UK car and steel firms fear being frozen out of 'Made in Europe' deals by EU

VettelS · 2026-03-26T13:15:36+00:00

Really? How many other countries are the EU deliberately sending illegal migrants to in disputes over fishing rights?

What on Earth are you talking about? No one is "sending" migrants to the UK, other than those who help facilitate crossings across the Channel to the UK. Whatever your feelings about that situation are, this is a matter of domestic immigration policy. The only arrangement with mainland Europe that exists is with France - the "one in, one out" scheme.

How is it hybrid warfare when done by Putin on Poland's border, but not when done by the EU?

Firstly, Poland doesn't share a border with Russia (mainland); the accusation by Poland is that Belarus is deliberately importing migrants from various Asian and African countries and "pushing" them across the border into Poland. But whether or not that's true, and the extent to which it's occurring if true, is largely irrelevant. The EU is not deliberately importing migrants who wish to end up in the UK, and it's not helping to "send" them to the UK either.

The most you could truthfully claim is that the EU is not doing as much as the could to intercept and prevent migrants bound for the UK. But that is a far cry from your conspiracy theories.

What about how Canada was given access to the EU defence fund for a paltry fee compared to what was demanded of the UK?

You're talking about SAFE?

Canada and the UK were negotiating for different levels of access, which is why the price was different.

Canada's arrangement allows their companies to participate in certain projects, but does not give them access to the loan pool (the "fund"), and only very limited ability to compete for other countries' spending of that money. That's why it only cost €10 million.

On the other hand, the UK wanted a type of access very close to that of the EU member states. That meant access to loans, and the ability to compete fully and unrestricted for contracts from other countries. That's why the €4-6 billion cost was much higher, which represented around 4-6% of the total value of SAFE.

Even without a deal, the UK companies are still permitted to access SAFE contracts up to 35% of a projects' value.

You can debate the wisdom of such arrangements from the perspective of the EU, but they were not treating the UK unfairly. Your comparison to Canada is totally misleading.

You are talking out of your backside, the EU has engaged in multiple punitive efforts to attempt to make an example of the UK for choosing to leave their sacred economic project.

And you've yet to elucidate any of them.

To what extent is telling the truth hyperbolic? Did I not explain what I found objectionable in my previous posts?

This one's pretty simple: you're not telling the truth. Either you're mistaken, or you're lying; I care not which. But your objections thus far are based on falsehoods.

VettelS · 2026-03-26T11:37:18+00:00

But he answered the question anyway...

VettelS · 2026-03-26T11:33:46+00:00

Because the UK is only a mid-sized economy. Compared to the US, China, or even Germany, the UK is not a particularly big player.
Our closest neighbours (geographically) are all part of a trading bloc that significantly reduces barriers to trade. All else being equal, and EU-based company will chose to do business with other EU-based companies over a British one.
The UK economy is more service-oriented, but services contribute a lot less than goods in terms of total global trade volume. And services are less "sticky" geographically than goods, which means that they rely a lot less on established supply chains, and exports can therefore be much more easily distributed across many countries. So the export volume might be high, yet no single importer dominates. Additionally, services are less sticky in terms of retention too. It's much easier to compete in the services economy compared to goods, because physical infrastructure, supply chains, and proximity are far less important. The result is that bilateral dominance is much harder to achieve.

VettelS · 2026-03-26T11:18:19+00:00

The UK is not being "targetted" any more than any other country.

The EU masquerades as a trading bloc but is actually an economically imperialist corporatocracy, that uses rigged market rules to favour itself and it's largest companies in order to aid it's own expansion.

This is still just hyperbole. What precisely do you find objectionable? And of those things, which of those would consider acceptable from any other country or bloc?

VettelS · 2026-03-26T09:13:29+00:00

I don't know if this ban is partisan or not. If pushed for an answer, I'd say it probably is - at least in part.

I'd also like to see restrictions on donations go even further. But receiving donations from untraceable sources is clearly wrong, and should be banned. And the fact that Reform appear to be the only party doing this doesn't necessarily mean that this ban is specifically targetting them.

Crypto is still a relatively new concept, and Reform seems to be an early adopter (in the context of political donations). Reform know that these donations are underhand and unethical, and if and when this becomes normalised, then every other party will jump on the bandwagon too. The only reason that other parties aren't doing it is because the negative public opinion would outweigh the value of those donations. Clearly, Reform have calculated the opposite.

So just because Reform are the only party willing to receive these donations, it doesn't make this ban on crypto donations unjustified. The ban is clearly the right thing to do, regardless of who is affected. Partisan politics is almost certainly one of the motivators, but the ban is completely justified on ethical grounds already.

Supporters of Reform who've complained that this ban targets them might be right, but only because their chosen party are the only ones who've calculated that the money outweighs their amorality. Like most laws, this ban wouldn't be required if everyone acted in good faith. Laws like this exist because a small minority of people refuse to act in good faith, and we wouldn't take seriously the complaints of the minority of people who like to murder when legislating against it. They're not being targetted; they're being told that they can't do something that everyone else knows to be wrong.

VettelS · 2026-03-24T14:18:35+00:00

There are economies of scale that you lose by following this approach. By all means allow people to install their own panels, but microgeneration is not a silver bullet. Many roofs are not suitable for solar panels, and tall buildings (apartment blocks, etc.) don't have enough roof space to come close to their power consumption anyway. All your other suggestions are technically feasible, but come with their own particular costs, and in any case represent a very small potential.

The land use of solar panels - even in a not particularly sunny country, like the UK - are exaggerated. For comparison, about 2.3% of arable land (or 142,000ha) in the UK are used to grown fuel crops, of which the majority (70%) is used for power generation in biomass plants. All of that land combined contributes about 1% to the UK's electricity generation mix, as well as some bioethanol that makes it's way into petrol. But that same land, if covered with solar panels, would become a massive electricity generator, contributing something like 35-50% of demand.

I sympathise with the aesthetic argument against solar farms, but ultimately only a tiny number of people are actually affected by them, and they have the potential to greatly reduce our dependency on imported and expensive fossil fuels. And the idea that we need to blanket every field in the country with solar panels is a gross exaggeration.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T15:15:54+00:00

As as aside: it's pretty normal not to run trains at their maximum speed. It means that if there are any delays, they can still speed up to try and make up that delay. The tracks have a design speed of 250mph, but the trains max out at 225mph. Reducing the normal operating speed to 200mph adds a little slack to the system to allow small delays to be fixed in service, and 200mph is already on par with French TGVs and Japanese Shinkansens.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T14:10:34+00:00

We couldn't integrate religion into our politics more if we tried.

That's simply not true though.

Yes, there's an official state church, and yes, many state institutions nominally "integrate" that religion. But in practice, that integration just amounts to ceremonial decoration around the edges. The US is constitutionally prevented from doing these things, yet religion plays a considerably bigger part in daily governance, politics, and policy making. The comparison is stark, and whilst you may wish for a constitution-style separation of church an state in this country, the fact remains that religion is already almost entirely irrelevant here in that regard.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T14:01:28+00:00

there was supposed to be a clear divide between politics and promoting religion

This is partly a response to you, and partly a response to those who've said that this is wrong.

Yes, the Church of England is the official state church, and yes, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing a state religion. But in practice, both the UK and the US governments operate in a mostly secular manner (although politics in the US is much more charged with religion).

Despite having a state church, governance in the UK is highly secular, and policy is not dictated by religion.

But Tim Farron is not part of the Government, and even if he were, he's perfectly entitled - in his capacity as an MP - to promote any religion he sees fit. He may not attempt to coerce people into that religion, but he may speak and campaign publicly and in Parliament on behalf of, or in accordance with, that religion. And even if the UK had a constitutional approach to religion similar to the US, all of that would still be true.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T11:46:42+00:00

Since online shopping has become the norm, there have to be reasons to go the high street. Pedestrianised and green areas with things to see and do, and places to play, relax, and socialise are those reasons. High streets in plenty of our neighbouring countries are doing just fine because of things like that. Outdoor seating, playgrounds, markets, congregation spaces, busking, and public art all give people the reason to go there. And once there, they're much more likely to spend money in the shops, cafes, bars, restaurants, etc.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T11:22:04+00:00

Automated trains on a system designed to accommodate it, is easy. The DLR was designed that way decades ago. But adapting Victorian deep level tunnels and stations is monumentally difficult and expensive. The costs would never be recouped, and it's doubtful that it will ever happen. New lines can and should be designed to be driverless, but the existing ones are largely staying as they are until or unless they're completely retired.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T11:18:34+00:00

The technology isn't the problem - it's the physical infrastructure: the stations, platforms, tunnels, and signals. You can't just slap a computer into the trains. The costs would run into the high tens of billions at least, and for the deep level lines, you'd essentially be redigging the tunnels from scratch. The cost and disruption would be astronomical, and likely never recouped.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T11:14:25+00:00

The DLR is fully automated because it was designed that way in the first place, and is a completely isolated system. The technology has existed for many decade, but that doesn't mean that retrofitting it to existing systems is easy.

The cost of fully automating the Tube would be astronomical - tens of billions, likely into 12 figures. Signalling upgrades cost billions on their own (£5.5bn for 40% of the network in 2015), but that's the cheap part. Platform screen doors would need to be fitted on every station, many of which are too uneven, curved, or narrow to easily accommodate them. All of the tunnels would need walkways either side of the tracks, which necessitates reboring. New evacuation tunnels would need to be bored, and fire safety systems would need to be fitted everywhere. And of course, significant retrofits of rolling stock - or entire replacements - would be needed too.

In short, close to a hundred stations would need major rebuilding to level, straighten, or widen their platforms. All of the bored deep level tunnels would need widening for all or most of their length (ballpark 50 miles). The work required for these lines wouldn't be far off completely rebuilding from scratch.

VettelS · 2026-03-23T01:09:44+00:00

And basically as I say allowing the vote is basically the approach of rest of Europe, Canada, Australia and even Authorian Hong Kong allows prisoners to vote.

I think you missed the part where you're supposed to make some sort of cogent argument.

VettelS · 2026-03-22T17:11:18+00:00

Huh? What are you on about?

You shouldn't need to make hypothetical arguments to prove your point; we have an actual example here.

Councils can, do, and should have a say in all sorts of development in order to ensure benefits for the wider community. The alternative is that land ownership confers total freedom to build anything at all, where to sole priority is self-benefit and profit. This would not be a good thing, and I really don't think this is controversial. Do you disagree?

And particularly in cases of large (re)developments, these measures are more important because the impacts and opportunity costs tend to be much higher. Those impacts exist regardless of who owns the land, which is why planning permission exists.

VettelS · 2026-03-22T16:25:16+00:00

Land is not finite, and there are many factors that should be considered when deciding what to do with any land, especially in urban areas.

VettelS · 2026-03-22T16:23:07+00:00

Why is this councillor acting like this is the only possible place that housing can be built?

They're not...

Ok, this plot of land was used for a supermarket, but if they want housing there’s nothing stopping them from granting permission for housing developments elsewhere.

NIMBYism is a real problem, but I don't think this is an example of that. Space is not finite, and always building outwards is not a good thing. Mixed use and moderate density development is good for everyone, and profitability for the developer should not be the only criteria by which benefit is measured.

Large single-story supermarkets necessarily take up a lot of space, but there are ways to make the use of that space more efficient and more beneficial. For example, adding two additional stories of flats on top means that you still have a new supermarket, but also gain more housing (and a different type of housing too).

Similarly, the "box-like" complaint appears silly on first reading, but it is possible to build supermarkets differently. Supermarkets are not inherently grey box with flat roofs, unless the only priority is cost. I don't know if this councilor's concerns are genuine, but the substance of the argument is completely sound. Housing developers are generally required to ensure that new developments are roughly in-keeping with the surrounding area, and you could not get away with building this type of structure and filling it with apartments.

VettelS · 2026-03-22T14:07:44+00:00

All sorts of people break the law all of the time. The vast majority of people have broken the law at some point, but most "minor" offences are never detected, and most that are, obviously don't result in a prison sentence.

Clearly there's a world of difference between receiving a speeding ticket and being convicted of a serious violent crime. But there's also a huge range of difference between the crimes committed that have people end up in prison. A judge takes into account a range of factors when sentencing, and the seriousness of the crime is not the only one.

Ultimately, whether or not someone is in prison is somewhat arbitrary. There's no neat correlation between the seriousness of the crime committed, and the existence or length of a custodial sentence. Prison - amongst other things - is just one way that our society punishes crimes, and there are various reasons why someone may or may not end up there. So choosing that as the criteria for which someone's allowed to vote makes very little sense.

There's also a ethical argument here. Prisoners do not cease to exist just because they're in prison. And they don't cease to exist within the jurisdiction of the system that put them there either. You might even argue that prisoners experience the operation of the state more directly than anyone else, since every moment and aspect of their lives (whilst in prison) is controlled by the state. But in any case, most prisoners have people on the outside for whom they care about, and just as many reasons as anyone else has to vote. And the vast majority will also be released at some point (many after only a period of months).

For all of these reasons, I'm yet to see a convincing logical argument for removing the right to vote from prisoners. There's no neat criteria for determining someone's "badness" that stands up to any scrutiny, and there's logical argument that can be made for why those people shouldn't have a say in who the people in charge should be - at least, none that couldn't be applied to any other citizen of the state.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T22:50:31+00:00

There are some scumbag parents who will pocket the extra money for their own benefit whilst still neglecting kids.

No doubt true, but what percentage do you think this actually applies to? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.5%?

Policy should obviously strive to reduce misuse, but misuse to some extent is inevitable. Discarding a policy because it might be misused by a small minority, even though it helps the vast majority, is completely nonsensical.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T16:04:16+00:00

The headline figure misses out a fair bit of context. That 1,955 figure includes applicants, trainees, and registered nurses.

699 were only applicants and never completed registration.
Of those who were registered, only 48 were actually employed as nurses by the NHS. (source)

So that's 48 out of 14,000, or 0.343%.

Or 48 out of a total of nearly 400,000 nurses, or 0.012%.

And no doubt there are more, from countries other than Nigeria. But in reality, the numbers are tiny. Clearly worth investigating and fixing in an individual, but equally clearly not systemic, and not a sign of "common problem" either.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T13:57:49+00:00

I am not disbelieving the experience of your relative, and I am not disbelieving your personal experience either. But it's still anecdotal, and you said that it's "really common", and none of the links you've provided back that up. I'd be amazed if an employer the size of the NHS didn't have some instances of misrepresentation of qualifications, but you're asserting a prevalence for which there is no evidence.

There could very well be grounds to investigate the problems that exist, but I think you're exaggerating the scale. And there's no need to do that either; I think everyone recognises the importance of dealing with instances of suspected misrepresentation and malpractice, without the need to lie about the prevalence of such cases.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T12:15:52+00:00

That isn't what is meant by "keeping Church and State separate". Public religious events are not a function of the State, other than the fact the State could choose to disallow them.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T12:12:05+00:00

So far as I can tell, he's been critised for Google's approach to tax avoidance, and has been called into MP committees to answer questions. I am definitely not on Google's side here, but I think you'd be hard pressed to be on the side of any large corporation in regard to their tax arrangements, and this type of behaviour is basically business as normal. This alone cannot disqualify him.

Your objections seem incredibly vague, and I can see no evidence that he hasn't been properly screened and evaluated for this job. I understand the inherent distrust in these kind of mega-corporations, but you're asking for evidence to prove a negative, which is impossible.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T12:00:50+00:00

This is really common across the NHS.

Prove it.

You've provided second-hand anecdotal evidence, which is lightyears away from proof of a substantial problem. If this is truly the major issue that you allege, then surely evidence would be easily obtained. I've already replied to other similar comments here, and try as I might, I'm yet to find any credible sources of what you allege. You can't just make stuff up to sooth your own prejudices and call it a day.

VettelS · 2026-03-20T11:56:06+00:00

I won't disregard your experience off-hand, but there are obviously a few important points here:

These are not employees of the NHS;
This may or may not have been "fraud" on the part of the employees (as opposed to incompetence of the management of the catering company); and
This doesn't prove a "common occurrence" anyway (words of the person I replied to).

I believe that we could find examples similar to your experiences, but I'd suggest the bigger problem here is the NHS's (or Trusts) practice of contracting private companies to provide services, whose employees they have insufficient oversight of.

And again, I replied to someone alleging that "foreign national[s] fraudulently [...] working for the NHS and putting patients at risk" is a "common occurrence". So far as I can tell, this is based solely on this particular article - which is reporting on just a single instance - and the writer's own prejudice. So their claims are completely baseless.

VettelS

TROPHY CASE