An E8bn subsidy...

Because its so much more expensive to do in Europe. And some people will think the UK lost out here

A subsidy for 10% of the investment is a pretty good deal. Where else do governments get 1,000% return on investment?

@Geez Money

"Where else do governments get 1,000% return on investment?"

Why do you think the EU is coming out of this with return? Its more expensive to make these things in Europe. The EU will pay (aka EU tax payers will pay) to make chips the entire world can buy cheaper from Asia which means the price wont go up (they wont sell if they do) and the world gets more chips on the global market which suppresses the price. Aka the rest of the world benefits from this.

The UK will benefit from cheaper chips the EU taxpayer pays for then sells to us. We spend nothing and get the economic benefits! Our gov has just beaten 1,000% theoretical return.

> Why do you think the EU is coming out of this with return?

Usually even if you don't read the article before going on to troll the comments, you would at least read the headline...

@Geez Money

"Usually even if you don't read the article before going on to troll the comments, you would at least read the headline..."

The way I read return is money coming to you. Not money you spend. Thats not 80bn going to the EU gov. Thats 8bn of tax payer money going to intel. This is (see article) a "$77bn-revenue hardware giant" which doesnt make money by getting expensive people to do cheap work.

Sorry if you mistook that for trolling, just reasoned thought you might have missed.

You have two choices:

Build in market A, and have tariffs/shipping to market B

Or build in market B and have tariffs/shipping market A

Where market A >>> market B it's hardly a difficult choice. I am sure that sufficient skilled and educated people live in both markets...

If Intel sets up the fab lab in Ireland then they can access both the EU and the UK with virtually no red-tape for sales to the UK, thanks to the current agreement.

Looking at how quickly Britain seems to think they can unilaterally alter the agreements (looking at Northern Ireland, which is a difficult problem, we all know that, but a compromise had been found, which we all did not really like), and apparently did not plan to stick to the agreements at all, that might no longer be the case in the near future.

Sucks.

For all, especially NI. I'm old enough to remember the troubles. Apparently BoJo isn't or does not want to remember.

I lived through the troubles, and there are people on both sides who will use any excuse to create instability to further their own criminal aims. A hard border would give one lot the excuse, the current border in the Irish sea panders to them, but gives the others an excuse to make trouble.

Politicians on all sides need to take both risks into account, but with the EU happy to use the situation to stir up Brexit difficulties, and supposedly sensible folks like Varadkar throwing oil on the fire during the negotiations, it's not clear whether they understand that.

The majority in NI still want to remain in the UK, and Boris has an obligation to find a solution that will respect that choice. The EU seems unwilling to recognise that.

It's worth remembering that there is a good reason why nobody foresaw NI being a post-Brexit problem - nobody was offering us a Brexit that didn't guarantee full access to the Single Market.

Hard Brexit is the biggest bait-and-switch fraud in history.

Anybody who believed people telling them that post-Brexit Britain would be able to keep all the good parts of EU membership and dodge all the responsibilities deserves what they got. What possible reason would the EU have to do that? It's sort of like someone telling you to quit your job because they're sure you'll keep getting paid.

Yep, it's starting to look like the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. Sadly, a lot of the idiots who voted for Brexit firmly believe (now) that they voted for something they had never heard of in 2016.

"No red tape", except presumably having to have an argument with Frosty about every single shipment.

virtually no red-tape > actually no red-tape

So Intel are happier dealing with rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red-tape whereas setting up in the UK would have given them much more freedom. Yep, me thinks the EU have done an under-the-table deal here, because they definitely don't want the UK to be seen as a good place to setup business!

Yep, it is the EU. UK incapable of doing deals

Can you list any of these "rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red tape", please? Compared to the now well-understood red tape involved in shipping anything from the UK to the EU?

It's not unusual for large multi-nationals to seek subsidies to set up in a particular jurisdiction. If the UK were still in the EU, it might well have benefited from such an EU subsidy for Intel to build a fab in the UK

>rafts of EU bureaucracy and Brussels red tape

The Eu is going to force them to make chips with nanometers rather than proper British piocfurlongs

One of the funniest comments i have read in a long while, showing the utter stupidity of Brexit and their moron following.

All these little gains are stupendously over shadowed and exceeded by the losses.

You owe me a keyboard!

Would never work in the UK.

The government would give you a subsidy to build it in some depressed region that they thought might be persuaded to vote Tory.

But all the employees you need are in London.

And no people can't move, they have families. What's the partner of a fab engineer going to do in barrow-in-furness?

The employees you need for a chip fab are NOT in London. Do you even know what employees work in a chip fab?

>The employees you need for a chip fab are NOT in London. Do you even know what employees work in a chip fab?

The employees for a chip fab aren't anywhere. An $80Bn fab would need 1000s of employees, you can't just build this next door to an existing UK prototype-scale fab and rely on locals.

But having spent 30 years concentrating all the well paid jobs in London - you can't open this on a disused steelworks site in Middlesbrough and expect 1000 of scientists/programmers/engineers to move there and just have wifey be happy at home on their new suburban estate like you could when you did redevelopment policy in the 60s.

You could build this at Oxford/Cambridge/M6 but these people already vote for you.

Reminds me of an old quote, "There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane: Either you are incontinent or have diarrhea, or you're anxious to meet people who are." - Henry Kissinger

Never rated Kissinger very much, now I hear he can't even count.

Well... There is the Shipyard or the new coal mine and Selafiled is just up the road.

For that sort of high-tech manufacturing, surely it would be South Wales or the M8 corridor in Scotland?

For electronics manufacturing you're going to be much better off in the Cambridge, Newcastle or Glasgow areas than London. Shoreditch hipster web devs won't cut the mustard.

Probably not under the table. Pretty hard to get E8000000000 down that small. On the other hand the UK could offer the same subsidy without having to worry about EU competition rules.

I would imagine that Intel want to sell chips into the EEA. In which case, they will have to deal with the "rafts of EU bureaucracy" anyway. If they are in the UK, they will have to deal with UK bureaucracy plus the EU. Makes no sense.

But that then means they can freely sell to all EU countries.

If they were built in the UK, the 'red tape' would need to be done before selling to the EU.

Not only sell to EU countries. The whole supply chain - including hiring people, will be far easier. A no worry about getting enough lorry drivers to move things along...

Sadly, it was the UK who introduced most of the EU's 'red tape', and we will still be entangled by it post-brexit, but with our own uniquely-british knots tied in it, meaning that any corporate/legal strategy that works in the EU is no longer guaranteed to work in the UK. While multinationals can afford to navigate a pile of red tape for access to a market the size of Europe, they are not going to do that all over again just for our shitty little self-important island.

We're like a badly-behaved toddler smashing the toys and storming out of the playgroup and then whingeing that nobody wants to play with us.

And how would you define Macron's threats to cut off power to the Channel Islands if he doesn't get his way on fishing, when the problem lies solely with French fishermen who haven't submitted the required documents as defined by the agreement? Vive l'exception Française ?

Brexiters still trying to justify their xenophobia?

Red tape?

https://www.ft.com/content/fbc6f191-6d69-4dcb-b374-0fa6e48a9a1e

Another Brexit benefit?

That's bad news for the guys in Dublin, cars are not even B team. Wonder where all their SoC stuff has gone?

So we miss out on chips, at least we got the fish.

Check-mate, Brussels.

Brussels responds:

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Although we didn't get the fish either. Strangely enough, the UK fishing industry found that they'd been screwed over as soon as the deal was signed. How could that possibly have happened when our Glorious Leaders were promising them the world?

So, neither fish nor chips then...

We may have the fish, but we'll be eating them raw and in the dark.

from those who don't see that this is a business making a sensible business decision based on many factors e.g.:

1. Customs tariffs to largest number of customers

2. Red tape for dealing with largest number customers

3. Skilled staff

4. Stability of location (e.g. no logistical issues)

5. Grants to support the investment to make it worthwhile

6. etc

Right now for their business the UK is pretty lousy for 1, 2 and definitely 4 (may be transitory but brexit is happening and is has destabilised the UK). At this point no 5. doesn't even need to be looked at..

As demonstrated by the current lack of lorry drivers, 3 is also an increasing problem in the UK...

I thought direct Government subsidies were illegal under EU (and possibly WTO) competition law which is why "advantageous tax environments" were originally developed?

Whatever the legal situation, asking upfront for 8bn Euros is taking the urine when, after initial construction is complete, relatively few people will be employed, "trading excess" will inevitably be syphoned off to a tax haven as 'contracted IP payments' and consequently little return on "investment" will be forthcoming for the tax payer from (on paper) a very expensive but small profit fab plant ...

> Rival chipmaker TSMC has apparently started construction of several plants in Arizona

This tells you all you need to know. Forget the Brexit dogwhistle crap: Gelsinger is touring the EU (seventy sites FFS?) because he fancies a nice holiday and is making provocative statements to get some press attention back home. Once back home, there'll be a beauty competition and some US state will be suckered into offering more than the alleged 8bn Euro to host the factory, to great patriotic fanfare. Job done.

Your statement is probably hard to argue against.

We won't need chips in this country, because apparently we're going to "build back burger!".

At least according to one of the reportedly "brilliant" jokes our leader told us yesterday from the big stage only he was allowed to use at his party conference.

Fantastic news. Glad to hear the UK didnt decide to pony up money to build chips far more expensive than in Asia (Asia not in the EU yet supplies chips globally). I am also happy for the EU to think this is a win and pay to provide chips to the global market (at EU tax payers cost) for the benefit of global supply.