't explain how Brexit has specifically helped you sell into AsiaPac. You were +15% before Brexit. +15% after Brexit. So what change has Brexit brought to the table which now makes AsiaPac customers place an order?
Contractual terms is one important element.
My Ts and Cs define UK law as the applicable law for the contract. Applicable law is a much bigger deal in negotiations than people think, but it is part of the negotiation and ultimately decided by who is the more powerful. Any of UK, German, French or Belgian law is thinkable.
The *dealbreaker* is that European law, ultimately decided by the ECJ, has legal primacy over German and French law. At the behest of the Commission, *any* French/German law contract is at risk of being referred to the ECJ for final decision. This was a theoretical risk at the edge of paranoia....and then *AstraZeneca* happened. Suddenly, it's a big, big deal. Whether you think the ECJ is impartial or not, is simply no interest in China or Japan.
The other issue is that most startup tech firms are now largely financed by EU money. You may think that's a good thing, but from the other side of the ocean POV it really isn't. That EU money comes with very detailed insight by the Commission into the business and tech, and effective control. The Commission's primary goal is to "build up the local competitive ecosystem".
If you are, say, Fanuc (robotics) in Japan, how do you feel about getting key components from a company that owes its livelihood to the Commission, whose primary goal is to generate a local robotics ecosystem to supply Vollkswagen?
Depends which companies. Some do, some don’t.
At the moment, in my bit of the world, I can’t see any “flight from US suppliers”. Although, if there were any, they probably would probably rock up at an EU company rather than a U.K. company, so there’s that.
I’m also aware that aerospace and defence are very different (ITAR) because I used to work there and we spent months and longer managing that abusive crap. But only the teeny-tiniest fraction of real-world exports come under what I would call “US export controls”. If this is your bag, then very genuinely my sympathy.
Well, that one came as a surprise to me TBH but I checked, and you are correct.
Although, this particular CPU is being victimised because it is leading-edge in *double-precision* flops, which from the US POV is all about simulating nuclear weapons; and the only other reason is a (sorry) relatively small community of academic science HPC people to which I assume you belong?
But yes, there is a Tricky Issue here. The HPC community has decided, that it needs to prioritise a specialist technology (double-precision) that is dual-use with nuclear weapons. So it is absolutely not a coincidence that you are coming into conflict with the worlds nuclear hyperpower on this topic.
I agree. Tomorrow’s weather is indeed not the climate.
But I’m tired of hearing the same old big three or four multinationals who have their own highly specific interest in Remain, making a big play out of every April Shower in their neck of the woods.
Without the majority of companies *who are SMEs let me remind you* ever getting their viewpoint represented.
How many times have we heard Airbus execs, or investment bankers opine on the consequences of Brexit, on the radio, on TV, in the FT? Compared to how many *local car repair shops*? I don’t know what the impact is on the latter, positive or negative. But I do know that it has been in the news precisely zero times ever, despite them being collectively at least ten times the size of Airbus.
"Compared to how many *local car repair shops*? I don’t know what the impact is on the latter, positive or negative. "
It is very much negative. Check out the car forums. Good point about it being a buried news story. But that's the case with a lot of Uk SMEs: They were thrown under the (brexit) bus. (But for now we can just blame it all on covid.)
Try any of the VerticalScope(formerly TorStar) car forums.
I doubt there is any issue with Japanese parts as nothing has changed. But for e.g. Italian makes there are issue. But it's only VAT and courrier's fees. It'll most likely all be back to normal by next year: Either costs more or the supplier doesn't ship to UK.
I recently had to get a rear brake caliper for my Subaru. Fortunately, left hand side in stock. If I was after the right hand side, it would have to come from Japan, somehow, somewhen, er... Maybe a few weeks. Usually a month. Or possibly two. Probably less than three.
"Because its so much more expensive to do in Europe."
It's not just money. The US and Europe can be awfully nasty about "national security" and will restrict export of the newest chips. Since this isn't a problem in Asia, it's far better to build fabs in Asia so the parts can be exported everywhere.
A good read is "Make it in America" by Andrew Liveris (DOW CEO). It's a bit US centric, but he goes over a whole bunch of global manufacturing realities that are very enlightening. There is another book I read specific to semiconductors, but I can't recall the title right now.
Yes, so why is it that it is fine for the EU to give Intel a massive subsidy (bribe) to do something but not Airbus?
I really have lost the plot over what is considered acceptable or not with the "assistance packages".
Bluntly, by any other name they are just bribes, simply dressed up to look respectable. It is not as if Intel is short of a billion or 8 to do this where ever they want.
Looking at how quickly Britain seems to think they can unilaterally alter the agreements (looking at Northern Ireland, which is a difficult problem, we all know that, but a compromise had been found, which we all did not really like), and apparently did not plan to stick to the agreements at all, that might no longer be the case in the near future.
Sucks.
For all, especially NI. I'm old enough to remember the troubles. Apparently BoJo isn't or does not want to remember.
I lived through the troubles, and there are people on both sides who will use any excuse to create instability to further their own criminal aims. A hard border would give one lot the excuse, the current border in the Irish sea panders to them, but gives the others an excuse to make trouble.
Politicians on all sides need to take both risks into account, but with the EU happy to use the situation to stir up Brexit difficulties, and supposedly sensible folks like Varadkar throwing oil on the fire during the negotiations, it's not clear whether they understand that.
The majority in NI still want to remain in the UK, and Boris has an obligation to find a solution that will respect that choice. The EU seems unwilling to recognise that.
The EU does understand that, but what exactly do you expect them to do here? Allow goods to freely cross the border into the EU without tariffs or checks?
It was the UK that opted out of the single market and customs union. There is a simple solution here: We accept that it's been a mistake and apply to re-join the single market at the very least. Call it a "Norway deal" if you like. However it's a mess completely of the making of the UK, and it's out responsibility to fix it. Not the EU's.
There were far better deals on the table post 2016 but then entire bunch of muppets in parliament spent 3 years bickering over everything rather than make any decisions. The legacy of that utter incompetence from all MP, & all parties is what has saddled the UK with Boris.
Whilst I don't dispute that Boris and his henchmen are a pretty sorry bunch, they are not entirely to blame. They just put a thick layer of icing on a very dodgy cake.
"There were far better deals on the table post 2016 but then entire bunch of muppets in parliament spent 3 years bickering over everything rather than make any decisions. The legacy of that utter incompetence from all MP, & all parties is what has saddled the UK with Boris."
Uh, no. We had a virtually identical deal option under May, which Boris and his chums in the ERG voted against. Labour couldn't work out its position, changing from 100% support to second referendum (which apparently was evil, you know, people being asked are you sure? like every other country that runs a referendum).
What we ended up with was a self important egoist who hasnt a clue beyond 3 word slogans and giving cash to mates. Why? Because enough people were convinced by the rhetoric of spivs like Farage and Johnson that brexit would be a great idea (I mean getting rid of all those foreigners! wow!) that they changed voting habits of generations to "get brexit done".
If by "bickering" you mean actually wanting to discuss what the deal actually offered, then yes - thats parliament's job, surely.
"If by "bickering" you mean actually wanting to discuss what the deal actually offered, then yes - thats parliament's job, surely."
There comes a point where no progress is made because nobody is able to agree on anything. That is the point we reached after about a year. The rest was spend going round in circles doing nothing. We then had May's GE to try and break the deadlock that promptly made things worse.
Yes parliament is there to discuss and scrutinise but there comes a point when there is no value to add to the discussion.
That was the major issue.
second referendum (which apparently was evil, you know, people being asked are you sure? like every other country that runs a referendum).
And if they had said "Hmm, no, maybe we don't want to go", would there have been a third referendum the year after to see if they were still OK with that? And another the year after in case they'd changed their mind again? Or would you have required that the government stop asking as soon as they get the "right" answer, as defined by you?
"And if they had said "Hmm, no, maybe we don't want to go", would there have been a third referendum the year after to see if they were still OK with that? And another the year after in case they'd changed their mind again? Or would you have required that the government stop asking as soon as they get the "right" answer, as defined by you?"
Around here, we call that the SNP model :-)
"Or would you have required that the government stop asking as soon as they get the "right" answer, as defined by you?"
Ah there's the usual quitling "answer".
Most countries run a referendum multiple times to make sure that people understand what they are being asked to opine about. Clearly those who voted out based on the nonsense about fishing (worth less than 0.1% of our GDP) and "controlling our borders" (which we always had the power to do) or "cutting red tape" (how's that gone for you?) and "getting rid of those foreign types" (ditto) clearly had very little understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant. If once they had been informed by someone less crooked tan Farage and Johnson they STILL decided to vote leave, then fair enough - assuming the referendum was actually set up sensibly so that it couldnt be swayed by effectively a single vote either way; most are set up with a minimum 60:40 split to make a change, not the ridiculous 50:50+1 vote which is in effect what we ended up with. Most countries see a referendum for what it is; an opinion poll, not a binding vote. What was clear was that the UK government had no idea how to implement brexit - and that covid has been an absolute godsend for them as it's hidden the negative impacts by and large, so far.
If once they had been informed by someone less crooked tan Farage and Johnson they STILL decided to vote leave, then fair enough - assuming the referendum was actually set up sensibly so that it couldnt be swayed by effectively a single vote either way
Keep voting till you get the answer you want then.
We had the 2016 referendum which returned brexit
2017 election returned a majority to the party that campaigned on delivering brexit
2019 MEP election returned a majority of Brexit party MEP’s to Brussels
2019 election returned a greater majority to the party promising to deliver brexit
So 4 national votes returned overwhelming support for brexit yet for some reason you think that if you rerun the referendum people will choose to stay, and no doubt you’ll want to continue running referendums and stop the moment remain won regardless of how many attempts.
People voted out because they didn’t want rules set in Brussels, not for the perceived negatives shouted out by remainers/EU fanatics.
2016 - a referendum whose campaigning was shown to be illegal, and which I think we all know was entirely lies.
2017 - 42% vote share isn't a majority
2019 - I can imagine that most people saw no point in voting for an MEP at this point
2019 - 43% vote share is bigger than 42%, but is still a long way from a majority.
Even the 52% support in 2016 was pitiful, it represented something like 25% of the population, and on any change *so* significant a 50%+1 threshold is as dumb as a box of rocks.
"People voted out because they didn’t want rules set in Brussels"
Really - all of them.
They do know that we were the ones setting the rules in Brussels?
>2016 - a referendum whose campaigning was shown to be illegal, and which I think we all know was entirely lies.
yes project fear and the other remoaner fear mongering was a bunch of lies. Most people (that 52%) decided which lies they preferred.
>2017 - 42% vote share isn't a majority
your confusing vote share with winning a seat. & still complain about the referendum that was a vote share poll.
>2019 - I can imagine that most people saw no point in voting for an MEP at this point
that's convenient for you, shame that those wanting to remain in the EU didn't show their support, instead those wanting out participated in the EU democratic process and voted for MEP's who wanted out. The UK returning pro EU MEP's would have been ammunition for a further "are you sure" vote.
>2019 - 43% vote share is bigger than 42%, but is still a long way from a majority.
again you need to understand that general elections are on a per constituency basis, voters should vote for those that will make a difference to their area. Also the other 58% where split over a number of different parties so the reality is that 43% or even 42% was far more than any single other party.
>Even the 52% support in 2016 was pitiful, it represented something like 25% of the population, and on any change *so* significant a 50%+1 threshold is as dumb as a box of rocks.
that pitiful 52% was in the largest turnout of 72.2% of all of those eligible to vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum
you wouldn't be trying so hard too split hairs so much if your lot had won.
Surely its time now to just move on
"your confusing vote share with winning a seat. & still complain about the referendum that was a vote share poll."
You're confusing your with you're...
And you suggested that that vote was confirmation that the majority of voters supported an idiotic party, when it doesn't.
"you wouldn't be trying so hard too split hairs so much if your lot had won."
I would have said that that was a close result and warranted another look in ten years - because the decision to remain is one that was reversible in the future - the decision to leave is not reversible. We will rejoin the EU, but we will never regain our exceptional status there.
Amazing how those who "won" the referendum are still bashing on about it despite their lord and saviour Farage explicitly declaring that a 52/48 split would be "far from over".
"yes project fear and the other remoaner fear mongering was a bunch of lies. Most people (that 52%) decided which lies they preferred."
Oh - so we have no shortages of lorry drivers, food, medical supplies...
And we have £350m/week extra for the NHS?
Come on - grow a pair of eyeballs and work out that "project fear" as you call it was the reasoned warnings of experts in their fields, and the "project xenophobia" was the real lies.
Not everything said by the mop haired buffoon was untrue, he slipped up occasionally, and not everything said by everyone else was completely honest either, but one side was based on the truthful predictions of experts and the other was based on lies.
one side was based on the truthful predictions of experts and the other was based on lies
Calling the remain side "predictions of experts" is laughable, there were no "experts" for a situation that had never happened before. Both sides pitched their idea of what they thought the future would be, in or out, and people picked out. It's already clear that most of the "project fear" doomsday predictions were well wide of the mark, so very far from "expert".
"most of the "project fear" doomsday predictions were well wide of the mark"
Really?
We have no shortages on the shelves, no queues at our ports, the unicorn stables are full and there's no british unemployment any more...
You can claim that project reality was fear mongering, but you might want to look at what is actually happening.
We are the only people with critical shortages, it's not even just the UK, it's just Britain... you know the only place that left the single market.
We are the only people with critical shortages, it's not even just the UK, it's just Britain
Simply not true, on either count. The major part of the UK that isn't Britain is N. Ireland, and thanks to the NI protocol there are also some shortages there, even of goods that are freely available in GB. There are shortages across Europe, due to many factors including COVID. Just as the UK is complaining about the lack of cheap EU labour to exploit for manual work, so is France (lack of grape pickers), Germany and Spain.
We have no shortages on the shelves, no queues at our ports
Not due to of Brexit, though. Fundamentally it's down to a shortage of haulage drivers Europe-wide. According to the International Road Transport Organisation (IRU), in 2019 24% of driver positions were unfilled in the U.K., 22% were unfilled in Poland, 21% In the Czech Republic, 20% in Spain. I've shopped in UK & French supermarkets recently, both have gaps on the shelves with apologetic notices about "supply problems". The queues of shipping at Felixstowe are because the port is overfull of containers which aren't being removed by lorry, they have over 1000 unused daily slots for haulage collection due to the driver shortage. There are similar queues at ports in California, due in part to COVID-related delays working through.
The unicorn stables are full and there's no british unemployment any more...
You seem better-informed on unicorns than I am, but the number of people in employment in the UK is at an all-time high, and unemployment as a %age is well below EU levels, as it always has been.
You can claim that project reality was fear mongering, but you might want to look at what is actually happening.
It was fear mongering, and the facts bear that out.
Even the 52% support in 2016 was pitiful, it represented something like 25% of the population, and on any change *so* significant a 50%+1 threshold is as dumb as a box of rocks.
When the EU was created out of the EEC by the Maastricht treaty, France had a referendum. The vote was 51% Yes, from 13.1m votes out of a population of ~60m. That "petit oui" was a smaller margin, and got fewer votes, than the UK Leave vote. If you consider making constitutional change on the UK result to be "dumb as a box of rocks", then surely the French vote that created the EU was equally so?
Joining a nascent community is alot less of a risk than leaving the largest trading block in the world.
But yes - I would have been concerned that the turnout was that low, let alone the margin.
Leaving the largest trading block on the planet, and one that constitutes the vast majority of our overseas trade, in favour of.... nothing
That's just fucking stupid.
Most countries run a referendum multiple times to make sure that people understand what they are being asked to opine about.
Nonsense.
Most countries see a referendum for what it is; an opinion poll, not a binding vote.
Oh, that's a new one. I doubt the Swiss would agree with you there.
Still, let's assume it were true. If the vote had been 51% to remain, and the government had decided to leave anyway, would you have been happy to say "Ah well, it was just an opinion poll"? Somehow I think not.
I suppose we could extend that model, though, maybe consider elections to be just expressions of opinion as well? I'm sure Trump & Putin would agree with you. Democracy, such a nuisance.
It matters - because there was never a requirement to do anything so unbelievably stupid as to leave both the EU (which we could have done, it would have been damaging but survivable) *AND* the customs union/single market...
If you remember leaving the latter was always ruled out by those pushing the idea of leaving the EU.
Suddenly it became something that had been decided by a referendum, and therefore something that we had to do, ignoring the fact that we hadn't actually prepared for it at all.
@John Robson
"It matters - because there was never a requirement to do anything"
But as you say it was an opinion poll and the gov decided to do what people had a strong opinion of. And that opinion seems to have stayed from the referendum through MEP and general elections. Pro remain parties being all but wiped out and pro leave having the support throughout.
"unbelievably stupid as to leave both the EU (which we could have done, it would have been damaging but survivable) *AND* the customs union/single market..."
But to leave the EU and have the EU dictating our trade and trade rules would be unacceptable. Part of the problem was the protectionist single market.
"If you remember leaving the latter was always ruled out by those pushing the idea of leaving the EU."
Not as far as I was aware. Some wanted to stay in the SM others out. There was a wide range of opinions for leave as there was for remain.
"Suddenly it became something that had been decided by a referendum, and therefore something that we had to do, ignoring the fact that we hadn't actually prepared for it at all."
The lack of preparation irritated me too. As did dragging out the leave process. Had people willing to leave been allowed to get on with it we would have been fine, unfortunately it was a drawn out process of desperate attempts to remain.
"Had people willing to leave been allowed to get on with it we would have been fine,"
You were always welcome to leave...
No need to stay in the UK if you don't like it.
The biggest problem was there was never a clear idea of what leaving was, there was never a majority for any sort of brexit. There was a general disgruntlement, and now we've left... everything is apparently still the fault of the EU.
There is some serious doublethink going on.
That's why a second referendum was important:
"Do you want a chocolate cake"?
"Meh, ok"
"Here's one laced with cyanide"
"... erm"
"You said you wanted cake, now eat it, all of it...."
@John Robson
"You were always welcome to leave...
No need to stay in the UK if you don't like it."
Oddly that doesnt work. Because if you are happy to be of your country but not of the supranational political grouping imposed upon it then you cant leave to the UK. Amusingly to suggest the UK leaves the EU but people wanting to remain can still go to the EU doesnt get a positive reaction. Probably because they want to remain in the UK More.
"The biggest problem was there was never a clear idea of what leaving was"
Nor for remain. A scary but repeated claim being for the 'status quo'. Something absolutely against what the EU has in mind.
"There was a general disgruntlement, and now we've left... everything is apparently still the fault of the EU."
I am not seeing that everything is the fault of the EU. A few things EU caused are but thats about it. But brexit is blamed for anything bad or perceived as bad. When we left anything good was 'despite brexit' and bad 'due to brexit' even when often the good was due to brexit and the bad nothing to do with.
"That's why a second referendum was important:"
At no point had the remain group been trust worthy enough with the result never mind additional questions. That is a situation going back to the labour government so for some time.
Actually Remain has a very good description of what there was - the EU was, and is, well defined. And we had significant input into any future directions.
And frankly the amount of double think required to continue this conversation (or in fact encountering reality) must hurt, sorry about that.
@John Robson
"Actually Remain has a very good description of what there was"
Absolutely. It was a protectionist/global trade, communist/capitalist, trade block/political union, (I used to have loads of these) which were all mutually exclusive but the vision different people had of it and its direction.
Arguments for remain ranged from we must remain in the glorious promised land, its shit but we must remain to save/fix the EU to 'the UK and maybe world is doomed if we leave'.
"And we had significant input into any future directions."
So much that we voted to leave. The EU and out gov participants had input but they didnt represent us very well as the various votes showed.
"And frankly the amount of double think required to continue this conversation (or in fact encountering reality) must hurt, sorry about that."
Dont apologise. If you need a break, maybe get a paracetamol and come back when your feeling ok.
"Democracy, such a nuisance."
Now you're verging into sad territory in your desperation to promote brexit. A referendum by definition is an opinion poll, nothing more. If however you want to conflate a referendum with an election in the name of "democracy" then surely we should have the chance after 5 years of brexit to revisit it and see if we still want it? I'm willing to bet that you consider a second referendum to be anti democratic or some such nonsense.
Yes, the leave/remain referendum was stupidly set up, as I said before. Your hero Herr Goebbels, sorry Farage, stated that a 52/48 split in favour of remain would be "unfinished business", and he would have been right (for once) - a sensible criterion would have been at least 60-40, but there we are, you want us to accept that a 52/48 split is somehow unfinished business and yet at the same time the "will of the people". Make your mind up.
Oh and while youre at it, list the benefits of brexit. You've had 5 years to think of some.
A referendum by definition is an opinion poll, nothing more
Rubbish, they are completely different things, which is why anyone can carry out an opinion poll, but only governments can hold a referendum (which requires an act of parliament).
The dictionary definition of a referendum is "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision". Note that key word decision, not "opinion" or "idea" or "view".
surely we should have the chance after 5 years of Brexit to revisit it and see if we still want it?
5 years, no, that's too few to really see the effects. 25 maybe, these things tend to be "once in a generation". We had a vote on staying in the common market in 1973, and we should have had one on creating the EU in 1992 but John Major knew that he'd lose (from the opinion polls!) so refused to give us one.
Oh and while you're at it, list the benefits of brexit. You've had 5 years to think of some.
I've had almost 30, that's how long I've lived in the EU outside the UK. Plenty of time to see the problems it caused, which I've listed here on multiple occasions.
Before 1992 we had a European Community, a group of co-operating independent nations in a free trade zone. It worked pretty well, despite some problems with things like the CAP. The great strength of the EC was the independence of the members, we did things differently and could learn from each other, while all still sharing the common aims of peaceful growth in a common market. We should have stopped there.
Unfortunately empire-building politicians think that we'd be better off in a single political, fiscal (and now military) bloc, with them in charge of course. The result is a one-size-fits-nobody fiasco, staggering from one financial and political crisis to another, with stagnation and no growth while the rest of the world leaves it behind. With no credible political parties offering a moderate alternative we're seeing the growth of left- and right-wing extremism as people look for any way to tell their leaders "slow down, and think about this for a bit". The whole thing is heading for disaster. Look at France where the extreme extreme right is pulling ahead of the extreme right against super-EU Macron, or Poland where the courts have illegally ruled that Polish law supersedes EU law, or the Czech Republic where one major party has made its participation in a coalition conditional on there being a "Czechxit" referendum.
I was not so much "for" Brexit as "against" the EU, which is really bad for Europe. I'm sorry that Brexit was seen as the only way out, I'd much rather that a less abrupt solution could have been found. A clearer referendum result would also have been better, but there isn't any alternative. Even a 60:40 result would probably not have stopped the arguments. At least the extremes like the BNP never got a hold on power in the UK, and while Farage was a useful idiot to focus the arguments, there was fortunately never any chance of him being PM, his electoral support evaporated as soon as the referendum was won. We're out now, and we have to make that work, while the EU stumbles along its own, failing, path.
The EU does understand that
Well, based on Macron's recent comments about the status of NI he clearly doesn't.
but what exactly do you expect them to do here? Allow goods to freely cross the border into the EU without tariffs or checks?
Of course not, but it would be nice to see a level playing field, and some less-vindictive actions. At the moment the EU applies far more checks in that little bit of Irish Sea than it does for all the other 66,000km of EU coastline. This includes, for example, banning a UK supermarket from shipping own-brand goods to sell in its Belfast branches, on the pretext that they might be illegally transported across the border. This completely ignores the obvious fact that the supermarket in question has no branches in the RoI, so would have nowhere to sell such smuggled goods, even were it stupid enough to want to. It's far easier to bring bulk contraband into and out of the EU via places like Greek and Italian islands than it would be to take it across the Irish border.
Free movement of people between the UK and Ireland still works much as it has for the past 100 years, because Ireland is an island. Anyone who did cross into the RoI would be unable to get to the rest of the EU without papers, because that would be detected at the Irish border. It should be possible to apply similar principles to shipping commercial goods (no-one is is likely to care about the odd personal item any more than they did before). Any company caught faking paperwork to cheat could, and should, be crucified in the EU courts, few if any would risk it.
The reality is that the EU needs Brexit to fail, not least in order to head off the current challenges in Poland and the Czech Republic. Finding a common-sense win-win solution to the border issue simply isn't in the EU's own interest.
Erm - no the UK must apply those checks.
And the fact that the good are sold to a company that has no RoI stores is irrelevant, they can be sold again....
There always has to be a customs border - the GFS prevents it from being on the island of Ireland, so it went in the irish sea... Where would you put it?
"Politicians on all sides need to take both risks into account, but with the EU happy to use the situation to stir up Brexit difficulties, and supposedly sensible folks like Varadkar throwing oil on the fire during the negotiations, it's not clear whether they understand that."
Under WTO rules (which you lot championed as they way forward - remind me who elects the WTO executives?) there has to be a hard border between trade areas such as the EU and external countries (such as the UK, including NI)
Under the GFA a hard border between NI and Eire is specifically banned. Yes the armed lunatics will use this as an excuse for more mayhem if it is implemented.
The NI protocol thrashed out between the EU and UK came up with a fudge to get round these issues; its not great, its not ideal, but it is what we, the UK, signed up to. It isnt the EU stirring anything up, its the EU applying 3rd country rules to a 3rd party country. Get over it.
Yes the armed lunatics will use this as an excuse for more mayhem if it is implemented.
That's a defeatist attitude, and is effectively conceding victory to the lunatics in advance. They rarely need an excuse, and not doing something in case they use it as one is cowardice, pure and simple. Note also that exactly the same issue applies in the reverse direction, the other lot of armed lunatics are threatening mayhem if the border remains in the Irish Sea, so the whole attitude of "mustn't upset the crazies" is doomed to fail whatever you do.
The solution is to find a workable compromise that upsets & satisfies all the reasonable people equally, which the current one clearly doesn't. It's something the EU should be good at since the whole structure of the Union is based on fudge and compromise to keep everyone on board. Unfortunately they only seem willing to compromise when it's their own situation at risk.
It isnt the EU stirring anything up, its the EU applying 3rd country rules to a 3rd party country.
Not quite, they are zealously applying those rules in a far more draconian way than they do to other 3rd parties, which is the fundamental problem.
Get over it.
Given that it's my family in NI that will be caught in the crossfire then no, I will not be taking your so arrogant advice.
"I will not be taking your so arrogant advice."
What advice would that be? I simply pointed out that given the fragile state of some republican and loyalist minds then any excuse for a return to the Troubles would be seized on. Thats not "defeatist" (whatever the hell that means), it's a statement of fact. If you can prove otherwise please do.
I would also point out that you have no idea where I come from or my family history, so kindly get off your high horse.
I simply pointed out that given the fragile state of some republican and loyalist minds then any excuse for a return to the Troubles would be seized on.
Indeed it would, but that's not a reason to make a poor decision out of fear that it might otherwise be that "any excuse". Once you start letting fear of the extremists control the decision making process, they have won, and you might as well admit defeat in advance (hence "defeatist").
@phil As someone else who lived in NI through the troubles I sympathise with you getting downvotes trying to calmly explain why it apparently isn't a really simple problem, followed by english commenters shining the light of their wisdom onto us on what exactly would fix NI
I suspect a lot of the downvotes are due to the claims that the "EU isn't taking it seriously" - or words to that effect.
The NI protocol exists because both the EU and UK were very keen to avoid a return of the troubles by slapping a hard-border down the middle of Ireland (as I'm sure you know). I fully accept that the Ireland situation is very complex and I'm not going to pretend I understand absolutely everything about it.
My main gripe is that the UK government readily opted out of the single market and the customs union to satisfy the ERG and the hardcore Brexiteers, yet didn't seem to even consider the implications that this would have on Northern Ireland. Now the EU is getting stick because of the border in the Irish Sea, despite no reasonable alternatives being offered by the UK and despite it being a solution that the UK proposed.
So far the only "solutions" I've heard from the Tories are vague waffles about using "technology" to magically fix things, yet no firm information as to what this would actually involve.
To some level, it's understandable. Boris is a master of lies and bullshit and doesn't want the issues in Ireland to be thought of as the fault of his government, so he keeps sticking the boot into the EU for not "negotiating" - even though it's a mess of his (and his predecessors') making and the "problem" is something that he proposed, championed and signed not that long ago.
UK government readily opted out of the single market and the customs union to satisfy the ERG and the hardcore Brexiteer
There was no way to stay in either of them while actually implementing Brexit, the EU would never have conceded that, so it wasn't just to satisfy the hardcore, it was to implement what had been voted for.
sticking the boot into the EU for not "negotiating"
Well, this evening's news seems to be that it has worked, the EU has backed down and will allow chilled meat imports into NI (which remains in the EU customs union), and it is also willing to do a custom deal on other rules. It remains to be seen what that deal can be, but at least it's a start, and an end to the dogmatic "EU says no" approach.
The French are still pissed off over the lack of fishing licences handed out by the UK to French boats though. Now they are threatening to reduce the electricity supply to the Channel Islands.
Considering the French propensity to set things on fire when protesting, it does make one wonder about just how that electricity interconnect caught fire :-)
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, but are in the single market and the customs union, so I'm afraid that's untrue. The EU were perfectly open to the UK remaining in the single market so long as we satisfied the requirements of this - something the Tories were unwilling to do.
Also, prior to the referendum, nobody was saying we'd leave the single market (not even Farage), so it simply isn't true to say that it would not have delivered what was voted for.
The EU were perfectly open to the UK remaining in the single market so long as we satisfied the requirements of this
Those requirements being that the UK must commit to obeying all future EU decisions on trade, putting itself in a position where the EU would control UK trade, but the UK would have no say in those decisions. No UK government could ever agree to such conditions.
Also, prior to the referendum, nobody was saying we'd leave the single market
You have selective hearing.
The EU flatly refused to discuss any of the terms for leaving until the UK triggered the process by invoking Article 50, and Brussels forbade any EU member from discussing it with the UK independently. It would have been impossible for anyone, on either side, to say what would or would not be negotiated until the UK had actually started the countdown to leave.
Yes, I agree, most people’s preference was for remaining in single market, mine included.
But let’s understand how we got here.
The mature and reasoned approach after the 2016 Brexit referendum, would have been to accept the result and fairly quickly have a second referendum asking
“*Accepting the Brexit result of the first referendum* what sort of Brexit do you prefer?”
But Gina Miller and Bercow together made that impossible, by insisting that:
1) Any second referendum could only have one Leave and one Remain option. They just wanted a re-run.
2) Parliament must “have a say”, which given the split in Parliament it was mathematically impossible for the outcome to be anything but an endless battle between the ERG crazies versus Bercow. The moderates *couldn’t win a vote in Parliament*, which was already completely known by Jan 2017 when Gina Miller won her court case.
Brexit Moderates absolutely would have won going to the country, with a soft Brexit / Norway option referendum in late 2016/early 2017. That’s well known too, you can check on any of the polling websites. But Gina Miller and Bercow stopped it, because they were so determined to hold the country to ransom with their preferred option of Remain.
There was one political alternative, a road not taken.
Instead of Theresa May calling “a general election on my leadership” in 2019, she could have lanced the boil in 2017 by going to the country and defining the ground as an effective referendum on type of Brexit standing unequivocally for Norway option. She wouldn’t have to win around the ERG, she’s the PM it’s her call alone. If she had won that, that’s the democratic mandate.
“*Accepting the Brexit result of the first referendum* what sort of Brexit do you prefer?”
That would have been pointless, since the actual Brexit that was to be implemented was only known after the negotiations, and they only started after Article 50 was invoked. You could have had a referendum asking "Do you want a 'have your cake and eat it' Brexit?", people would have voted yes, and it would have changed nothing since at best it could only have determined the starting point of the negotiations, and that's pretty much where they did start.
"english commenters shining the light of their wisdom onto us on what exactly would fix NI"
Again, you know nothing about me either. Nobody said it was a simple problem, nevertheless the GFA specifically forbids a hard border between NI and Eire, yes? And WTO rules demand one. What we will end up with in any situation is a fudge, unless you want a return (potentially, yes) to the Troubles.
the GFA specifically forbids a hard border between NI and Eire, yes?
No.
The only reference to the state of the border as such is that the GFA requires the "removal of security installations". There is a lot of general discussion about co-operation, things like how to handle "the problems of a divided society and social cohesion in urban, rural and border areas", but no actual definition of what the border should, or should not, look like.
Obviously there was strong desire on both sides not to put the 100-year-old common travel area at risk, so that people could still freely travel & work between the two countries, but that's covered by the above text and things like it.
WTO rules demand one
Really? Which ones?
What we will end up with in any situation is a fudge
Of course, it's politics. The fudge has to be acceptable to both sides, and fortunately the EU seems to be finally willing to accept that, and discuss making it work.
Anybody who believed people telling them that post-Brexit Britain would be able to keep all the good parts of EU membership and dodge all the responsibilities deserves what they got. What possible reason would the EU have to do that? It's sort of like someone telling you to quit your job because they're sure you'll keep getting paid.
Idiots, but extremely useful. I bet there are brexit/1st-time Tory voters who after being at the sharp end of a lamentable covid 1st response, NI hike, energy bill hikes, council-tax hike, drop in UC and fuel & goods shortages still won't accept they, their children and their children's children have been utterly reamed by the BrexitElite.
Ireland would be a good choice for a new fab, but we all know it'll be Germany for the political stability.
> Anybody who believed people telling them that post-Brexit Britain would be able to keep all the good parts of EU membership and dodge all the responsibilities deserves what they got
Unfortunately, those who didn't believe don't deserve what they got. But they're still getting it anyway.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It just required the UK to allow Johnny foreigner free movement - like other EEA countries."
Yes - a very simple answer, the Norway + option. However it would never have happened because, fundamentally, brexit was (and still is) a xenophobic movement, no matter how it's dressed up.
It just required the UK to allow Johnny foreigner free movement - like other EEA countries.
Utter nonsense. It required the UK to commit to following all the rules defined by the EU, effectively being a client state required to follow rules they no longer had any say in. That would have been the "brexit in name only", and by far a worse option than either staying or leaving.
" "brexit in name only", and by far a worse option than either staying or leaving."
And yet other countries do just fine - Switzerland and Norway to name 2. What it did mean is that the central plank of brexit, xenophobia, wouldn't be sustainable if after all the rhetoric and Goebbels-style posters by Farage we STILL let all those foreigners in.
"Brexit with full access to the single market was never on the table, the EU wouldn't have offered it without conditions that the UK would never have accepted."
and that is the fault of the EU???
FUCK OFF, Idiots wanted out and fucking lied, BREXSHITTERs need to own this now and for fucking ever, they should just all be fucking hanged for treason
Which are you labelling market A, B and C
Monthly semiconductor sales:
APAC $28bn
US $8bn
EU less than $3bn (statista still includes U.K.).
I just can’t wait for people downvoting *official statistical facts* that hurt their feelings.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217469/semiconductor-sales-in-asia-pacific-since-2009-by-month/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217463/european-semiconductor-sales-since-2009-by-month/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217462/semiconductor-sales-in-the-americas-since-2011-by-month/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281637/manufacture-sales-of-electronic-integrated-circuits-in-the-uk/
> In 2020, the UK manufacturer sales of electronic integrated circuits amounted to 99.2 million British pounds. This statistics include electronic integrated circuits such as processors and controllers, whether or not combined with memories, converters, logic circuits, amplifiers, clock and timing circuits, or other circuits and excludes multichip circuits.
Gonna go ahead and say the EU is still a mite bigger than the UK as a semiconductor market. Just a hair.
Errr….yes?
The EU semi market is bigger than UK
But having worked in semiconductor companies for a good chunk of my life, the last time we took a customer request from either was….2005 I think? So really, who cares.
The announcement AFAICT is just a win of opportunity to give Intel lots of money. Read the CEOs statement again.
He didn’t reject any bid from the UK, nor in fact from any other countries in the world. The UK didn’t propose him anything. Neither EEA countries like Norway. Nor South American or Central like Mexico. Nor Israel, nor Saudi, nor anywhere else. He selected from the proposals *on his desk* to give him free money, which were all in the EU. France Germany Ireland and Spain are bidding against each other to give Intel as much money as possible.
So, umm, yeah…. Congratulations on winning the race?
Yup, the article itself makes the point - Intel is considering 70 sites in 10 different countries, and it's looking for subsidies. So basically, it's Intel opening a bidding war amongst EU countries / regions, to find which will throw the most tax payers' money to it.
It's not as if a definite decision to build the plant somewhere was reversed because of Brexit. Instead, the UK taxpayer has lost the opportunity to subsidise a US-based multinational. Not quite the end-of-the-world.
So Intel are happier dealing with rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red-tape whereas setting up in the UK would have given them much more freedom. Yep, me thinks the EU have done an under-the-table deal here, because they definitely don't want the UK to be seen as a good place to setup business!
Can you list any of these "rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red tape", please? Compared to the now well-understood red tape involved in shipping anything from the UK to the EU?
It's not unusual for large multi-nationals to seek subsidies to set up in a particular jurisdiction. If the UK were still in the EU, it might well have benefited from such an EU subsidy for Intel to build a fab in the UK
Would never work in the UK.
The government would give you a subsidy to build it in some depressed region that they thought might be persuaded to vote Tory.
But all the employees you need are in London.
And no people can't move, they have families. What's the partner of a fab engineer going to do in barrow-in-furness?
>The employees you need for a chip fab are NOT in London. Do you even know what employees work in a chip fab?
The employees for a chip fab aren't anywhere. An $80Bn fab would need 1000s of employees, you can't just build this next door to an existing UK prototype-scale fab and rely on locals.
But having spent 30 years concentrating all the well paid jobs in London - you can't open this on a disused steelworks site in Middlesbrough and expect 1000 of scientists/programmers/engineers to move there and just have wifey be happy at home on their new suburban estate like you could when you did redevelopment policy in the 60s.
You could build this at Oxford/Cambridge/M6 but these people already vote for you.
There was a time when smoking was allowed but only in the back of the plane. Sitting down there was already a woman there and later when I offered her a cigarette she told me she doesn't smoke but she always sits among the smokers as they are the more interesting people.
I suppose there is no truth in that claim but I still remember it.
No there are no cigarettes in the pocket anymore.
If you look at the global placement of fabs around the world there are three things you will typically find in common.
Above granite bedrock or a near a large mountain range, something with high mass that can be used to reduce vibration.
Middle of nowhere (less vibration).
Access to water.
Scotland top marks
Wales top marks
London maybe for a legacy plant, but not cutting edge. The costs of mitigating the problems from poor selection are far too high. London, or any major city, would be scraping the very bottom of any ideal location lists for good fab placement in the UK.
> Middle of nowhere ?? Have you been to Korea or Taiwan ?
Some fabs are build near parks and golf courses. It is all about vibration mitigation as much as possible, that is why the buildings are typically anchored deeply into high mass granite bedrock. And yes if you have no other option, then you do need to pay the higher initial and ongoing costs for a suboptimal location. Larger more expensive active vibration isolation systems will be needed need to be installed for more processes. e.g. active piezoelectric vibration cancellation systems. The more vibrations you need to deal with the more expensive it gets. In really bad locations critical work can be scheduled to happen when environmental vibrations are predicted to be minimal for a better product yield. But if you can minimise a problem to begin with it will always be cheaper than working around it.
P.S. I did use the word "typical" there are always exceptions, but globally there are mostly in out of the way places.
Examples? Sure. I have gone through all of the following processes dozens of times over the years.
A typical bid for a small to medium R&D project to European Space Agency is three volumes, total 200 pages of detailed technical, management and financial. It is normal to spend £20k, and four weeks on the proposal phase for a €200k project. You will also likely have to bring in work package contributions from at least three companies located in more than one EU country. The proposal has to be submitted, bound and printed in 9 copies, also with 9 copies on CD-ROM (yes, really).
Most companies maintain a permanent satellite office (boom-boom) right next to the ESA office in Noordwijk whose sole purpose is to print out the proposal. Otherwise, it’s a courier hand-carries the proposal on the plane. Yes, really.
You are expected to budget 10-15% of overall project budget coordinating those company’s activities, plus another 10% for report writing and travel for meetings.
But this is putting the cart before the horse. You can expect to have visited the ESA technical officer on half a dozen occasions in their office, to thrash out what they really want and lobby for your proposed Statement of Work, before the competitive process even starts.
The UK Space Agency equivalent is a five-pager online submission that can be completed in an afternoon. Or quicker if you have a strong espresso machine. Progress meetings for the project itself can be done over the phone, and final reports are brief, or just the scientific paper published if agreed.
Does this help you understand the difference in perspective?
nicely explains that the UK are incompetent amatuers.
was that your point?
or that UK GOV planning is shit and run by fucking idiots?
I suppose it makes sense, considering how unprepared UK was for brexshit:
No plan
No idea of even what they wanted
Hiding reports of possible damages
pretending the final shit plan was "oven ready" and "perfect"
Complaining shit plan is shit and needs another go because we fucked up
I'm surprise UK gets any work.
One "raft of bureaucracy" is the economic advantage of the EU.
No matter how much red tape the UK removes its still just another set of rules.
Less red tape equates to different code in ERP systems for the UK.
Any difference is effort, and thus cost, in computer systems.
If a difference is likely to change on a politician's whim it is cost + risk.
The UK is free to change its mind on anything and everything now, and Boris has indicated to the world that he intends to do just that. Just as soon as he works out what it is that might win a vote or two.
Sadly, it was the UK who introduced most of the EU's 'red tape', and we will still be entangled by it post-brexit, but with our own uniquely-british knots tied in it, meaning that any corporate/legal strategy that works in the EU is no longer guaranteed to work in the UK. While multinationals can afford to navigate a pile of red tape for access to a market the size of Europe, they are not going to do that all over again just for our shitty little self-important island.
We're like a badly-behaved toddler smashing the toys and storming out of the playgroup and then whingeing that nobody wants to play with us.
And how would you define Macron's threats to cut off power to the Channel Islands if he doesn't get his way on fishing, when the problem lies solely with French fishermen who haven't submitted the required documents as defined by the agreement? Vive l'exception Française ?
Th UK has issued plenty of licenses to EU countries that correctly submitted the documentation (I've seen figures of over 95% quoted), it's only the French fishermen who seem incapable of doing so. Brussels has already warned France to back off.
AC > What utter nonsense.
So, for example the European Public Contracts Directive 2014 which forced all public sector procurements over a certain value to go via the Official Journal of the European Union.
This was almost entirely Britain's idea, so far as I know, having worked on several public procurements for a large EU-collaborative science project.
The idea was to stop the rampant corruption around public sector procurement in Italy, Spain, France etc.
Of course, it was a nightmare for public sector bodies like the one I worked for, (will it be above the OJEU threshold or won't it?? We won't know till the quotes come back so better lets assume it will..) and it made it a right pain to buy the stuff we actually needed, because we had to waste a lot of people's time and get various £100k's quotes from companies, only to have to write some document justifying why they are not fit for the job.
But even back then in 2017, Italy, Spain, France even Germany were known to be ignoring these rules, and our collaborators were telling us not to keep worrying about them.
Apparently only Britain stuck to this red tape - we always were stickers for rules and love to hide behind them so we can push pens around instead of getting a job done.
And I bet you your Brexit hat that old Kwasi Kwarteng will come up with a mirror image of OJEU that's even worse, and we will be wishing we could have the old red tape back with less knots in.
Also, I suspect his version will be something like: All public sector procurement must go via the Official Journal of the United Kwaingdom (aka MY desk) and Boris, Sajid, Priti and I will give the work to the friends and benefactors of the Tory party when we have our meeting at the usual pub in Mayfair.
> But even back then in 2017, Italy, Spain, France even Germany were known to be ignoring these rules, and our collaborators were telling us not to keep worrying about them.
> Apparently only Britain stuck to this red tape
So if I pull out a few back copies of the OJEU you're telling me that I will only find contract tender notifications from the UK because the rest of Europe ignored the requirement?
> Should in your opinion the European Commission and the European Parliament be particularly beholden to some particular country.
Not my opinion but apparently that of the OP (cyberdemon) who seems to believe that the majority of EU red tape came from the UK.
"Still better than the even more clueless idiots that we didn't vote into power. Hobson's choice..."
Based on what, exactly? A proven liar, ministers who dont understand the role of the port of Dover, negotiators who had no clue, a government that chooses to ignore treaties it's signed? Oh wait, Corbyn was a marxist, it said so in the Mail. How dare they propose a nationalised railway system that means we actually pay money to keep our railways running rather than pay shareholders? Damn communism.
Jesus.
How dare they propose a nationalised railway system that means we actually pay money to keep our railways running rather than pay shareholders?
I can only assume that you're not old enough to remember just how bad railways and phones were when they were state-owned. Shareholders are a great deal more effective at ensuring that the businesses they invest in are well-run than are governments backed by taxpayers cash.
"I can only assume that you're not old enough to remember just how bad railways and phones were when they were state-owned"
Nope, I remember it perfectly well - the main problem BR had was the utter lack of investment and support. European train companies marvelled at the ability of BR to function at all.
And we now have "privatised" rail companies that run on nationalised track systems and that get far bigger subsidies than poor old BR ever got, despite their primary function being to pay shareholders rather than provide a service.
The only time a rail service has actually made a profit is when it was taken out of private hands and briefly run as a nationalised service.
I have no objection to private companied running services as long as there is actual competition, for example gas and electricity. Where there is a monopoly it's pointless - eg water and rail.
The only time a rail service has actually made a profit is when it was taken out of private hands and briefly run as a nationalised service.
Let private money build it, confiscate it, and run it at a profit until it fails from lack of investment? Well, I suppose that's one approach. A bit short-term, though.
What? This is pure strawman.
There was *never an option* for the U.K. to be exporting silicon chips in the 21st century. It’s simply nonsense, there was no opportunity lost.
Are you going to be asking me next to cry that Brexit has caused the UK to lose its chance to export bananas? I mean, you *could*. Astonishingly, Iceland grows and exports oranges, for reasons that aren’t actually stupid when you understand the details.
"So Intel are happier dealing with rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red-tape whereas setting up in the UK would have given them much more freedom."
If all Intel wanted to do was to shift some production out of Asia, ie China, then they'd have set up somewhere in the US where States and cities are used to this type of "auction" where they bid for the fabs to come their way. I think it's obvious that Intel are looking not just at fabs outside of China and Asia, but also at the logistics of delivering to a market. Clearly the EU is a much bigger market than the UK, so they'll set up inside the bigger market and only have to pay tariffs on exports to the smaller markets.
If the UK had still been in the EU, it might well have been amongst the top choice locations due to the large internal EU market and a native English speaking workforce. US companies like that.
from those who don't see that this is a business making a sensible business decision based on many factors e.g.:
1. Customs tariffs to largest number of customers
2. Red tape for dealing with largest number customers
3. Skilled staff
4. Stability of location (e.g. no logistical issues)
5. Grants to support the investment to make it worthwhile
6. etc
Right now for their business the UK is pretty lousy for 1, 2 and definitely 4 (may be transitory but brexit is happening and is has destabilised the UK). At this point no 5. doesn't even need to be looked at..
> 1. Customs tariffs to largest number of customers
Intel doesn't sell to individual consumers. Intel sells to manufacturers. Those manufacturers are mostly in the Far East.
So any strategy around customs tariffs must be an indirect one: something to do with percentage of the final product coming from EU produced components might result in reduced tariffs on PCs made in the Far East but with CPUs made in the EU. This would encourage manufacturers to buy from Intel so boosting Intel.
So far so good. Only except that it means raw materials are shipped to the EU; made into chips; which are shipped to the Far East; assembled into PCs; and then shipped back to the EU. Presumably, in a few years, the EU will start castigating the PC manufacturers for their supply-chain contribution to CO2 production and global warming while feigning ignorance of its own subsidy and tariff rules that causes such behaviour.
I thought direct Government subsidies were illegal under EU (and possibly WTO) competition law which is why "advantageous tax environments" were originally developed?
Whatever the legal situation, asking upfront for 8bn Euros is taking the urine when, after initial construction is complete, relatively few people will be employed, "trading excess" will inevitably be syphoned off to a tax haven as 'contracted IP payments' and consequently little return on "investment" will be forthcoming for the tax payer from (on paper) a very expensive but small profit fab plant ...
> Rival chipmaker TSMC has apparently started construction of several plants in Arizona
This tells you all you need to know. Forget the Brexit dogwhistle crap: Gelsinger is touring the EU (seventy sites FFS?) because he fancies a nice holiday and is making provocative statements to get some press attention back home. Once back home, there'll be a beauty competition and some US state will be suckered into offering more than the alleged 8bn Euro to host the factory, to great patriotic fanfare. Job done.
You're wrong.
Intel already has leading edge fabs in Ireland. That's the logical place to build more. Doing a little "touring" and schmoozing first though might get them better subsidies from the EU by giving all the other countries hope until Intel finally says "Ireland makes the most sense because we already have a highly trained workforce there".
The US subsidies are a separate matter, the US can't bribe Intel enough for them to shut down all their other fabs and operate in the US only. The US is primarily interested in attracting the two biggest foreign foundries to increase their investment in the US, and would happily cut Intel out of the subsidies if they could since they know Intel would continue to invest here anyway.
But that's a political non-starter, you can't have congressmen voting for subsidies for foreign owned fabs but not for a US owned and headquartered success story like Intel - that would be a terrible position to be in when they are up for election next year. So Intel gets the subsidies also, even though both sides realize they are completely unneeded and won't have any effect on Intel's international fab investments.
The US doesn't need Intel to shut down outside USA, if anything it helps them politically to have large employers in friendly countries - they are just nervous about only having Fabs in future warzones.
It only makes economic and political sense for Intel to site this in Ireland where it has a big14nm fab. The question is whether Eire can afford 8Bn kickback investment.
I get that Israel (where Intel has other its other major non-US fabs) is not unlikely to be a future warzone, but Ireland? Is the post-Brexit UK going to try to regain its empire starting with Ireland??
If you mean Taiwan, while it isn't inconceivable it is very unlikely. China views them wayward brothers, they aren't going to try to take them by military force. If they did they wouldn't get any of the valuable assets since TSMC cannot function without support for the very expensive tools used to operate their fabs, and that support would be immediately withheld if China staged a military invasion of Taiwan.
I agree it would be foolish for China to invade at the moment. But IIIRC they're busy trying to set up their own fabs and you don't want to be left behind when they feel they have the capacity. And sometimes politicians do foolish things for political reasons. *cough* Brexit *cough* Doubly so when they're ageing autocrats and self-preservation is in the mix.
I wish I shared your optimism regarding the likelihood of China invading Taiwan. The current great leader is the most hawkish since Mao, and Taiwan has never been closer to declaring officially they want to be a separate and independent country, as they can see all too clearly what happened to Hong Kong when they tried to join the mainland and keep their rights.
We won't need chips in this country, because apparently we're going to "build back burger!".
At least according to one of the reportedly "brilliant" jokes our leader told us yesterday from the big stage only he was allowed to use at his party conference.
Well, he was pretty much guaranteed applause for whatever he said to a room full of the numpties who elected him as the leader of their party in the first place.
Oddly enough, the rest of the universe wasn't so obliging.
Fantastic news. Glad to hear the UK didnt decide to pony up money to build chips far more expensive than in Asia (Asia not in the EU yet supplies chips globally). I am also happy for the EU to think this is a win and pay to provide chips to the global market (at EU tax payers cost) for the benefit of global supply.
@Loyal Commenter
"In your mind, you just keep on winning, and you have the evidence to prove it..."
Winning what? You guys still post the same bull, I just keep shooting it down. Almost as funny as your posts with really dumb assumptions of who I am and often getting what I write wrong.
"...in the form of a blog post from a right-wing climate change denier. Rock solid that."
I can only assume you mean Tim Worstal who doesnt seem to deny climate change only the way to deal with Co2 (he gets some stick for this on his blog).
Not that you would be wrong again...
This is why the west is in trouble technically
Big business wants subsidies or it won’t build
How about NO and if you decide to drop those types of bombs
How about we hit chips built outside the uk with a new FYou tax on importing them.
Once it uneconomical to import the UK WILL start to expand its own Capabilities
I have heard this "but such and such is cheaper" for decades now. It used to sound plausible. But over the years things kept happening to suggest otherwise. A couple of examples....
One was a Chinese colleague remarking that he was "the poor relation" in the family. Yes, he's a naturalized American living in California but his wages as an engineer were not that different from his relatives' wages in China (for similar jobs, of course) while their taxes and general cost of living were much lower.
The other was a work visit to Israel and noticing that the wages and work conditions were much better than at our Californian facility. The pace was far more relaxed, people worked shorter hours, there was significant time off (not just for military service) and perks such as a rather nice breakfast and a (by our standards) sumptuous lunch, all free and obviously on work time. There was also a free car for middle and upper level employees. All the while the corporation was trying its best to close our facility down with a desperate search for others to do it -- the work first being transferred to Russia, then Poland.
If you work with any European company then you're used to the idea that they're always on vacation and they don't work weekends and stuff. They also seem to live quite well. The UK follows the American model for the most part except that pay for engineers in the UK is dismal by US standards (especially given the cost of living) and there's some left over EU style regulations about holidays and working conditions.
Its time to hold these corporate accountants to close scrutiny. They've been saying the same old stuff for decades (in fact I even came across a similar kind of refrain in the mid-19th century Dickens novel "Hard Times"). Its about time people stopped swallowing it without question.
I can reassure you that those jobs outsourced to Russia and then Poland did not go there because their people enjoy carefree, work-life balanced lives and evil corporations felt the weight of their evilness and decided to give back to support better lifestyle. They went there for the very same reason all other jobs went east, and far east, because the cost of labour, across the whole spectrum, from chicken farms and amazon warehouses to IBM 'campuses', is much, much lower, AND because they work much, much harder, AND longer hours.
" The UK follows the American model for the most part"
When a company I was working for started an office in Pa, the local recruits there were extended the same working conditions as our UK company. They couldn't believe it and repeatedly asked about it to check it was true. Having worked in the US and UK, I can tell you that the UK is nothing like the US one.
I now work for a Swiss corporation with EU offices, Asian offices and US offices. We are all different but UK is much closer to the european model.
The post from which this quote was taken seems to have disappeared.
I guess it referred to bureaucracy such as the CE mark and underlying Machinery Directive (which aims to provide for safety, without making life too difficult for manufacturers). That's so bureaucratic that this proud American, employee-owned company is happy to list compliance with it as one of the key features of its new kit: https://www.stoneagetools.com/sentinel-virtual-overview/abxs-3l.html "The Sentinel-enabled AUTOBOX 3L is a CE-certified system ..." (Warning: may contain computers. Not for home use.)
UK would never have got the factory even if they were still part of the EU. Intel will choose the cheapest option for them.
It will be in one of three countries. Ireland for cheap tax, Spain for cheap labour cost and factory build cost, but most likely Poland for cheap labour cost and factory build cost and in this field a better skilled labour force as opposed to Spain.
We were in the EU for how many years ? Don't see many Intel fabs around here .... they chose Ireland for many reasons including Tax
Meanwhile we did have fabs
Fujitsu DRAM - went bust
Inmos - went bust and fab sold to Chinese
Digital - went bust
Siemens DRAM/Logic - went bust
NEC DRAM - went bust
Motorola - all sorts of stuff including DRAM - went bust
Nat Semi - all sorts of stuff ... are they still there ?
LG - never started
Hyundai - never started
.
.
.
It's a big game and you need to be awful brave and have deep pockets
As a country I think investing in fabless design companies is a safer bet. (and get ARM back !).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
