Post-poll Brexit poll

[Juma]

UK leaves the EU without actually leaving it.

Leaving EU rule to regain sovereignty but nonetheless the UK is part of Europe as a geographical classification. I believe a lot of commercial intercourse will continue.

If UK leaves EU they have a helluva bad starting point in any discussions with EU.

UK will be bound by the rules of EU without any means of infuence...

Tough...

 

[angelo]

Because very many firms are in the UK because it allows them to work in the EU, and are now preparing to leave, because the UK will have little access to other markets and because farmers especially will be hugely worse off, particularly in not being able to hire cheap labour when the supermarkets are screwing them into the ground. If we get any money back - which is extremely dubious - it will, of course, go to the very rich. The naivety of the Brexit lot is utterly depressing. You think WE are in power here?

Should be easier to be in power in Britain than, say, in Russia or Egypt.
EB

For Etonians, Mr Murdoch and such, perhaps.

What kept Jeremy's friends from power? Why didn't they do what they're doing now before Blair could win the Labour leadership? Same thing in France, Greece, Italy etc. In Russia and Egypt opponents have some excuse. They are murdered or put in jail.
EB

People could tolerate growing inequality and financial/job insecurity while the consumer credit and housing bubbles provided the illusion of prosperity. They burst in 2008.

Since then, Leave campaigners fed the lie that the EU and immigrants are to blame for said insecurity and inequality. Conservative and New Labour Remain campaigners had no response because they could not name the true culprit : the neoliberal policies they support.

Though Brexit will create more losers than winners, neither campaign deserved to win the referendum.

Brexit won. Live with it!

 

[Juma]

Because very many firms are in the UK because it allows them to work in the EU, and are now preparing to leave, because the UK will have little access to other markets and because farmers especially will be hugely worse off, particularly in not being able to hire cheap labour when the supermarkets are screwing them into the ground. If we get any money back - which is extremely dubious - it will, of course, go to the very rich. The naivety of the Brexit lot is utterly depressing. You think WE are in power here?

Should be easier to be in power in Britain than, say, in Russia or Egypt.
EB

For Etonians, Mr Murdoch and such, perhaps.

What kept Jeremy's friends from power? Why didn't they do what they're doing now before Blair could win the Labour leadership? Same thing in France, Greece, Italy etc. In Russia and Egypt opponents have some excuse. They are murdered or put in jail.
EB

People could tolerate growing inequality and financial/job insecurity while the consumer credit and housing bubbles provided the illusion of prosperity. They burst in 2008.

Since then, Leave campaigners fed the lie that the EU and immigrants are to blame for said insecurity and inequality. Conservative and New Labour Remain campaigners had no response because they could not name the true culprit : the neoliberal policies they support.

Though Brexit will create more losers than winners, neither campaign deserved to win the referendum.

Brexit won. Live with it!

Brexit didnt win. Everybody lost.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Leaving EU rule to regain sovereignty but nonetheless the UK is part of Europe as a geographical classification. I believe a lot of commercial intercourse will continue.

If UK leaves EU they have a helluva bad starting point in any discussions with EU.

UK will be bound by the rules of EU without any means of infuence...

Tough...

The first battle is won. As predicted by free thinking skeptics, the aim of the Common Market, then the Euro-Reich was to reduce the wealth of the wealthier countries and increase some of the wealth of the poorer ones, or those who never made a go of it in the first place.

The EU provide generous grants to companies to either purchase British companies or British branches of companies and ship the labour abroad, or the companies themselves to ship the companies abroad and maximize their profits. Up to one million British people are off the unemployment register as they are on zero rated contacts.

Without such grants it would not have been financially viable to do so.

Here are some of the items I posted earlier:

short list of financial and industrial FUBARs from the EU...

Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers’ pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online. (I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU.
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMWmostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK.
The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.

Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK.
We used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.

Then of course is our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.

I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned excessive, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.

Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't.

And of course, the real deal-breaker ....the European Commission dictate 55% of UK laws WITHOUT DEMOCRACY. In fact as this is in reality 100% because the EU can veto any judgments or UK legislation. END OF QUOTE

The EU purchased much more from the UK than it exports to it. While the Tories continue to dither with Her Merkler I agree that clause 50 should have simply been triggered. I still believe the Tories and its masters in the EU-Reich may try to agree to stay with some fake deal. The EU as we increasingly realize is not about the will of the people but about the regimentation of future countries whose laws are now governed by the 4th Reich.

 

[bilby]

If UK leaves EU they have a helluva bad starting point in any discussions with EU.

UK will be bound by the rules of EU without any means of infuence...

Tough...

The first battle is won. As predicted by free thinking skeptics, the aim of the Common Market, then the Euro-Reich was to reduce the wealth of the wealthier countries and increase some of the wealth of the poorer ones, or those who never made a go of it in the first place.

The EU provide generous grants to companies to either purchase British companies or British branches of companies and ship the labour abroad, or the companies themselves to ship the companies abroad and maximize their profits. Up to one million British people are off the unemployment register as they are on zero rated contacts.

Without such grants it would not have been financially viable to do so.

Here are some of the items I posted earlier:<snip>

Why? They don't get more relevant, less hyperbolic, or less wrong the second time around.

How is it a bad thing for companies operating in the UK to be owned by people elsewhere in the EU? Any more than it is a bad thing for a company operating in Yorkshire to be owned by people in Kent, for example?

The British fisheries were destroyed by over-fishing, under quota rules set long before the EU came into being. The EU has made some progress in allowing stocks to recover.

You haven't mentioned what it costs, largely, I suspect, because you have no clue what it costs - or even if it is in fact a net benefit to the UK.

There is no question of control of the armed forces being moved to the EU; If control of the British military by foreigners worries you, it is NATO you should be leaving, not the EU. If you can't even get the basics of what you oppose right, then why should anybody give the slightest weight to your opinion?

And the EU do NOT dictate laws to the UK without democracy. Not 55%, not 85%, not 5%. It doesn't happen, not least because the EU is democratic - why do you think they keep holding elections for MEPs? For fun??

And the EU does NOT have a veto over UK legislation. In fact, it is the reverse - as an EU member, the UK can veto some European laws unilaterally, and can veto other EU laws in concert with one or two other EU states.

You, sir, do not have a CLUE what you are talking about.

 

[Deepak]

Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers’ pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online. (I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU.
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMWmostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK.
The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.

Off the top of my head:
- Jaguar would have been defunct in '89 until they were bought the American Ford company, and subsequently sold to Tata. Somehow Tata keeping the British headquartered car manufacture in operation is missed. Would you rather there be zero jobs from Jag?
- Mini (Rover) was sold to BMW in the mid 90s because it wasn't profitable. Still headquartered in England, even though manufacturing is elsewhere. See above.
- Gillette is an American company. Even without EU loans they don't have an allegiance to the UK and would have moved based on economic concerns.
- TI is an American company. See above.

 

[bilby]

...
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership.

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government

France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Well, sure, but 2008 also forced the Conservatives to opt for austerity (or keeping within your means as Theresa just said), which is really when many people started to feel the pinch. The same is happening in France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. You have both the low-paid workers and a big chunk of the middle class which is affected. And they are going both leftward and rightward.

Yep, though I wouldn't say Conservatives were "forced to opt for austerity". More like they saw an opportunity to gut the public sector and welfare state. I blame Naomi Klein.

Since then, Leave campaigners fed the lie that the EU and immigrants are to blame for said insecurity and inequality. Conservative and New Labour Remain campaigners had no response because they could not name the true culprit : the neoliberal policies they support.

But it depends on how you interpret the story. Neoliberalism was meant to be the only solution. Anything else would have been worse. A return to nationalism and perhaps war. Within that perspective, the culprit is the faltering of economy, not the economic policies followed. Maybe a different economic policy could have and could still succeed but I don't see that happening anywhere in the countries mentionned and certainly not in France.

Which is why the Remainers largely avoided that crucial debate and appeared to be a disconnected elite. They'd have had to tell people, despite significantly increased productivity, no external shocks or natural disasters to tighten their belts while a few get obscenely rich. They couldn't have sold that, so they left the goal wide open for the Leavers to blame johnny foreigner.

My interpretation is that economic liberalism cannot be fair to workers at a time when jobs are draining away and taxes get more difficult to get in. The question is: could anybody perform better in government? And where are these people?

What I think could have worked is the kind of federal welfare state the (then) EEC founders envisaged decades ago as a protectionist bulwark against global capitalism. A Jeremy Corbyn or Alexis Tsipras would gladly sign up for that. But it isn't on the table now because the EU technocrats have bought into a kind of economics which pretty much precludes it.

Brexit will create more losers than winners

I think so but the truth is, we just don't know.
EB

 

[whichphilosophy]

Leaving EU rule to regain sovereignty but nonetheless the UK is part of Europe as a geographical classification. I believe a lot of commercial intercourse will continue.

If UK leaves EU they have a helluva bad starting point in any discussions with EU.

UK will be bound by the rules of EU without any means of infuence...

Tough...

How will the EU get tough? Send a strong email or bleat off in the EU Parliament. Hopefully there will be some sensible talking on this.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/editorial/heres-how-much-europe-depends-on-the-uk

European powers depend on exports to the UK
European nations are heavily invested in their relationship with the UK. The UK is the fourth-largest importer in the world, and the EU needs British import demand.
EU member states’ trade ties with the UK vary, but several European economies send a significant amount of their exports to Britain.
Nearly 14% of Irish exports went to the UK in 2015. 9% of the Netherlands’ exports and 7.4% of Germany’s exports also went to this nation in 2015.

With countries like Germany facing reduced global demand for their goods, European governments cannot afford to lose access to British customers.
The UK was a major contributor to the EU’s budget
12.6% of the EU’s revenues came from the UK in 2015. When less developed countries joined the EU, the older members took on a greater financial burden. They hoped that expansion would boost investment opportunities and enhance the bloc’s security in the long term.

The UK was one of only 10 net contributors to the EU budget – along with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland. For these wealthy European economies, a British exit means an increased financial burden.
Eastern Europe needs access to UK labor markets.

British job opportunities and remittance flows are highly significant for Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe has enjoyed low unemployment rates—in large part because millions of Eastern Europeans work in other EU countries… most notably, the UK.
Over 740,000 Polish citizens and over 160,000 Lithuanian citizens resided in the UK in 2014 according to Eurostat. There are also reportedly over 500,000 Hungarians abroad, with an estimated 300,000 in the UK.

 

[bilby]

If UK leaves EU they have a helluva bad starting point in any discussions with EU.

UK will be bound by the rules of EU without any means of infuence...

Tough...

How will the EU get tough? Send a strong email or bleat off in the EU Parliament. Hopefully there will be some sensible talking on this.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/editorial/heres-how-much-europe-depends-on-the-uk

European powers depend on exports to the UK
European nations are heavily invested in their relationship with the UK. The UK is the fourth-largest importer in the world, and the EU needs British import demand.
EU member states’ trade ties with the UK vary, but several European economies send a significant amount of their exports to Britain.
Nearly 14% of Irish exports went to the UK in 2015. 9% of the Netherlands’ exports and 7.4% of Germany’s exports also went to this nation in 2015.

With countries like Germany facing reduced global demand for their goods, European governments cannot afford to lose access to British customers.
The UK was a major contributor to the EU’s budget
12.6% of the EU’s revenues came from the UK in 2015. When less developed countries joined the EU, the older members took on a greater financial burden. They hoped that expansion would boost investment opportunities and enhance the bloc’s security in the long term.

The UK was one of only 10 net contributors to the EU budget – along with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland. For these wealthy European economies, a British exit means an increased financial burden.
Eastern Europe needs access to UK labor markets.

British job opportunities and remittance flows are highly significant for Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe has enjoyed low unemployment rates—in large part because millions of Eastern Europeans work in other EU countries… most notably, the UK.
Over 740,000 Polish citizens and over 160,000 Lithuanian citizens resided in the UK in 2014 according to Eurostat. There are also reportedly over 500,000 Hungarians abroad, with an estimated 300,000 in the UK.

The concept of interdependence seems to be lost on you. Yes, the EU benefits from the UK being a member. But this is NOT a zero sum game - the UK also benefits from being a member of the EU.

Brexit means that the UK no longer has to pay its membership fees. But it also means that the UK no longer gets the benefits of membership.

I spent almost AU$200 on groceries last week at Coles supermarket. Coles gave me back no money at all. Coles-Myer Group is entirely dependent on retail customers buying their goods; so if I was to refuse to do business with Coles, they would suffer; But I would save $200 a WEEK! How STUPID I am to shop at Coles - this is practically a robbery. I think I shall go and stand outside the supermarket with a bull-horn, placards, and flyers, telling all their customers what a bunch of shit-heels Coles is, after they have taken my money every week for years, and never given me back a cent.

Of course, I will still need to buy groceries. But that's OK, I am sure that the manager at Coles will be so upset about losing my $200/week, that they will be happy to do me a favourable deal. I have no doubt that I can sit down with him and come to an arrangement where he lets me continue to shop there (when I am not too busy picketing his store and telling everyone what scum Coles management are). I can probably get cheaper groceries than I would have gotten if I had remained a loyal customer.

Seriously, the above is EXACTLY analogous to your argument here. It is so mindlessly ill-considered that I am struggling to believe that you can seriously think this way.

Sure, Coles needs customers, and I need groceries. But I am smaller than Coles; I need them more than they need me. If I actually did what I outline above, Coles could, perhaps, brush off the insults and harm I inflicted on them, and let me continue to shop there as an ordinary customer. That's the BEST outcome I could possibly expect though - and they could instead ban me for life from their stores. Or say that I can only shop there again if I pay them an agreed amount in damages. Both of these options leave me worse off than I was before. And if I am banned from Coles, I will need to find another place to get my groceries. Now sure, there are other places I can shop - but those places are likely more expensive, and certainly not likely to be significantly cheaper. And those places may not stock the exact brands and items that I prefer. Again, the BEST I can hope for is to be no worse off than I was before. But having seen how I acted at Coles, just how keen will Aldi or Woolworths be to have me as their customer?

The EU gains from having the UK as a member. And the UK gains from being a member of the EU. Of course the UK has costs associated with being in the EU, just as the EU has costs associated with having the UK as a member - but in BOTH cases, the benefits outweigh the costs. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts; The UK in the EU is a win-win scenario. Brexit is a lose-lose scenario.

I can claim, with some basis in fact, that being banned from Coles would save me $200/week. That does NOT make a ban from shopping at Coles something that it would be rational, reasonable or beneficial for me to seek.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The first battle is won. As predicted by free thinking skeptics, the aim of the Common Market, then the Euro-Reich was to reduce the wealth of the wealthier countries and increase some of the wealth of the poorer ones, or those who never made a go of it in the first place.

The EU provide generous grants to companies to either purchase British companies or British branches of companies and ship the labour abroad, or the companies themselves to ship the companies abroad and maximize their profits. Up to one million British people are off the unemployment register as they are on zero rated contacts.

Without such grants it would not have been financially viable to do so.

Here are some of the items I posted earlier:<snip>

Why? They don't get more relevant, less hyperbolic, or less wrong the second time around.

How is it a bad thing for companies operating in the UK to be owned by people elsewhere in the EU? Any more than it is a bad thing for a company operating in Yorkshire to be owned by people in Kent, for example?

The British fisheries were destroyed by over-fishing, under quota rules set long before the EU came into being. The EU has made some progress in allowing stocks to recover.

You haven't mentioned what it costs, largely, I suspect, because you have no clue what it costs - or even if it is in fact a net benefit to the UK.

There is no question of control of the armed forces being moved to the EU; If control of the British military by foreigners worries you, it is NATO you should be leaving, not the EU. If you can't even get the basics of what you oppose right, then why should anybody give the slightest weight to your opinion?

And the EU do NOT dictate laws to the UK without democracy. Not 55%, not 85%, not 5%. It doesn't happen, not least because the EU is democratic - why do you think they keep holding elections for MEPs? For fun??

And the EU does NOT have a veto over UK legislation. In fact, it is the reverse - as an EU member, the UK can veto some European laws unilaterally, and can veto other EU laws in concert with one or two other EU states.

You, sir, do not have a CLUE what you are talking about.

There is no problem with foreign ownership but there is when the companies are moved elsewhere with hand outs from the EU.

The European Parliament can’t propose or repeal legislation. It takes proposals only provided by the European Commission which is outside the parliamentary structure. The concept of MPs proposing and debating issues has therefore been removed. The Parliament and can debate them, and make amendments. Individual countries can be outvoted on laws affecting their own interests by other member states. EU laws, if deemed so can override British laws. Thus the MEPs do not have the same capacity in law making as MPs. Perhaps the are in part elected for fun.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership.

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government

France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy. Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million. Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.
Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

 

[bilby]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

 

[bilby]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

- - - Updated - - -

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

 

[bilby]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usdually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

- - - Updated - - -

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

Why are you changing the subject?

I don't give a shit about your latest ramblings. I want you to either support the claims you made to which I responded, or to admit that they were wrong, baseless, unfounded in reality and downright fucking stupid lies.

If you haven't got the decency to do that, then shut the fuck up.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usdually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

- - - Updated - - -

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

Why are you changing the subject?

I don't give a shit about your latest ramblings. I want you to either support the claims you made to which I responded, or to admit that they were wrong, baseless, unfounded in reality and downright fucking stupid lies.

If you haven't got the decency to do that, then shut the fuck up.

I pointed out some quality issues regarding steel, which fortunately is arrested during inspection so there is no problem. What was your point anyway.

 

[bilby]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usdually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

- - - Updated - - -

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

Why are you changing the subject?

I don't give a shit about your latest ramblings. I want you to either support the claims you made to which I responded, or to admit that they were wrong, baseless, unfounded in reality and downright fucking stupid lies.

If you haven't got the decency to do that, then shut the fuck up.

I pointed out some quality issues regarding steel, which fortunately is arrested during inspection so there is no problem. What was your point anyway.

Fuck off.

My point (as is very obvious and explicit in my earlier posts) is that you made a number of claims that were completely false, and when called on them, acted as though both the claims and their refutation never happened.

Fuck off and don't come back until you are prepared to have an honest debate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usdually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

- - - Updated - - -

So are many Australian buses. The issue here is not the EU, it is the existence of multinational corporations. Australia has never been a member of the EU, so clearly that is not the cause of those Spanish and German companies buying up our fleets here. EVEN IF foreign ownership was a problem (which it isn't), the UK's EU membership was not the cause of that change in ownership. France has by far the largest proportion of nuclear power in its generating capacity of any nation. EDF are world experts in commercial nuclear power. It is a very GOOD thing that they are contracted to build Hinkley Point C. They are amongst the best and most experienced nuclear power companies in the world.

using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

No, it hasn't. There have been exactly three incidents in the history of commercial nuclear power that could even at a stretch be described as 'catastrophic' (although two of the three did not result in a single death). NOT ONE of these three incidents was caused by the poor quality of steel. This statement is quite simply untrue.

Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Would you prefer them to cut corners on quality control?

(I worked in China and quality of Steel has been a problem) Note when met in China with a Government client in Shanghai, (2008) even he admitted welding and steel manufacturing were a problem in China. He in fact had considered purchasing steel from abroad...

So how, exactly, is the poor quality of Chinese steel a problem for or of the EU?

EDF ordered steel of specified standard. They tested the steel they received. It failed to meet the standard. They rejected it and ordered it to be replaced, which delayed the project. What part of this has ANYTHING to do with the EU at all? This is EXACTLY how things would be with or without the EU.

Commerce is global but when local jobs are lost in favour of EU grants to companies then that is a problem for any countries economy.

Why? Why do people in Yorkshire deserve jobs more than people in Kent, or Ghent, or Tashkent?

Zero contracts are increasing in the UK with estimates even reaching one million.

A fact which has exactly zero to do with the EU. Although you probably have a better chance of the EU acting to ban such work practices than you do of Westminster doing the same, so that's a point in favour of 'Remain'

Maybe it is about half that which is still a lot. I am sure even after the UK leaves the EU, EU grants for UK companies to move to the EU flock will still be on offer in some cases.

Indeed, they would likely increase, as the UK would no longer have a say in the European Parliament,

Steel is frequently purchased by stockists, especially where there are exotic requirements such as Zeron, Cunifer, INC 825 or INCOLOY 625 for specialist use. They are very expensive so not kept in stock. Sometimes they are manufactured once every few months and kept in bulk. Stockists will purchase from around the world. Problems have been discovered with amounts manufactures in China or Romania where the metal has not met the correct corrosion levels due to faults during the processing stage. Rejecting of such materials can cause delays of a few months.
However it is possible the stockist will hold other stocks, where in some cases they do their own lab testing to also test for tensile strength, and for impact testing. (Strike a test piece at below -60 deg C to ensure it does not shatter, or at very high heat levels). Any faults in the processes will result in test failure. In China and Romania quality has improved but for reliability the steel mills European countries, notably the UK, France and Italy have the best testing facilities. However an in house inspector in Dalmine admitted faking test results to save testing time, where its pipe burst during the transporting of crude Oil (Case BP Millington vs Dalmine). I looked at this case but BP Millington was at fault because it did not send its own inspector to witness the quality processes.

Such incidents are prevented in countries like the UK and Europe due to strict Quality guidelines. Test pieces from each heat number (the bulk amount treated in the furnaces) are then thoroughly tested in a laboratory.

I have no idea what this waffle is intended to do; certainly id does not even adress, much less support, the claim you made:

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations.

(my emphasis)

If this is an admission that you were wrong, it would have been a LOT quicker and less mealy-mouthed to just say "Sorry, I was wrong; There have not been any catastrophic failures in any nuclear installations caused by cheap Chinese steel".

I really don't need your long-winded commentary on how steel stockholding works, not least as I had a job for a time as a buyer for a UK steel stockholder (albeit more than 30 years ago), but mainly because it has no relevance whatever to the topic under debate.

It's about problems experienced with quality. Strict quality control is required. British steel was offering one of the most comprehensive QA programs for all its products. Other countries have developed their markets but it takes years. Purchasing standard steel is not a problem if this is for low pressure and from a well known company. In such cases the inspection certs endorsed by someone like Lloyds would be sufficient. Had the French used British or some Italian steel products (high quality and high corrosion types) then there would not have been a problem.

As a buyer you would be aware of quality requirements which would take precedence over price. Zero contracts disguise the real levels of unemployment. I was mentioning problems that occurred with the use of substandard steel.

Britain has a reputation for high quality in its specialised industries so European standards which are generally high will add no special benefit.

My point is how a French company EDF won the bid to build the Hinkley Power Plant when there are better companies in the UK

The project is now overrunning in terms of completion and escalating costs, the latter of which are usually rooted in bad engineering practices resulting in frequent design changes which affect materials add labour costs and create a time impact.

My point made earlier was this:
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

(The plant is far from built).

This really relates to French government subsidies which could be illegal
http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-04-22/french-plan-to-subsidise-edf-for-hinkley-could-be-illegal/

Your point made earlier is factually wrong on a number of counts. EDF is amongst the best in the world when it comes to engineering of commercial nuclear power plants; There may be UK companies that are their equal, but none are better. No catastrophic failure has occurred in any nuclear installation in the history of commercial nuclear power generation as a result of using cheap steel, Chinese steel, nor cheap Chinese steel. Cost and timing overruns in large engineering projects are commonplace, and they afflict British engineering companies just as they do French and other EU engineering companies. The few elements of your 'point' that are not factually wrong are irrelevant to the question of Brexit; Your 'point' is utterly without merit, and didn't rate mentioning the first time - it gets no less awful by repetition.

The project is facing several problems arising out of poor planning and possibly poor design (perhaps hastily done). Quality procedures are rarely an issue but the quality of materials has been sometimes. Fortunately this is arrested during inspection.

If there are design changes (for instance changing to a higher capacity output of power or in some cases reducing the size of some plant equipment items where space is restricted, then there may be some delays. Of course the concern would be whether a state run company is getting any subsidies disclosed or otherwise regarding this. It is clearly having problems as costs escalate. There could be various reasons for this but there should not be reasons.
I hope British industry is given some preference at least to bid. Maybe this will not change much under the current government.

Why are you changing the subject?

I don't give a shit about your latest ramblings. I want you to either support the claims you made to which I responded, or to admit that they were wrong, baseless, unfounded in reality and downright fucking stupid lies.

If you haven't got the decency to do that, then shut the fuck up.

I pointed out some quality issues regarding steel, which fortunately is arrested during inspection so there is no problem. What was your point anyway.

Fuck off.

My point (as is very obvious and explicit in my earlier posts) is that you made a number of claims that were completely false, and when called on them, acted as though both the claims and their refutation never happened.

Fuck off and don't come back until you are prepared to have an honest debate.

You are not being specific what the claims are. Maybe I missed these. However the current Nuclear project is experiencing cost problems and I would have advised any such problem to purchase only from certain suppliers. Having said that I worked for a major Chinese construction corporation and it never purchased steel from China. It used brokers in the Middle East who purchased from the European Mills. Recently however this company and parent company have purchased from Chinese Mills for 'onshore applications.' When I met with SNPC (State Nuclear Power Company) in Shanghai, in 2009, steel making and the quality of welding were issues it was facing. Fortunately it applied strict QA procedures as recommended and enforced by its BRITISH Project Management consortium.

My point is British companies can meet the same standards as the high French ones but the current project is facing problems arising out of poor planning relating to cost and time.