Thursday, October 7th 2021

Intel CEO Cites Brexit as Reason for Chip Fab Plans in UK Not an Option

In an interview with the BBC, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said that the company is no longer considering the UK as a site for a chip fab, due to Brexit, something the company had apparently done prior to Brexit. Now the company is looking for a location in another EU country for a US$95 billion investment for a new semiconductor plant, as well as upgrades to its current plants in Ireland.

Although Intel had not made any firm decisions on a site location prior to Brexit, Gelsinger is quoted as saying "I have no idea whether we would have had a superior site from the UK, but we now have about 70 proposals for sites across Europe from maybe 10 different countries." He continues "We're hopeful that we'll get to agreement on a site, as well as support from the EU... before the end of this year."
Gelsinger also talked about the current chip production imbalance in the world, pointing out that the US only produces some 12 percent of the world's semiconductors, whereas Samsung and TSMC combined, account for nearly 70 percent of the global supply. As such, Intel, as well as US and European politicians want to see a shift towards more locally produced semiconductors. Much of this is in the name of national security, but then you'd expect there to be a push for a lot more things to be produced locally in addition to just semiconductors.

There's no doubt that Intel's new-ish CEO likes to make bold statements, as he's quoted saying "This is an industry that we created in the US, Intel's the company that puts silicon into Silicon Valley," when asked if Intel can maintain its leading edge versus its Asian competitors. In all fairness, he continues "But we realise these are good companies, they're well capitalised, they're investing, they're innovating together. So we have to re-earn that right of unquestioned leadership."

In the same interview, he states that he's not expecting the current chip shortage to stabilise until 2023, although things should apparently improve come next year. In other words, expect a lot of soft packages from Santa this year and maybe even next year.
Source: BBC News
Add your own comment

100 Comments on Intel CEO Cites Brexit as Reason for Chip Fab Plans in UK Not an Option

#51
Valantar
Why_MeIt doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Intel is about to receive billions of US taxpayer dollars for a new chip foundry and part of that deal is to screw the Brits. The current US administration is no friend to democracy.

deja vu.
Uhm ... a report saying the US considers GB as "back of the queue" does not mean they are pursuing punitive deals with companies. That would be tantamount to a trade war. And "You'll get a tax break/funding/whatever if you promise to not invest in one of our major allies" is not the type of thing that any sane administration does. I wouldn't have put it past the previous US admin, but this one? Nah. You're taking one a statement claiming deprioritization ("back of the queue") and interpreting it as outright animosity. That's, at best, reading way too much into what is said.
eidairaman1The U.S. is being pushed to Marxism.
I mean, I suppose you could say the past five-ish decades of predatory capitalism (not to mention the rampant right-wing extremism of the past decade) has been pushing the US towards Marxism, but there really isn't much to indicate that. Thankfully there are a few sensible democratic socialists out there these days, and for the past couple of decades you haven't been stuck in jail with on a trumped-up charge for being slightly left-leaning in the US, so I guess that's something. But "pushed towards Marxism", no matter how that is intended, is pretty extreme.
Posted on Reply
#52
Why_Me
Xex360The stupidest thing the British government did since the war in Irak.
What exactly did the British govt. do wrong? The British govt. upheld the will of the people. That's how democracy works.
Posted on Reply
#53
AusWolf
ValantarIf I were to guess, more of the same, just worse. That's one of the inherent logics and functions of late stage capitalism, it will absorb and subsume literally anything into itself, including movements and ways of thinking that grew out of direct opposition to it. Anything can be commoditized; anything can be made reproducible and profitable as long as you're unscrupulous enough about it. That's the problem: without a clear-cut, understandable and practically applicable alternative with a clear vision, any response to the suffering our current system ensure will just lead to a slightly transformed version of the same system. We saw that after the 2008 recession, we saw that after the dot-com bubble, we largely saw that after the 2015-ish oil price crash, etc. And every change, no matter which way it goes, will be used as an argument for further deregulation and further deconstruction of government by "conservative" politicians. Economy doing well? We don't need that huge government, business can handle itself. Economy doing badly? The public sector is choking on ineffective bureaucracy, we need to cut spending. And 'round and 'round it goes, till we're left with an oligarchy that pretends to be democratic and pretends that socioeconomic mobility exists, while reality strongly contradicts that. Oh, wait, I'm describing the US now. Sorry.
Isn't that the reality already? :(
Posted on Reply
#54
Valantar
AusWolfIsn't that the reality already? :(
In some parts of the world, yes, sadly.
Why_MeWhat exactly did the British govt. do wrong? The British govt. upheld the will of the people. That's how democracy works.
Having a referendum in the first place was a harebrained idea, and one only implemented to avoid taking responsibility for something deeply unpopular (at the time) that they desperately wanted to do. What followed was a massive dishonest and xenophobia-laden propaganda campaign that barely got them across the finish line, in part due to low turnout for the remain side. So "the will of the people" is not quite as simple as you're making it sound.
Posted on Reply
#55
Why_Me
ValantarUhm ... a report saying the US considers GB as "back of the queue" does not mean they are pursuing punitive deals with companies. That would be tantamount to a trade war. And "You'll get a tax break/funding/whatever if you promise to not invest in one of our major allies" is not the type of thing that any sane administration does. I wouldn't have put it past the previous US admin, but this one? Nah. You're taking one a statement claiming deprioritization ("back of the queue") and interpreting it as outright animosity. That's, at best, reading way too much into what is said.

I mean, I suppose you could say the past five-ish decades of predatory capitalism (not to mention the rampant right-wing extremism of the past decade) has been pushing the US towards Marxism, but there really isn't much to indicate that. Thankfully there are a few sensible democratic socialists out there these days, and for the past couple of decades you haven't been stuck in jail with on a trumped-up charge for being slightly left-leaning in the US, so I guess that's something. But "pushed towards Marxism", no matter how that is intended, is pretty extreme.
You don't think the current US President at the time telling the Brits right before the Brexit vote that if they vote for Brexit they won't get a trade deal with the US isn't trying to screw over the pro Brexit Brits?

news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669
Posted on Reply
#56
AusWolf
Why_MeWhat exactly did the British govt. do wrong? The British govt. upheld the will of the people. That's how democracy works.
If you blame all your problems on the EU, and then ask the people if they want out, of course they'll say yes. The whole binary voting system is manipulated.

If you ask the Brits now if they want to get rid of Boris, they'll say yes. Even I will. But then the next a-hole comes around who craps all over us even more. That's democracy for you.
Posted on Reply
#57
Why_Me
AusWolfIf you blame all your problems on the EU, and then ask the people if they want out, of course they'll say yes. The whole binary voting system is manipulated.
The pro Brexit crowd had one tenth of the money to work with before election than what the pro EU crowd had at the time. tbh western Europeans aren't hip to how real democracy works hence the reason the only ones allowed to write new laws in Brussels are unelected politicians who failed in their own home country.
ValantarIn some parts of the world, yes, sadly.

Having a referendum in the first place was a harebrained idea, and one only implemented to avoid taking responsibility for something deeply unpopular (at the time) that they desperately wanted to do. What followed was a massive dishonest and xenophobia-laden propaganda campaign that barely got them across the finish line, in part due to low turnout for the remain side. So "the will of the people" is not quite as simple as you're making it sound.
Yet it is simple. More Brits voted in favor of Brexit than voted to stay in the EU. That's how that works and as far as running a dishonest campaign .. one only needs to watch the Farage vs Campbell debate to see what side was shady.
Posted on Reply
#58
AusWolf
Why_MeThe pro Brexit crowd had one tenth of the money to work with before election than what the pro EU crowd had at the time. tbh western Europeans aren't hip to how real democracy works hence the reason the only ones allowed to write new laws in Brussels are unelected politicians who failed in their own home country.
I'm not saying that I agree with the way the EU works politically, but leaving has far worse economic consequences than staying. Signs were visible pre-brexit, but the public is good at ignoring them and listening to the propaganda instead.
Posted on Reply
#59
Why_Me
AusWolfI'm not saying that I agree with the way the EU works politically, but leaving has far worse economic consequences than staying. Signs were visible pre-brexit, but the public is good at ignoring them and listening to the propaganda instead.
I've worked with plenty of Brits during my time (BP) and that lot would be the last ones to allow the likes of Brussels (Berlin) to call the shots. They're all about independence. Of course those lads didn't mind getting their hands dirty ... as in they weren't desk jockeys.
Posted on Reply
#60
Nephilim666
FluffmeisterMy spider senses are tingling.


They won't do anything of course, especially now Australia will get decent subs.
...in 2040... that they can't refuel.
Posted on Reply
#61
AusWolf
Why_MeI've worked with plenty of Brits during my time (BP) and that lot would be the last ones to allow the likes of Brussels (Berlin) to call the shots. They're all about independence. Of course those lads didn't mind getting their hands dirty ... as in they weren't desk jockeys.
I don't like the 4th Reich Brussels/Berlin calling the shots either, but purposefully missing out on being part of one of the world's largest economic entities is a whole different thing.
Why_MeWhat exactly did the British govt. do wrong? The British govt. upheld the will of the people. That's how democracy works.
What they did wrong is they used the negative side of immigration to incite hate against the EU, and then used the angry mob's vote as an excuse to leave. It's called manipulation, that's what they did wrong, and that's why I'm saying that democracy doesn't work. The majority's opinion will always correlate to what they see and hear in the (government-controlled) media, which makes voting totally pointless.
Posted on Reply
#62
lynx29
TheLostSwedeIt's been going on for years, they just stepped it up to the highest level ever around the PRC national day.

The PRC is making threats all the time, but more and more nations seem to be fed up with it and are telling the PRC to stop being childish. It's really a 50/50 chance that something will happen, but according to local reports, the PLA isn't quite at a point where they could do it.
www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics/us-submarine-collision-south-china-sea/index.html

just read this tonight. at the bottom of this article just posted tonight... China is threatening to invade Taiwan in 2025 (a Taiwan minister claims)

crazy as ****. i really hope we don't see WW3 in our lifetime, ffs can't we all just get along and have a wank before bed. and some ice cream. i mean seriously that's all we need at the end of the day. LOL
Nephilim666...in 2040... that they can't refuel.
hypersonic missiles are the future, not nuclear submarines. the race is on to who gets there first. Russia already claims to have one but no one knows for sure. USA and China also very close to getting hypersonic missiles, will make traditional nukes obsolete, and we will enter a new cold war 3.0.
Posted on Reply
#63
R-T-B
The Quim ReaperBBC reporter goes fishing for anti Brexit headline.

Shock! Horror!



..Quickly followed by the resident TechPower UP Remoaner Twats, saying why a democratic referendum should be ignored....because they know better than the horrid little working class plebs, that don't agree with their self entitled, Middle Class World view.
I mean Brexit isn't exactly going well. That's really all that's needed to be known. You voted for it. Cool. You voted for something that was a bad idea. Quit being surprised people are calling you out on it, you're a big country now.
lynx29www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics/us-submarine-collision-south-china-sea/index.html

just read this tonight. at the bottom of this article just posted tonight... China is threatening to invade Taiwan in 2025 (a Taiwan minister claims)

crazy as ****. i really hope we don't see WW3 in our lifetime, ffs can't we all just get along and have a wank before bed. and some ice cream. i mean seriously that's all we need at the end of the day. LOL



hypersonic missiles are the future, not nuclear submarines. the race is on to who gets there first. Russia already claims to have one but no one knows for sure. USA and China also very close to getting hypersonic missiles, will make traditional nukes obsolete, and we will enter a new cold war 3.0.
You guys are so far offtopic you aren't even in the right continent.
eidairaman1The U.S. is being pushed to Marxism.
By what, an incredibly slow snail?
Posted on Reply
#64
XiGMAKiD
Unless China is willing to give up their current economic prosperity and everything that comes with it there won't be WW3, ever.

/OOT
Posted on Reply
#65
Valantar
Why_MeThe pro Brexit crowd had one tenth of the money to work with before election than what the pro EU crowd had at the time.
Wait, what? Yes, the remain side spent more in sum, but 1/10th? Don't be absurd. 2/3rds is more accurate. The Leave campaign organization outspent the remain campaign organization, but Labor and the Lib Dems combined spent more than the remain campaign again, putting Remain ahead in spending. My point in bringing up funding wasn't due to funding discrepancies, but to underscore that (regardless of opposing campaigns) the leave campagin was an extremely well-funded propaganda campaign. Money wasn't the reason why they won, but if they hadn't had money, their highly selective and misleading "arguments" would never have reached people in the first place.
Why_Metbh western Europeans aren't hip to how real democracy works hence the reason the only ones allowed to write new laws in Brussels are unelected politicians who failed in their own home country.
I have to ask: if western europe doesn't understand democracy, who does? I completely agree that the EU has a severe and fundamental democratic problem - the per-country veto right is an abomination, and should have been abolished long ago - but despite this the overall effect of the EU through its history has been a promotion of democracy and cooperation. It's just consistently failed to evolve as needed, and has especially in the past decade promoted a harmful and divisive form of mandated neoliberalism and auterity politics (which are two sides of the same coin).
Why_MeYet it is simple. More Brits voted in favor of Brexit than voted to stay in the EU. That's how that works and as far as running a dishonest campaign .. one only needs to watch the Farage vs Campbell debate to see what side was shady.
So it's simple because you liked the outcome? Cool. Also, presenting Nigel Farage as anything but the xenophobic clown he is ... sigh. That he was for a time a prominent political figure just shows how deeply damaged British democracy has become. That you're insisting on overlooking the process that led to the result just underscores that you're not actually interested in anything but supporting your view - politics is a process, and any single snapshot in time will always be misleding, including election results, and especially highly contested referenda on complex, poorly understood and highly propagandized subjects.

One can absolutely argue that the EU has some deeply problematic sides, but saying that a poorly (or not at all) thought out "independence" movement fuelled by xenophobia, gross misrepresentations of truth ("Britain sends the EU X amount of money" implying that they get nothing nearly equivalent back; "EU immigrants are taking our jobs" while those jobs are generally not wanted by brits; etc.) and a political climate focusing on conflict and sensationalism rather than informing the public and debating the topic is somehow better, or less problematic than the EU? Yeah, sorry, you're going to have to back that up somehow.
Why_MeYou don't think the current US President at the time telling the Brits right before the Brexit vote that if they vote for Brexit they won't get a trade deal with the US isn't trying to screw over the pro Brexit Brits?

news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669
Again: you're claiming that this is an expressly punitive action by the US, that they have made a concrete deal with Intel to not invest in Britain due to Brexit. That is in no way the same as saying "If you do this, trade is going to suffer, and we can't prioritize you like we have been". If you can't understand the difference between those two, then I really can't help you. Lowering or removing support is not even close to the same as taking further punitive action. To put it into a metaphor that you might understand: If I've been buying all my fruit from your store, but say that I will no longer do so because of your actions, that is equivalent to what the US said in the source you quoted. What you are claiming is that they will mo longer do so, but will also go to all their friends and acquaintances and tell them to not buy fruit from you as well. There is nothing in the source you shared indicating that the latter is the case. And further, as I said, this would be tantamount to a trade war: implementing punitive trade sanctions towards another country. And while the US does love their trade wars, I sincerely doubt they'd want to sour relations to perhaps their closest international military and diplomatic ally through doing that against them. That would be pretty idiotic.
Posted on Reply
#66
ARF
Although Intel had not made any firm decisions on a site location prior to Brexit, Gelsinger is quoted as saying "I have no idea whether we would have had a superior site from the UK, but we now have about 70 proposals for sites across Europe from maybe 10 different countries."
Make the new Plant in Bulgaria!
Posted on Reply
#67
LemmingOverlord
Why_MeThe pro Brexit crowd had one tenth of the money to work with before election than what the pro EU crowd had at the time. tbh western Europeans aren't hip to how real democracy works hence the reason the only ones allowed to write new laws in Brussels are unelected politicians who failed in their own home country.


Yet it is simple. More Brits voted in favor of Brexit than voted to stay in the EU. That's how that works and as far as running a dishonest campaign .. one only needs to watch the Farage vs Campbell debate to see what side was shady.
I was born and lived 40 years in an EU country. I've been living in the UK for that past 18 months. I still watch a lot of news from "back home".

The EU is running a punitive campaign to make the UK irrelevant in all European matters (let me just mention that the EU <> Europe), because it is in a fight for its own survival. The UK needs to be made an example to all would-be Brussels detractors. Brexit is the latest marketing moniker for everything negative about the UK.

Sadly, for all of Europe's "fairness" and "openness", the smear campaign is real. EU politicians openly make disparaging comments about the UK and the British people on account of Brexit, and then are two-faced about it when they rely on Britons to visit their country as tourists.

On the other hand, the EU opposition to Nvidia's ARM takeover is a direct consequence of Brexit. The EU is afraid the bloc loses access to that IP, as ARM is headquartered in the UK. It will force Nvidia's hand to allow the IP to circulate and maybe even be re-headquartered in an EU country, rather than the UK. They won't make the claim outright, as the UK Competition & Markets Authority could nix the deal too, but they'll force Nvidia to provide guarantees the EU bloc isn't left out to dry.

Just wait and see
Posted on Reply
#68
ARF
LemmingOverlordOn the other hand, the EU opposition to Nvidia's ARM takeover is a direct consequence of Brexit. The EU is afraid the bloc loses access to that IP, as ARM is headquartered in the UK. It will force Nvidia's hand to allow the IP to circulate and maybe even be re-headquartered in an EU country, rather than the UK. They won't make the claim outright, as the UK Competition & Markets Authority could nix the deal too, but they'll force Nvidia to provide guarantees the EU bloc isn't left out to dry.

Just wait and see
No one sane would give a green light to that deal.
It is evil in its nature, everything with Nvidia, by the way.

The world will be a better place without this company.
Posted on Reply
#69
lynx29
R-T-BI mean Brexit isn't exactly going well. That's really all that's needed to be known. You voted for it. Cool. You voted for something that was a bad idea. Quit being surprised people are calling you out on it, you're a big country now.


You guys are so far offtopic you aren't even in the right continent.


By what, an incredibly slow snail?
the topic creator and staff member has engaged in discourse in this thread regarding the topic at hand, and so when I read that article I felt I could share it here and it no longer would be off-topic, whatever happened to just having conversations? this hyper focus on topic only is nonsense, if people are engaging and conversations grow organically then so be it.

regardless I care not, for I am leaving this site soon as I am now going from 52 hr work weeks to close to 70 and possibly buying my first house very soon.
Posted on Reply
#70
Valantar
LemmingOverlordI was born and lived 40 years in an EU country. I've been living in the UK for that past 18 months. I still watch a lot of news from "back home".

The EU is running a punitive campaign to make the UK irrelevant in all European matters (let me just mention that the EU <> Europe), because it is in a fight for its own survival. The UK needs to be made an example to all would-be Brussels detractors. Brexit is the latest marketing moniker for everything negative about the UK.

Sadly, for all of Europe's "fairness" and "openness", the smear campaign is real. EU politicians openly make disparaging comments about the UK and the British people on account of Brexit, and then are two-faced about it when they rely on Britons to visit their country as tourists.
This is IMO some very, very strange logic. You're quite explicit here in placing blame in only one direction. Yet Brexit was initiated and enacted purely by the British. Is it not reasonable for that to garner a reaction? If you leave a cooperative entity, partially through a referendum dominated by propagandist rhetoric that paints said entity as one that is effectively stealing from you and robbing you of your freedom, is it not then reasonable for that entity to no longer want to cooperate with you? Isn't that what Brexit was trying to achieve in the first place - independence at any cost?

You could always discuss why parts of the British political system were staunchly opposed to EU membership (which I for the most part would put down to a mixture of misguided nostalgia for imperialist Britain, a strong xenophobic undercurrent, and a strong desire for less oversight by a certain class of the super-rich - but to be clear, this reasoning applies to those in power, not the populace at large), and some fraction of this can no doubt be attributed to the EU's core democratic problems, but attributing the majority of blame for Brexit on the EU is frankly ridiculous.

I'm by no means an out-and-out EU supporter - I would say I'm deeply ambiguous about it on many, many levels - but in this case you're essentially arguing that the EU should be gracious and generous towards someone who, in effect, stood up, shouted "screw all of you a**holes", and walked backwards out the door with both middle fingers raised towards the room. Why on earth would the EU have any incentive to not be reticent towards further cooperation with Britain?

As for that two-facedness, doesn't that go both ways? Aren't the British people and government deeply two-faced by saying "we really don't want to cooperate with you, but we want to sell our goods to you and travel to your countries as tourists"?

That's the thing: The EU doesn't need to change anything to make the UK irrelevant. Voluntarily leaving the biggest cooperative governmental entity on the planet does that all on its own. The EU might be kicking them while they're down, but the faceplant that preceded this was entirely the UK's fault. Britain chose to not try and improve the cooperative organization they were a part of, instead choosing to set out on their own and forge their own, new alliances. Despite warnings from literally everyone that this would not go well - as a single, mid-sized country they don't have much bargaining power, after all. They are now seeing just how difficult that choice was - just like they were warned. This is not reciprocity, this is normal and expected. What we are seeing is not mistreatment of the UK, it is the absence of preferential treatment - which parts of the British political class firmly believed they would get due to some misdirected, imagined "greatness" that they held onto. That this didn't exist outside of their imaginations? That's their own fault.
LemmingOverlordOn the other hand, the EU opposition to Nvidia's ARM takeover is a direct consequence of Brexit. The EU is afraid the bloc loses access to that IP, as ARM is headquartered in the UK. It will force Nvidia's hand to allow the IP to circulate and maybe even be re-headquartered in an EU country, rather than the UK. They won't make the claim outright, as the UK Competition & Markets Authority could nix the deal too, but they'll force Nvidia to provide guarantees the EU bloc isn't left out to dry.

Just wait and see
This, quite frankly, is absurd. It does not make sense logically. ARM is a British company. If nothing had happened, i.e. if Nvidia didn't want to buy them, they would be headquartered there for the foreseeable future. The status quo is ARM outside of the EU, as Brexit has happened. That is the current status quo. If the EU wants ARM in their territories, why would they oppose the one major and predictable change that might lead to a new HQ or more distributed presence? Your logic here does just not add up. A more reasonable argument would be opposing an Nvidia takeover to want to keep ARM headquartered in Europe (rather than it moving to, say, Taiwan). But then, due to Brexit, the EU has no self-serving incentive to do so - so if they are opposing the takeover, it can't logically be for self-serving reasons, if those reasons don't also include helping Britain keep ARM HQ'd there.
Posted on Reply
#71
LemmingOverlord
@Valantar
This is IMO some very, very strange logic. You're quite explicit here in placing blame in only one direction. Yet Brexit was initiated and enacted purely by the British. Is it not reasonable for that to garner a reaction? If you leave a cooperative entity, partially through a referendum dominated by propagandist rhetoric that paints said entity as one that is effectively stealing from you and robbing you of your freedom, is it not then reasonable for that entity to no longer want to cooperate with you? Isn't that what Brexit was trying to achieve in the first place - independence at any cost?
Uhm, no. You're incorrect. The EU made provisions for a member retiring from the EU. It's in the Treaty of Lisbon. The UK invoked that clause and the process is written in the treaty. It's also not about "independence at any cost". I'm not sure where you heard that bs. The goal of Brexit was to remove the UK from the EU bureaucracy and establish a trade deal identical to the one Norway has with the EU. The trade deal is for both sides. It's not one-sided. EU goods in the UK, UK goods in the EU. The EU, on its side, has agreed to this, but imposed a number of bureaucratic measures that effectively slow down trade... measures that are not in place for Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Worse, UK and EU regulations are still very much a carbon copy of each other, so what... we reached the Brexit deadline and suddenly the regulations in the UK are no longer of a similar quality to those in the EU, when they are literally identical?

I'm not saying no-one is butthurt about it. I'm saying that it's a divorce and should be conducted in a civil manner.

As for the referendum being propagandist rhetoric, you're free to paint it any way you want. I saw scaremongering on both sides of the referendum, and not any different from any elections I've seen across Europe. Possibly the main difference was that there was (and still is) weak leadership on both sides.

As for...
This, quite frankly, is absurd. It does not make sense logically. ARM is a British company. If nothing had happened, i.e. if Nvidia didn't want to buy them, they would be headquartered there for the foreseeable future. The status quo is ARM outside of the EU, as Brexit has happened. That is the current status quo. If the EU wants ARM in their territories, why would they oppose the one major and predictable change that might lead to a new HQ or more distributed presence? Your logic here does just not add up. A more reasonable argument would be opposing an Nvidia takeover to want to keep ARM headquartered in Europe (rather than it moving to, say, Taiwan). But then, due to Brexit, the EU has no self-serving incentive to do so - so if they are opposing the takeover, it can't logically be for self-serving reasons, if those reasons don't also include helping Britain keep ARM HQ'd there.
How is that absurd? As it stands, with the Nvidia takeover of ARM (and there is no reason for Nvidia to move the HQ from Cambridge), the UK would be in a position to tax companies in Europe when they license ARM IP, right? But the EU has the ability to sabotage the sale... So the EU uses this leverage to secure advantages for the bloc, going forward. It's a game. Nvidia has investors to account to. A $54bn that gets deflated because someone slams shut a >500 million consumer door is a big deal. No-one wants that to happen. Nvidia, UK or the EU. So they're now settling into the negotiation stage where the EU will try and get Nvidia to (I believe) open up labs in the EU and nominally "develop" something worthwhile there that the EU can claim to be "designed in the EU", just to avoid burying billions in a homebrew CPU architecture or RISC-V. I see this as the EU hedging its bets. You're free to disagree, of course.
Posted on Reply
#72
R-T-B
lynx29the topic creator and staff member has engaged in discourse in this thread regarding the topic at hand, and so when I read that article I felt I could share it here and it no longer would be off-topic, whatever happened to just having conversations? this hyper focus on topic only is nonsense, if people are engaging and conversations grow organically then so be it.

regardless I care not, for I am leaving this site soon as I am now going from 52 hr work weeks to close to 70 and possibly buying my first house very soon.
It's just the rules. I don't mean it critically, more as a reminder.

Miss ya if you go man. You've always had an interesting take, but I get real life and all that.
Posted on Reply
#73
HCT3000
What a load of trash, the UK have a trade agreement with the EU, it would have made no difference had they built one there. We should be keeping the investment in the US, that's a lot of $ that could secure a lot of jobs, let their own governments invest in their own fabs.
ValantarI mean, it doesn't take genius-level logic to understand that "billion-dollar investment for production of export-oriented products in a country with no functional trade deals and no foreseeable path towards them" is a pretty bad idea.
Have you been living under a rock man... Well for a start, they have a trade deal with the EU, they also have a better trade deal with Japan than the EU do, they've just signed a trade deal with Australia and they've just applied to join the CPTPP.

Google is your friend...

"As of July 2021, the United Kingdom has concluded three new trade agreements: with Japan; with its biggest trading partner, the EU; and with Australia. In addition, it has agreed 35 'trade continuity agreements' (that replicate their pre-existing agreements with the EU) covering 67 nations by June 2021. In addition, it has begun other negotiations, notably to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The current Johnson ministry describes itself as a proponent of free trade.[1][2]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_agreements_of_the_United_Kingdom
Posted on Reply
#74
Why_Me
ValantarWait, what? Yes, the remain side spent more in sum, but 1/10th? Don't be absurd. 2/3rds is more accurate. The Leave campaign organization outspent the remain campaign organization, but Labor and the Lib Dems combined spent more than the remain campaign again, putting Remain ahead in spending. My point in bringing up funding wasn't due to funding discrepancies, but to underscore that (regardless of opposing campaigns) the leave campagin was an extremely well-funded propaganda campaign. Money wasn't the reason why they won, but if they hadn't had money, their highly selective and misleading "arguments" would never have reached people in the first place.

I have to ask: if western europe doesn't understand democracy, who does? I completely agree that the EU has a severe and fundamental democratic problem - the per-country veto right is an abomination, and should have been abolished long ago - but despite this the overall effect of the EU through its history has been a promotion of democracy and cooperation. It's just consistently failed to evolve as needed, and has especially in the past decade promoted a harmful and divisive form of mandated neoliberalism and auterity politics (which are two sides of the same coin).

So it's simple because you liked the outcome? Cool. Also, presenting Nigel Farage as anything but the xenophobic clown he is ... sigh. That he was for a time a prominent political figure just shows how deeply damaged British democracy has become. That you're insisting on overlooking the process that led to the result just underscores that you're not actually interested in anything but supporting your view - politics is a process, and any single snapshot in time will always be misleding, including election results, and especially highly contested referenda on complex, poorly understood and highly propagandized subjects.

One can absolutely argue that the EU has some deeply problematic sides, but saying that a poorly (or not at all) thought out "independence" movement fuelled by xenophobia, gross misrepresentations of truth ("Britain sends the EU X amount of money" implying that they get nothing nearly equivalent back; "EU immigrants are taking our jobs" while those jobs are generally not wanted by brits; etc.) and a political climate focusing on conflict and sensationalism rather than informing the public and debating the topic is somehow better, or less problematic than the EU? Yeah, sorry, you're going to have to back that up somehow.

Again: you're claiming that this is an expressly punitive action by the US, that they have made a concrete deal with Intel to not invest in Britain due to Brexit. That is in no way the same as saying "If you do this, trade is going to suffer, and we can't prioritize you like we have been". If you can't understand the difference between those two, then I really can't help you. Lowering or removing support is not even close to the same as taking further punitive action. To put it into a metaphor that you might understand: If I've been buying all my fruit from your store, but say that I will no longer do so because of your actions, that is equivalent to what the US said in the source you quoted. What you are claiming is that they will mo longer do so, but will also go to all their friends and acquaintances and tell them to not buy fruit from you as well. There is nothing in the source you shared indicating that the latter is the case. And further, as I said, this would be tantamount to a trade war: implementing punitive trade sanctions towards another country. And while the US does love their trade wars, I sincerely doubt they'd want to sour relations to perhaps their closest international military and diplomatic ally through doing that against them. That would be pretty idiotic.
The EU wouldn't even qualify as a democracy under their own made up rules. They are a protectionist outfit at best. A pseudo United States of Europe that doesn't even have a suitable military. As far as trade wars go .. the US under Trump offered the EU a tariff free trade deal and of course the EU turned the US down ... due to the fact the EU hoses the US in tariffs. Right now the UK is being punished by the globalist but the Brits are tough enough to weather this out. Unlike western Europeans, most Americans couldn't fathom the idea of some unelected officials in Brussels calling the shots for us including the EU courts. btw seeing how you think Farage is xenophobic I'm guessing you feel the same way about Viktor Orban for the simple fact he believes his country should be able to control their borders as in Hungary is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government.
Posted on Reply
#75
claes
Why_Mebtw seeing how you think Farage is xenophobic I'm guessing you feel the same way about Viktor Orban for the simple fact he believes his country should be able to control their borders as in Hungary is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government.
Uhhh yeah lol, they’re both openly committed to the great replacement theory, Farage even cites the Rivers of Blood speech as a keystone of his politics… They’re not exactly shy about it lol, and Hungary is a textbook example of democratic backsliding in most political science courses…
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment