Nissan chooses Japan over UK to build new X-Trail car

"In a letter to workers, it said continued Brexit uncertainty is not helping firms to "plan for the future". In 2016, the carmaker said it would build the new model in the UK after "assurances" from the government."

Note that word 'uncertainty' because it's very revealing (and also note the date of those 'assurances from the government' ie. 2 bloody years ago?) - because it proves the decision by Nissan was owing to the delays and other faffing around which May has incompetently presided over during the last 2 wasted effing years, and not 'Brexit' per se?? Firms like Nissan, and I wonder how many others there are, obviously need to know well in advance how to plan for their future, but it's all being propagandized to blame the Leave result - in other words, it's all a part of Project Fear? What an unmitigated disaster that we should lose a firm like Nissan and who knows what others when there was no need to lose them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47107561

"Brexit: Theresa May 'determined' to leave EU in March"

I wish she were determined to leave 10 Downing Street in March!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47105990

 

damnit nissan... Xtrail sounds like some cool offroad hybrid or something... its another stationwagon grocery getter. pffft.

 

Anyone surprised? The EU and Japan now have a free trade agreement and producing in the UK for the EU market will be too expensive.

 

We call them Chelsea tractors in the UK.

 

Not surprised at all. It's yet another thing the Remain campaign warned about that was dismissed by Leave as "project fear".

 

Me neither I guess the dawning of the end of the diesel engine has now arrived.
I bet that in 20 years time the diesel engine will be a museum piece and we'll all be driving electric kiddy carts

 

And the world will be cluttered up with nuclear power stations to supply the leccy for them? Me? At 70mpg I'll stick with diesel engines rather than risk radiation poising every time one of them goes into meltdown.

 

then I guess you'll be in the museum with them...
nuclear power goooood!!

 

Yeah, good until sommat goes wrong and there'll be nowhere to hide?

 

Humans are notoriously bad at judging risk. Risky behaviour we have become accustomed to is generally discounted whereas new risky behaviour is often exaggerated from a risk perspective.

There have been a handful of incidents involving nuclear power plants which has resulted in loss of life, and the majority of those were down to human error. The number of human casualties is in the hundreds, over the course of half a century.

OTOH thousands of people die every year as a result of diesel particulates.

Nuclear power is viewed as being high risk, diesel power is viewed as being safe.

 

I changed from petrol to diesel about 7-8 years ago because we were told the latter was safer than the former because of the MPG differential. I believed it in the equation that 2 gallons of petrol would be putting out more pollutants than 1 of diesel, and I still do believe it. Now we're being told the precise reverse, and I believe that it's a scam to increase the price of diesel per gallon to equal the cost of petrol. Once that's done, it'll be back again to the opposite 'expert advice', then politicians can keep leapfrogging the costs, using the 'But it's in the public interest' subterfuge. But anyway, radiation fallout doesn't only affect human populations in a wide area, as in Chernobyl, but it also contaminates the ground and animal life for many years, also. Nah, call me a cynic but I'll stick with the fossils thank you very much because it's the lesser of two evils.

 

Diesel has been a few pence a litre more expensive than petrol in the UK for about 10 years, as any one from the UK knows.

 

Well hey, I'm in Moscow.

 

I do not know where you are, but diesel is and has been more expensive per litre in the UK for ten years, so either you do not drive or you do not live in the UK or you are simply making stuff up.

 

It was about ten years ago that the cost of diesel increased as a result of the report. You don't think they're going to keep leapfrogging every effing week do you? That'd be too obvious what they were up to. Anyway I haven't interacted on here with you for about 3 years, and I don't intend starting now.

 

I do not expect you to start interacting at all, I merely point out the truth about things when you do not appear to know how things really are in the UK. It is quite simple you were caught out with a false statement.

 

So you changed from Petrol to Diesel a couple of years after the price of diesel started going up as a result of the report, clever!

 

Your level of scientific knowledge is well known on this board.

Not all pollutants are the same and not all pollutants have the same effect on human health.

It is true that diesels generally get better MPG figures than petrol engines (then again the gap is pretty narrow, my 1.4L Skoda Oktavia has averaged just under 55 mpg for the last 25000 miles most of them done at an indicated 80-85 mph) and so will have lower greenhouse gas emissions, but from an immediate human health perspective, it's SOx, NOx and particulates emissions which are the problem and in all of those cases, diesel engines are far, far worse.

Not really, particulates were always known to be an issue with diesel engines and health campaigners have been harping on about them, and diesel engines, for decades.

Apparently the price differential is down to global supply and demand.

The advice regarding diesel engines and particulates has been consistent for decades. For a while consumers were blinded by reduced running costs.

Which once again illustrates the gaps in your knowledge:

• Coal-fired power stations cause many times more radioactive contamination than nuclear plants https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
• Diesel emissions kill tens of thousands of people a year https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-than-thought/

 

No, the price of diesel didn't start to go up until the report had been in the public arena for a year or two, during which time I made the decision to change. Anyhoo just forget it - I remember what a sarcastic troll you are.

 

cerberus gets confused at times but give him a break - he's at least 160 years old (if his memory of people being sentenced to death for attempted murder in the UK is accurate)

 

Blah-blah, and as usual you totally misread where I'm coming from; as I've said, I don't want to be drawn into your word games and smart-ass semantics.

 

Yes, how dare I drag facts into the subject.......

Please feel free to point out where you think I have misunderstood you.

 

Looks like you've got a new follower?

 

My 180bhp Arbarth will do about 43mpg the 165bhp RZC did about 55mpg, so factoring in the fact diesel is a few pence more expensive and the difference in bhp diesel is marginally cheaper, but where this twice as far on a tank comes from I have no idea.

 

I have a 3 litre diesel-engined car that does just under 70mpg - your point is?