I wonder if they're ranked in order of likelihood of employees having voted Leave. Presumably those at the bottom of the list will be milked to subsidise those at the top.
Doubt pharma would've voted leave, overall. Science and tech. are mostly pro-remain.
...what with their people being educated.
The high-priority industries include pharmaceuticals, car manufacture, textiles and clothing, and aerospace and air transport
Probably ranked according to the size of the sweeteners that they will require if they are to remain in the UK.
Going by the chart below, then the high priorities might account for something like 30% - ~50% of our exports via value. (if you make a working assumption that aviation parts from little companies such as Rolls Royce come under "mechanical machinery" rather than "finished aircraft" and so are mostly aviation products)
I suspect the government has got a better breakdown of our trade figures than I have from googling it, and is treating the most valuable sectors first though I'm not really sure where textiles came from on the list. Where would you put telecoms on your priorities?
Pharma is very globally thinking. If anyone was already exporting (and importing) outside the EU and single market they are one industry that would be. But would also see themselves harmonised with the major markets- no bonfire of red tape there.
eg this statement from ABPI "In important areas such as medicines regulation, we believe negotiating cooperation and ALIGNMENT with the European Medicines Agency is a win-win for the UK and EU, and is the best way of ensuring patients continue to benefit from the very latest clinical developments and innovative treatments" (my emphasis)
European Medicines Agency
Currently based in London.
You can bet that won't last.
Likewise expect any Pharma that' got a European HO in Britain will move them to Europe.
"low-priority" for what?
Bit meaningless, however, telcos are mostly a local service industry with nothing to export and no competition from imports so they are relatively unaffected by brexit.
Re: "low-priority" for what?
I dunno - BT and Colt and Vodafone have big European operations that would be affected pretty badly by tariffs. It's much easier for EU based telcos to do business in Europe than it is for American or Asia Pac based ones.
Virgin is US owned and the effect of the falling pound will be that equipment costs will go up and revenue to the US parent will decline. I'd imagine the UK outfit has fallen down the investment priority list. The same is true I expect for 3 and O2 and others owned overseas - the UK businesses now generate less revenue for the owners.
If there's no workable deal on data privacy standards with the EU then a lot of UK datacentres are going to struggle as any app or service holding data on EU citizens will need to move.
Re: "low-priority" for what?
Telecoms operators are subject to a lot of regulation on what they can and can't charge for coming from the EU, like termination charges, roaming charges etc.
these make a big impact on their revenues along with the fact that they are all owned by overseas entities (in whole or part) O2 and GiffGaff by Telefonica (Spain) 3 by CK Hutchison (Hong Kong) Virgin by Liberty Media (USA) SKY by Fox (USA) EE by Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom (Germany and France) along with BT
of the top ten in the uk 2015 only Vodaphone Lyca and TalkTalk are uk owned and only Talk Talk relies on its UK operations for the most of its revenue.
At least this should put to bed the argument that the gov has no plan. Although should and will are 2 very different words.
"At least this should put to bed the argument that the gov has no plan. "
no, it doesn't - it can't. Nowhere near enough detail published to call it a list of deliverables, let alone a plan
to person who put the thumb down - have i missed something? Is there a web page somewhere i can go to, today, to tell me exactly what the plan is for cross-border trade with the EU, two years from now, including what rates of duty will be acceptable to the government for their "plan" to be considered a success? Without measurable objectives, we do not have a plan, we have maybe a wish list.
"we do not have a plan, we have maybe a wish list."
Having read May's white paper (half a year in the making, god help us with the two year deadline after signing article 50), I don't think we even have a wish list. More a vague sort of fantasy.
I see you're still attracting downvotes. To quote a movie I saw a long time ago - you can't handle the truth. The government has no serious plan, there is no coherent strategy, just a white paper that should have arrived within six days (not six months), and sounding out other countries to see about the opportunities for arranging trade agreements because I think they might have realised that that white paper is such a piece of fantastical rubbish that the EU isn't even going to bother attempting to take it seriously. I hope those people downvoting this fully understand that a number of far flung countries consider the UK to be a gateway to the European market. This is largely how Japanese companies see the UK, and if the UK is going to walk away from the EU, then there's no gateway and hence no reason to bother with the UK.
You - the British - had a cherry position. In the EU but on the sidelines so less directly involved yet still an active voice. A gateway and a financial hub. And you're intent on fucking it all up for what, exactly? How about before you hit downvote, you instead hit reply and explain this to me in a way that isn't just some moronic drivel copied from the Express, Mail, or Telegraph...?
Apart from that the white paper also admits the UK was always sovereign but that some Brits did not quite get it. I am also slightly surprised about how often the "car manufacture" is mentioned when it's totally foreign owned producing cars for the UK and the rest of the EU. I have no doubt they will in the future produce cars for the UK market but what will happen to the production for the EU market. And what about Airbus.
What a fucking mess you Brits have created for yourself and worst of all you have started to lose friends in the EU because you just cannot hide the arrogance, and that's not just at the top.
What you, May, finally have to understand is that while the UK is almost as important to the EU as France or Germany, the EU is more important to the EU than the UK is to the EU. This is not only about money there is a lot more to it,
My advice to you Brits would be to stop voting in those "Eaton" guys like Cameron, Mogg, they don't live in the past, as I have sometimes claimed, they just don't know the past is in the past.
...a number of far flung countries consider the UK to be a gateway to the European market. This is largely how Japanese companies see the UK, and if the UK is going to walk away from the EU, then there's no gateway and hence no reason to bother with the UK.
I see the point that you are making and accept that it almost certainly true. It might also have been a major factor in a (admittedly slender) majority voting "leave". Being a citizen of any country (not just the UK) means more than simply being a facilitator for manufacturers based in other countries to enhance their Bottom Line. Citizens (and thus electors) should not have to feel that they are reduced to vassal status just to make sure that global businesses get their way. This is particularly so when so many of them seems to go out of their way to minimising their tax payments to those countries where they graciously set up shop, and possibly have zero hours contracts and the like to make sure that their peasant workforce is kept on its toes. In the interests of balance I accept that bad treatment of employees is not necesarily limited to overseas businesses; plenty of home - grown ones do it as well.
Listening to the noises that came out of the US in the run - up to the Presidential Election this seems to have been a mood to which Donald Trump decided to use for his own ends; whether or not he actually achieves anything remains to be seen.
In the fullness of time we will find that Brexit was either a dreadful mistake or (as I hope) a success. However, expecting people to vote on the basis of the effect their decision might have on foreign - based businesses was and would remain a major error of judgement.
We may find that the electorates in other European countries take similar decisions in the next few months; they aren't there just for the benefit of foreign employers either. Electorates are entitled to decide on what is good for them, not simply good for overseas entities simply thinking about their own corporate benefit.
I am also slightly surprised about how often the "car manufacture" is mentioned when it's totally foreign owned producing cars for the UK and the rest of the EU.
I did a double-take at that, too, but I imagine that "car manufacture" was listed among high priority industries to appease Nissan, who are about to spend a ton of money building new production capacity in Sunderland.
This list comes from politicians, so nobody will expect it to be taken seriously ... not for long, anyway.
Nissan appear to disagree with you. You know the company; the largest Japanese owned UK employer.
"Apart from that the white paper also admits the UK was always sovereign but that some Brits did not quite get it."
It's even more damning than that. The exact wording in the White Paper was "Whilst parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that"
Well who is to blame for that? A campaign of lies about the EU, Europeans, Europe and foreigners lasting decades from the *tory* press, and a load of people in May's own party who hate the EU because it gets in the way of the way they'd really like to run the country (the glory of New Singapore).
But more damning still. Why is Parliament still going ahead with it? We all know that brexiters can't actually defend themselves with anything better than wishful thinking or unpleasant namecalling. They didn't even vote *FOR* a specific outcome. Foreigners out? New Singapore? Diametrically opposing aims. So , the much worn "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" will turn out not to be 1 in 4 of the population, but maybe 1 in 8 or one in 10...
But more damning still. Why is Parliament still going ahead with it?
Because prior to the vote they wrote to each and every household in the UK encouraging people to remain in the EU, but noting that "This is your decision, the government will implement what you decide" and the people voted to leave the EU?
We all know that brexiters can't actually defend themselves with anything better than wishful thinking or unpleasant namecalling. They didn't even vote *FOR* a specific outcome.
No, we were asked the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" with a "Yes" / "No" option, and the people voted "No".
So we didn't vote for a specific outcome. We weren't asked to.
Leaving the EU is not the same as bailing out of Europe entirely.
As for doing what the people vote for, didn't Herr May just reject any discussion regarding the 1.8M who "voted" for the government not to entertain the odious orange one...
"Leaving the EU is not the same as bailing out of Europe entirely."
The UK wont be physically moving anywhere. And since the EU is in Europe and not the other way around the UK will be in Europe. Also leaving the EU political project does not mean refusing to interact with the EU it just means leaving the club/cartel.
"As for doing what the people vote for, didn't Herr May just reject any discussion regarding the 1.8M who "voted" for the government not to entertain the odious orange one..."
There was a vote? I dont recall a referendum on the invite/arrival of trump. I remember reading something about a petition which is not a referendum or vote. Something which is in place so a group of people can petition government for a response and the gov responded. It might not be the response the petitioners wanted but if a minority could push a petition to dictate to government then we would have left the EU long ago but probably also have a volatile country that would be inconsistent daily.
We aren't bailing out of Europe. That would be quite impossible, unless you know a removals company that can literally move our landmass to a different continent. Details of what the EU is capable of offering (assuming it still exists in two years time) will come out in due course.
Personally, I thought that 1.8 million people signed a petition to have a debate in parliament about retracting an invitation for a state visit to the President of the USA, who has declared that he's an ally of Britain and his biggest foreign policy objective is to end up with a good trade deal with the UK which is beneficial to the USA as they stand to gain a lions share of the EU's share of trade with the UK (worth ~$200 billion annually?) if the EU decides to commit suicide by giving us a bad exit deal.
What sort of twit thought that the government would or should ever retract such an invitation? If we can welcome heads of state to the UK who consider machine gunning protesters is just fine, then i'm sure that we can deal with somebody who exercises their freedom of speech, and says things that some people don't like. That after all is what freedom of speech is about, it includes the freedom to make yourself sound like a prat.
"That after all is what freedom of speech is about, it includes the freedom to make yourself sound like a prat.".
Yes, but freedom of speech doesn't force anybody to listen to it (or to repeat it or to publish it).
Did he say that? Or did he mean "cost-cutting issues"?
Cross cutting sounds a bit like some kind of religious purge.
Re: "cross-cutting issues"
I thought of shredders, but I assume that it means that these mean issues that are common across a variety of different industries. Obviously analysts and their ilk have a penchant for making up new words when we already have perfectly sensible other ways of saying the same thing ("cross-industry" in this case).
So, Pharmaceuticals top of the list, Medical not a priority.
Presumably the govermnent is talking about recreational pharmaceuticals. This might explain quite a lot of recent policy.
The big story....
Is that the Conservative government is prioritizing industries by the damage they will suffer post-Brexit.
Not economic damage, of course. Political damage to the Conservatives.
Won't El'Reg hacks face jail-time for this?
referring to a 'secret' government document under the new Espionage act?
Re: Won't El'Reg hacks face jail-time for this?
No doubt. Anyone who criticises brexit is a traitor who is against THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE - all 65 million of them*
(*It's in the Brexit White Paper, therefore it is true.)
The EU referendum gives complete power for Leader May to decide what THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is on an ongoing basis from now on. Attempts to interfere with THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE will be dealt with.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
all 65 million of them
well the 51% of the 65% of them that could or could be arsed to vote
so about 21.5 million of them then.