Jump to content

How EU rules kill off our industries


postnote

Recommended Posts

An interesting article in today’s Daily Telegraph “How EU rules kill off our industries” appears to substantiate my theory that the EU is a tool enabling Germany to dominate Europe..

 

They are learning lessons learnt in the past that there is more than one way to skin a cat!!

 

Article by Christopher Booker

Tory transport ministers Philip Hammond and Theresa Villiers were furious, they told us last week, at having to award a £1.5 billion contract for 1,200 carriages for the new Thameslink railway to a German firm, Siemens, instead of a British-based one, Bombardier of Derby. This not only entails the loss of 1,400 jobs in Derby and thousands more across the east Midlands, but threatens the survival of the last train-making firm in the country which gave the world railways. The ministers say they had no choice but to give the contract to the German firm, because of the failure of Gordon Brown’s government to include conditions in the tender which would have made it possible to give the work to the British firm under “EU procurement rules”. >:-)

 

It goes on to mention..

 

It is not only blind obedience to procurement rules, however, that has led successive governments to inflict immense damage on our industry. For example, Tony Blair’s decision (also in 2004) to award the British Army’s biggest ever truck contract, worth £1.1 billion, to Man, a German-owned company based in Austria, reflected his infatuation with building a “European defence identity”. This took precedence over a far more suitable bid by an Anglo-US consortium, including LDV (formerly Leyland DAF Vehicles) which planned to build the 5,200 trucks in Birmingham, creating thousands of jobs.

>:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Yep.................Just goes to show our politicians either don't give a toss about British industry or are so up "Brussels a**e that they will bend over backwards to do their bidding*-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree 100% that this is wrong - BUT!!!!!!!

 

The titles - both the one above and that by Booker - indicating that it is EU rules that force this is entirely wrong!

 

In fact the article states this :-

 

' The ministers say they had no choice but to give the contract to the German firm, because of the failure of Gordon Brown’s government to include conditions in the tender which would have made it possible to give the work to the British firm under “EU procurement rules" '

 

The problem has been one of our civil service simply accepting guidelines from the EU as law and even "gold plating" those guidelines into draconian UK laws.

 

What happened here is that it was another muck up by the last government who could EASILY have instructed the civil servants to include the appropriate conditions to the tender to favour our own home industries. But they rarely do this.

 

There are many examples from cheese production (the French included a let out clause for their cave matured wonderful cheeses from the hygiene EU rules - we however, gold plate those rules so that local indigenous cheese makers go out of business) to our taking grocers to court for selling in lbs and ozs - when the EU always said that the two weight methods could be used side by side.

 

If I may make a plea on behalf of the EU - yes it is corrupt in many areas and yes this needs to be sorted - but to blame the EU for the failings of our own Governments and Civil Servants to dot the i's and cross the t's on something as simple as tendering so as to ensure our own indigenous industries get selected - JUST AS EVERY OTHER EU COUNTRIES MANAGE TO DO! - means that the fault lies NOT with the EU on this matter, but with own monumentally stupid governments and public sector who give not a damn for the companies and businesses of the UK.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

I agree Clive:D..............and I find there is a certain amount of poetic justice in the fact that now our civil servants are starting to realize they have stuffed the golden goose(lol)(lol)

Never mind when they get made redundant I dare say Mr Tesco and Co can be obliged to offer a few thousand shelf stacking opportunities, in return for a free hand on a high street near you:D

Cynic...........me?8-)  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2011-07-13 8:19 AM

 

If I may make a plea on behalf of the EU - yes it is corrupt in many areas and yes this needs to be sorted - but to blame the EU for the failings of our own Governments and Civil Servants to dot the i's and cross the t's on something as simple as tendering so as to ensure our own indigenous industries get selected - JUST AS EVERY OTHER EU COUNTRIES MANAGE TO DO! - means that the fault lies NOT with the EU on this matter, but with own monumentally stupid governments and public sector who give not a damn for the companies and businesses of the UK.

Good post Clive;

In retrospect maybe I should have titled this post “How our government kills off our industries.

 

Once again we, our government, shows that they haven’t got our best interests at heart or maybe our career trained politicians have no real experience of commerce and results in their naivety?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Dave - another one of my pet hates in this area is the ruling on bar towels in pubs! - They are great to soak up the beer on the glass and if kept washed - no health hazard at all.

 

But because in europe they tended to use trays with brass plates with holes in - our civil servants ruled that bar towels were illegal!

 

The EU said they were not and that they never said they were - but not before the numpties in the civil service/public sector had forced pubs to bin the towels and buy expensive drip trays.

 

After a year or so - the truth came out and bar towels could be re-introduced - but not before much financial damage had been done by supreme idiots on some kind of mission!! >:-( >:-( >:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

postnote - 2011-07-13 7:52 AM

 

It is not only blind obedience to procurement rules, however, that has led successive governments to inflict immense damage on our industry. For example, Tony Blair’s decision (also in 2004) to award the British Army’s biggest ever truck contract, worth £1.1 billion, to Man, a German-owned company based in Austria, reflected his infatuation with building a “European defence identity”. This took precedence over a far more suitable bid by an Anglo-US consortium, including LDV (formerly Leyland DAF Vehicles) which planned to build the 5,200 trucks in Birmingham, creating thousands of jobs.

>:-)

 

Interesting you should quote the truck contract, tears shed in bedfordshire for the loss of jobs at LDV, absolutly zero, if you go back further and see how LDV gained the previous contract and the cost to country both in money and jobs you will see why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2011-07-13 12:24 PM

 

postnote - 2011-07-13 7:52 AM

 

It is not only blind obedience to procurement rules, however, that has led successive governments to inflict immense damage on our industry. For example, Tony Blair’s decision (also in 2004) to award the British Army’s biggest ever truck contract, worth £1.1 billion, to Man, a German-owned company based in Austria, reflected his infatuation with building a “European defence identity”. This took precedence over a far more suitable bid by an Anglo-US consortium, including LDV (formerly Leyland DAF Vehicles) which planned to build the 5,200 trucks in Birmingham, creating thousands of jobs.

>:-)

 

Interesting you should quote the truck contract, tears shed in bedfordshire for the loss of jobs at LDV, absolutly zero, if you go back further and see how LDV gained the previous contract and the cost to country both in money and jobs you will see why.

I had relations that worked at Vauxhall for years and latterly LDV in Dunstable. Don’t know the politics behind it, but at the time Bedford was a very popular lorry. Why it went down the pan I’m not sure but a tragedy all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From wiki

A major blow came when Bedford failed to win the UK Ministry of Defence contract to produce the standard 4 ton 4x4 GS (general service) truck for the British forces, although the Bedford candidate had performed equally in extensive test to the Leyland (later Leyland-DAF) candidate, and the British Army expressed a preference to continue the trusted relationship with Bedford trucks.

 

The reasons for this decision were seen by many as political, as the Army 4 tonner contract was seen by the Thatcher government as essential for the long term survival of Leyland, and the formation of Leyland-DAF. The implications of the decision were also noted by GM in Detroit, who had already been refused permission to buy the Land-Rover division of British Leyland, which they had intended to operate in tandem with the Bedford Truck division as major force a military and civilian 4x4 market.

 

 

LDV later went bust, without this political manovering by Maggies government we would undoughtly still have the capacity to manufacture militrary trucks in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2011-07-13 2:18 PM

 

From wiki

A major blow came when Bedford failed to win the UK Ministry of Defence contract to produce the standard 4 ton 4x4 GS (general service) truck for the British forces, although the Bedford candidate had performed equally in extensive test to the Leyland (later Leyland-DAF) candidate, and the British Army expressed a preference to continue the trusted relationship with Bedford trucks.

 

The reasons for this decision were seen by many as political, as the Army 4 tonner contract was seen by the Thatcher government as essential for the long term survival of Leyland, and the formation of Leyland-DAF. The implications of the decision were also noted by GM in Detroit, who had already been refused permission to buy the Land-Rover division of British Leyland, which they had intended to operate in tandem with the Bedford Truck division as major force a military and civilian 4x4 market.

 

 

LDV later went bust, without this political manovering by Maggies government we would undoughtly still have the capacity to manufacture militrary trucks in this country.

 

Any trucks for that matter. One elected government is much the same as another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as uneasy with the government's defence for this decision, as I should be had the decision gone to Bombardier on grounds of protecting UK jobs.

 

However, far too little information on the background has been released to judge.

 

First, it would be an unusual tender invitation, in my experience, that bound the client to accept any bid. Indeed, it was a standard clause, always inserted into any tender invitation I have ever seen, that "the client doe not bind himself to accept the lowest, or any, tender submitted". This is a necessary protection against tenders that can't be checked and verified arithmetically correct, where the tenderer agrees to accept the cost of his error, but no-one else involves believes his position is sustainable, and against a change of circumstances affecting the client during the tendering process. I should be amazed if nothing similar was included in a tender as large, and complex, as this must have been.

 

Second, I imagine there must have been a high design content in the bids, because I would imagine the tenders must have been based on a performance specification, subject to compliance being demonstrated, rather than on completed detailed designs. So, much scope for comparing extent of compliance and design quality, as well as cost.

 

However, I am dead against wasting firms time on expensive tendering activities if the results are going to be skewed by considerations of social cost. To do this rigs the tender in favour of the home tenderers, which they would all know, allowing them to put in lazy prices, in the knowledge they have the potential cost of unemployment pay for their workers to be set against their bid. This has been done in various ways, at various times, but in the end, if there is to be competition, the main determinant has to value, which is inevitably a combination of price and quality. The scoring must be transparent, and open to scrutiny, or fairness of award cannot be judged. However, if we believe we must compete internationally, and it seems we do, and we then start taking account of external costs in awarding contracts, we shall simply start down a long slope to losing competitiveness.

 

Final thought. Given the volatility of the pound, who takes the currency risk on the German bid? Them, by bidding in Sterling, or us, by accepting a bid in Euros? No-one has said but, under present circumstances, I should have thought that factor alone would make proper evaluation of value virtually impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Crap.

 

Idiot reporter is simply twisting the facts to fit his spin.

 

 

 

Bombardier are not a British Company. They are Canadian.

 

In the real world it matters not where the HQ of the business is located though.........awarding the contract to them keeps the thousands of their employees in the UK in work, just as if the award had gone to Bombardier, also with thousands of UK employees.

 

In the end, regardless of the nationality of your holding Company, if you as a business unit can't compete, in a global sense, your days are numbered.

 

That is nothing to do with the EU. That's business life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
BGD - 2011-07-22 10:25 PMCrap.Idiot reporter is simply twisting the facts to fit his spin.Bombardier are not a British Company. They are Canadian.In the real world it matters not where the HQ of the business is located though.........awarding the contract to them keeps the thousands of their employees in the UK in work, just as if the award had gone to Bombardier, also with thousands of UK employees.In the end, regardless of the nationality of your holding Company, if you as a business unit can't compete, in a global sense, your days are numbered.That is nothing to do with the EU. That's business life.

Your right Bruce, big business has no conception of right and wrong, just profit and loss*-)
Which is why I will never earn a fortune, and why big business should be kept out of the public sector;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isnt the EU that is killing off UK ltd as a manufacturing Nation, just remember it was Saint Maggie who said that The UK would become a service provider, at that time we believed her, the sub plot seeems we will all work stacking shelves for Tesco rather than the Fat, Finance jobs being promised.

Germany and to a lesser extent France, continued with their Industrial heritage, investing in their industries, by words for quality, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Hymer even. you can all produce a list of German products that you lust after.

Germany even manages to resurect the Eastern part of their country after decades of misrule!

They are working within the EU, subject to EU rules and regulations and still manage OK what is the matter with UK management and Bureaurocrats that the UK cant do as well.

Isnt it galling to see Prime UK brands under foreign ownership; Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Range-Rover, Jaguar  do I need to continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...