Automakers Rage Against UK's Possible 'Brexit' From EU

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

A handful of European automakers are lashing out against the prospect of the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” from the European Union via referendum in 2017.

Ford Europe, Renault-Nissan and BMW have made it known there would be serious ramifications for the European auto industry and the U.K.’s role in it if the nation left the E.U. following the results of a referendum vote in 2017, The Detroit News reports. Both Ford Europe CEO Jim Farley and BMW board member Ian Robertson have said the U.K. should remain in the union for the sake of the nation’s auto industry, while Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said he would have to reconsider his company’s dealings across the Channel if the so-called Brexit became reality.

However, the trio of automakers, as well as the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), may be doing more harm to themselves by joining in the political conflict than anything the Brexit could muster upon execution. Garel Rhys, emeritus professor of Motor Industry Economics and director for Automotive Industry Research at the Cardiff Business School, explains:

It’s possible I suppose that there could be a massive trade war, with protection and trade barriers but I think that’s very unlikely. Firstly the WTO (World Trade Organization) would have a view on that. But much more importantly, Britain has a huge balance of trade deficit with the rest of the E.U.. It’s a tremendous market for E.U. countries for a whole range of goods and especially for upmarket BMWs, Audis and Porsches.

Rhys adds a free trade agreement following the Brexit would be “very, very likely” and in the best interests of both parties, saying fear of change is the main driver for the automakers opposed to the U.K.’s departure. Cimigo analyst Michael Burrage agrees with the assessment, stating the opposition should have done more research into the Brexit and its effects before sounding the alarm:

Companies with serious interests at stake should conduct risk assessments and ask if these serious consequences are likely. I don’t believe they have taken serious studies. I believe exit would be far less disturbing than these large manufactures would wish us to believe, and they need to do studies. I would listen more seriously if they showed some research. This is just off the top of their heads. It is very superficial>

The Brexit referendum in 2017 comes amid increasing disapproval among Britons with how a trade agreement approved in a 1975 referendum became loaded with political ramifications over the decades to the point, according to the U.K. Independence Party, where 70 percent of all legislation in the U.K. comes from Brussels.

[Source: Jaguar]

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 22 comments
  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on May 29, 2015

    If the UK leaves the EU this will not impact the auto industry. The only issue I can see if the UK "succeeds" from the EU is if anti competitive tariffs are put in place. This isn't viable as well as the WTO will not like this very much and the UK does tend to tow the WTO line. The auto makers especially the German's don't like this as the Germans are the largest EU vehicle manufacturers. Ghosn and the other manufacturers are playing politics. Ghosn should be more worried about the interventionist French government than a free market like the UK.

  • Lorenzo Lorenzo on May 31, 2015

    As the article pointed out, the UK leaving the EU will simply result in trade agreements taking the place of membership, with the UK free of EU regulations. In any event, the timing is important, since any time in 2017 will be in the middle of elections on the continent, and moving up to 2016 will put it in the middle of the US presidential election. From a political standpoint, earlier is better, since the glow and clout of an election victory fades over time. The Tories have already said 2017 is a deadline, not a date, and have already begun the process of setting up the referendum. If the House of Lords holds up the issue, the earliest date would be July 2016, or more likely September, when the US election is in full swing. If the Lords agree, the referendum could occur as early as next Spring. At any rate, the UK is too lucrative a market for the EU to throw up the trade barriers automakers and other industrial and financial interests fear.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next