Of the contrary, it simply requires a basic understanding of financial/investment maths.
On the contrary, a simple understanding of the English language and the term "losing out".
You might well argue that handing over profits to the French government is an excellent idea, for whatever reason you can dream up, but Britain is "losing out" on the profit.
...basic understanding of investment maths and the beauty of free speech! Brilliant. As the "lucky winners" across La Manche would say, Bon nuit et merci de me faire rire!
ernie_lynch - Member
With the LibDems it's not so much who you ask but more what side of an election it is."some lie"
Chris Huhne - May 2007
"some other lie"
Chris Huhne - August 2010
I suspect that is quite related to who you ask 😉
You can word it how you liek they expect to make money from us and it will go to French govt owned companies and the Chinese govt
So who should we have got to build a new nuclear power station? Given that as mentioned above BNFL had been systematically dismantled (and despite commentary from the usual suspects about that being a typical private industry thing to do, it was in Labour government hands at the time) who was going to do it? Would you rather it cost us a whole lot more for out of date technology to stay within the UK (or more likely just didn't happen for another 10 years)? I understand that some on here aren't big fans of capitalism, but you could at least just admit that's the issue you have with it.
The issue i have with it is i am not a fan of capitalism
Apart from that its perfect in every way imaginable, especially if you are French 😛
and despite commentary from the usual suspects about that being a typical private industry thing to do, it was in Labour government hands at the time
Have you just discovered that New Labour privatised stuff and followed economic policies indistinguishable from the official Conservative Party aracer ?
You might be shocked to discover that still today Labour Party policy is to not nationalise the energy companies, despite the fact that opinion polls show a large majority of the public are in favour. That's right, on some issues the public are considerably more left-wing than New Labour - how amazing is that?
And if that isn't sufficient I can further shock you by pointing out that previous Tory governments nationalised quite a few companies, as well as setting some nationalised companies. Indeed one former Tory Prime Minister famously described the privatisation of the utilities as "selling the family silver".
Terribly challenging as it might seem aracer, we have to go beyond the simplistic Labour verses Conservative argument. There just isn't enough differences between them, although you've apparently only just noticed 😉
It's more an issue with Labour apparently seeing no future in nuclear (though I'd hazard a guess that the Conservatives might have actually done the same thing if in power at the time). I'm sure you knew it was a government organisation - I'm not so sure about el-bent.
My favourite "wrong party" one is still the introduction of tuition fees - I'm not sure the Torys would ever have got away with that one.
As for nationalising the energy companies, I suspect it's something the public like the theory of, but don't realise all the implications (I certainly don't so could be totally wrong about that).
I suspect it's something the public like the theory of, but don't realise all the implications
So you mean they are stupid......they're backing something which they don't understand ?
Since I suspect that you've forgotten I'll remind you why the energy companies were privatised in the first place. It was because the public, actually a small minority of people called floating voters, decided to back a party whose policies clearly included the privatisation of the energy companies, that's why they were privatised.
If the public, who apparently don't understand all the implications of such things, had not backed the policies we would still have state owned energy companies.
Presumably in your world they only "don't realise all the implications" when they back policies which you don't support ?
Btw opinion polls show that a much larger percentage of the public now back the nationalisation of the utilities than ever backed Thatcher.
And with reference to Labour seeing no future in nuclear, Tony Blair backed the building of new nuclear power stations while he was Prime Minister.
So to answer my own question....
Wikipedia: "A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year."
Assuming full power all year = 8760000 MWh/year
Therefore 324MWh/kg
or 324,000kWh/kg
So if Hinkley C supplied all my electricity, I'd be creating 7g of HLW waste per year.
"A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year."
Do you think the French and Chinese will be taking their shit with them ?
Or is that not part of the, ie, "we'll subsidise you, you take the profit, and just leave all your crap behind - we'll deal with it" ?
Junkyard - lazarus
The issue i have with it is i am not a fan of capitalism
What has that got to do with this debate? 😉
The state determines energy policy. The state awards the contract. The state negotiates on our behalf. The state fixes the long term strike price. The state guarantees financing. And if some are to be believed, other states are the main beneficiaries (sic).
Which brand of that despised thing called "capitalism" does all this fall under? If you want to see what the capitalists think, read what Jeremy Warner has to say in today's Torygraph - don't worry Ernie, you get 20 free shots there unlike the FT!
Well I've just checked and apparently they will be dumping all the nasty unpleasant stuff which no one wants, or knows what to do with, on site. According to Somerset County Council.
EDF are proposing to store spent nuclear waste on site. Somerset County Council raised this as a concern in response to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultations for a number of reasons:Waste has not previously been stored at Hinkley Point;
It would be the first nuclear proposal where on-site storage of waste has been suggested;
There is no clarity on whether the proposal to store waste on-site would include waste from other locations.
The more I learn about it the more I realise what a fantastic deal this has been for the French and Chinese governments.
see this:
robdixon - Member
... the ageing national grid ... loses 50% of the energy transmitted across it...
it's wrong, that's what it is.
we'll subsidise you, you take the profit, and just leave all your crap behind - we'll deal with it" ?
Whose crap is it? Who is using the power?
They've already mentioned it. Storing waste is a key benefit!:
A new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has the potential to provide a range of benefits, both [i] to people living in the immediate vicinity[/i] as well as those from the wider area.
[img] 
[/img]
http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/key-benefits
Look, they're planting some trees. It's all fine.
Whose crap is it? Who is using the power?
Their crap. When someone has a contact it is generally accepted that they deal with all the rubbish and left over stuff that's been created from the contract.
Perhaps you think they should also leave all the bricks, timber, steal, cement, and all the other crap left over from the construction of the power plant in a big heap next to it for someone else to clear up ?
Obviously dealing with a nuclear waste is a costly and awkward business, forcing EDF and their Chinese partners to deal with it might not make the contract so lucrative for them, and we wouldn't want that now would we ?
To have agreed subsidies that lock consumers into prices nearly double the current rate for wholesale power for 35 years – index-linked – in order to get the wretched thing built, is just plain crazy, That it is in apparent pursuit of emissions targets that few others on the world stage seem prepared to meet, further damaging British competitiveness, makes it seem crazier still. Future generations will curse the compromises made in securing this monster of a project, designed and built by foreign concerns.In signing up to them, the Government has agreed not just an inflated minimum price – bullet-proofed against anything from windfall profit taxes to rising business rates – but a state guarantee for up to £10bn of the financing costs. [b]The public sector might as well have bankrolled the whole thing itself. If ever there was a case of phoney private-sector risk bearing, this is it.[/b]
From the Torygraph article THM mentioned. So they agree with ernie - interesting....
Ernie you splitter 😉
And if some are to be believed, other states are the main beneficiaries (sic).
do you think that making a profit from it, rather than paying the costs of it, does not make them the main beneficiary?
Its rare that i agree with the capitalists [ i still dont like them arcacer] and rare that you doubt their ability to make profit.
No JY I do not for the v simple reason that there is a key difference between profits and profitability (has this been said before?) and that is important especially in investment decisions like this. It is perfectly possible to make profits but be a loser in this or any investment - basic investment maths.
One the face of it, looks like a break-even result in pure financial terms and far from a great deal for the suppliers of capital. Equally, the point of the FT and the Torygraph, this is not a humdinger for us (the Uk taxpayer) either as we have crossed what was deemed previously to be the red-line in the strike price negotiations and, given the failure of their French project, EDF were in a relatively weak bargaining position and we hardly squeezed them. But as I said in my OP, far too early to reach sensible conclusions.
So how much was a coalition panic in response to Ed's price freeze strategy? Let's hope politicians were not that short-sighted, hey?
Grum, Warner's point was that the Tories need to be more radical and that this is an effect a state run project with (in his opinion) not a great result. Can't see how that is saying the same as Ernie tbh nor that it is an indictment on capitalism.
So if Hinkley C supplied all my electricity, I'd be creating 7g of HLW waste per year.
Now try the same equation with coal and CO2....
basic investment maths
Will you ever stop with your "basic investment maths" as if it's some sort of all powerful argument clincher ?
It's got **** all to do with basic maths and everything to do with basic ideological commitment.
The reason that construction and operation of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant will be handed to French and Chinese state owned companies is because this Tory government are prisoners to their own ideology.
Of course they don't want to hand over the construction and operation of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant to French and Chinese state owned companies. Quite apart from the obvious awkward issue of the involvement of state owned companies, up until recently had anyone passed on classified information to the Chinese government about Britain's civil nuclear industry they could have expected to be hauled before the courts and denigrated in the press.
Today we have a situation where the politburo of the Chinese Communist Party no less, will be privy to the most intimate details of Britain's nuclear industry, indeed they will actually own some of its infrastructure. How embarrassing is that for them ffs ?
However the Tories find themselves in a straightjacket of their own making due to their slavish commitment to privatisation. They have no choice. Firstly there are no private companies anywhere in the world which can build and operate nuclear power plants free from any government involvement, so a government backed outfit is therefore inevitable.
Of course a "British" government backed outfit is the obvious answer, but this would be absolutely disastrous to the free-market fundamentalists who control the modern Tory Party. It would completely undermine their nonsensical claim that government involvement, specially in the utilities, is an extremely bad thing.
Government intervention must never be seen as a good thing, even after the multi-billion government bale out of the banks and financial institutions.
And so it is that we find ourselves in this ludicrous situation in which French and Chinese government backed companies can now own significant bits of our vital energy sector but British government backed companies can't.
A similar thing happened when British Rail wasn't allowed to tender for rail franchises but German and French government owned rail companies were.
Maths doesn't come into it, but ideologically motivated baloney from a bunch of free-market extremists does.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/farce-hinckley-nuclear-reactor-haunt-britain
Even George thinks they've got it wrong, by using old tech....
Wow that's quite a rant. So financing a LT capital project has nothing to do with basic investment principles/maths? Hmmm....No wonder you are so unhappy about it? Even governments (if they feel the need to be involved) usually understand the basics of investment.
How about we shouldn't ever trade with Johnny Foreigner because they get all the benefit?!?!?!?
For the second time in 24 hours,, merci de me faire rire. Now I wonder if a French Wendyball manager can put a similar smile in my face in an hour or so!
Brilliant comedy to rant about a government led and partly managed investment being an example of how government intervention must never be seen to be a good thing. Awesome.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not Basic Investment Maths that blew up the world economy a few years ago? Lets leave things to the financially innumerate.
It is perfectly possible to make profits but be a loser in this or any investment - basic investment maths
We all know you are the biggest economic brain in the room and boy do you like to tell us, but never explain so we may understand. I however have faith that , if i ask nicely, you can explain to me in a simple, clear, concise and non patronising way how you can make profit from something and still lose out.
Imagine I am bright GCSE student if it helps , perhaps a stupid A level student with wealthy parents- your choice 😉
The point is EDF are only doing it because they believe they can make a profit
Your constant suggestion that objections are xenophobic is simply an attempt to build a straw man with which to stifle legitimate points which you ignore.
Wow that's quite a rant.
That is a really dismissive way to refuse to answer his points and then go ona bout economics when his central point was about ideology.
Brilliant comedy to rant about a government led and partly managed investment being an example of how government intervention must never be seen to be a good thing. Awesome.
Marks are given for your working not simply stating something.
His point was the Tories could never be seen to be nationalising oh **** it have it in his words and , as you are want to say, play the argument/ball not the man 🙄
Of course a "British" government backed outfit is the obvious answer, but this would be absolutely disastrous to the free-market fundamentalists who control the modern Tory Party. It would completely undermine their nonsensical claim that government involvement, specially in the utilities, is an extremely bad thing
George Monibot is an idiot he thinks they should use technology never used in a major commercial reactor. No thanks. keeping big plant of any kind working safely and with good up time is serious enough business without it being experimental and that we don't fully understand.
George Monibot is an idiot
We could stop there, but its fairly safe to say he's not an engineer, but a dreamer.
So if Hinkley C supplied all my electricity, I'd be creating 7g of HLW waste per year.Now try the same equation with coal and CO2....
I'm a bit busy, can you do it?
Whack in some windmills while you're at, cheers
We could stop there, but its fairly safe to say he's not an engineer, but a dreamer.
Pretty sure we'd have something good if we used the cash from HS2 instead of burning it in an obnoxious trail across the Chilterns in trains only the very rich can afford.
Hey, we might even be able to export the design to other countries. Who'da thought it?
...but then we'd have a massively overpriced power station.
& what was your alternate proposal for the railway capacity problem?
I've scanned through the comments and one thing that keeps being stated is that EDF are the contractor, which they are not.
EDF is the 'supplier' of the facility and will manage it.
Having been involved in a number of tenders over the past 3 years for Hinkley I can inform you that the facility will be constructed in the majority by UK Civil and Mechanical Engineering Companies.
Yes a few are in joint ventures with foreign 'experts', but it's UK companies who will be the 'Contractors'.
I can inform you that the facility will be constructed in the majority by UK Civil and Mechanical Engineering Companies.
The chief government negotiator for Hinkley Point C Ed Davey has been more precise, he claims that 57% of the contract value will go to UK firms. That's a helluva lot of work and money to foreign companies in what will be a British power station supplying British consumers. But this represents a fantastic deal for Britain ?
Since you asked "so" nicely (??), I will clarify the point JY for you. But first to correct your mis-representations lets be clear about my first points:
1. Is it wrong for someone to make profits from a LT capital investment project (it isn't IMO). This developed into a profits v profitability question - see below.
2. The issue of foreign involvment and linked to that whether we are subsidising the French (the security question is another matter)
3. The slap in the face for the UK.
I addressed (3) right in my OP. But for clarity: experts estimate that we have the capability in the UK to meet 40-60% of the project. So given the (perceived) need for urgent action to address the UK energy mix, this was always going to involve some sort of foreign involvement and EDF have a world class reputation (despite current over-runs etc). Centrica were involved in the discussions but I understand that they pulled out - presumably because they couldn't make the numbers work - leaving us with no UK direct involvement. Although as 100mpplus states, a substantial UK involvement does exist in stages of the project. So hardly a slap in the face for the UK - more a reflection of where we are. Correct me if I am wrong 100mphplus, but that is my understanding.
That partly addresses (2) and highlights why the anti-French and Chines arguments are either red-herrings at best or xenophobia at worst.
So the rest of (2) and (1). Ok lets start with some definitions so that we are talking the same thing:
Profit = revenue - cost
Profit margin = profit/revenue
Profit margin (in reports in this case) = the "margin" added to household bills that is profit. Currently estimated to be @5% for UK energy companies (see recent Treasury report)
Profitability = profit/capital employed
As an identity therefore, Profitability = profit margin (profits/revenue) x asset/CE turnover (revenue/CE)
[I raise this as if these numbers are true, then PM is not the key thing either. I am no expert on energy, but if profitability is as high as some would make us believe, then this will be the result of high turnover more that what seems to be lowish PMs - but an "industry insider" will have to confirm that]
Then we have a long term investment project that is essentially a NPV calculation ie discount future cash flows from the project at an appropriate cost of capital and/or compare profitability (return on capital) against cost of capital.
[The free-market is an irrelevance here as nuclear power will never/rarely be built under free market conditions - although some US commentators argue against this. However, most accept that nulcear development requires not only political support but also direct financial support from governments. This is clearly the case here. ]
So we have a high risk, long term capital project with up-front costs and delayed revenues coupled with lots of funnies (decommissioning, changing sentiments, poor track records in delivery, accident risk etc). In other words a project that is likely to have a relatively high cost of capital. Some reports put this at 12-15% (but that seems lowish to me).
Irrespective of who is involved (private, public, joint) this is a project that is assessed on whether the return exceeds the cost of capital. (there is an assumption here, but bear with me since all the government reports start at this point).
Phew= back to the point. Profits per se are interesting but not the key factor. Why?
Assume that £100 is invested at a cost of capital of 12%. If EDF makes a profit of £10, is that a good or bad thing for them and for us? From what you are saying, I assume that you think this is a bad thing as profits (£10) are leaving the Uk and crossing the channel. I disagree. If EDF makes a profit of £10, their profitability and return on the £100 invested in 10%. Their cost 12%. So their return is -2%. Whose happy here? They get a negative return on the investment [and we get the benefit]. Merci mes amis et tant pis!
So there we have it - you can make a profit (revenue > cost) on an investment but still "lose out" if the profitability is below the cost of the capital employed - the basic investment maths bit. Now of course, estimates on both the cost of capital and the returns are subject to a great deal of variation, hence my first comment that it is absurd to draw conclusions re who is the winner and loser at this stage. And this is a gross simplification of the calculations her. And then there is an issue of whether this a good idea at all.........? 😉
But to really complicate matters, ask why the French themselves conclude that EDF has an unviable business model that tries to combine LT investment needs with energy prices held artificially low by the state. Ring a bell?
and highlights why the anti-French and Chines arguments are either red-herrings at best or xenophobia at worst.
And still you persist with your offensive and quite frankly pathetic claim that anyone who opposes the Chinese government owning vital parts of our energy infrastructure must be some sort of bigot. And you accuse me of being rude 🙄
The Chinese have no expertise to offer Britain. If UK governments can spend £billions on bale outs for the banks, and £billions in Afghanistan fighting an enemy they now want to negotiate with, then they can find the money to invest in Britain's energy infrastructure.
They choose not to do so because they do not want, for purely ideological reasons, the British government to own power stations.
It has nothing to do with economics.
In exactly the same that they don't want a British state owned company to have the franchise for the East Coast Mainline, but they are happy for a French state owned company to have it.
Most people find this unacceptable, it does not make them xenophobes.
highlights why the anti-French and Chines arguments are either red-herrings at best or xenophobia at worst.
As ernie notes it not and its daft to keep claiming xenophobic - you are not to keen on Europe or the Euro I could throw this lame accusation at you equally spuriously.
No matter how many times you throw your mud its still a red herring and a non sequitor.
Assume that £100 is invested at a cost of capital* of 12%. If EDF makes a profit of £10, is that a good or bad thing for them and for us? From what you are saying, I assume that you think this is a bad thing as profits (£10) are leaving the Uk and crossing the channel. I disagree. If EDF makes a profit of £10, their profitability and return on the £100 invested in 10%. Their cost 12%. So their return is -2%. Whose happy here? They get a negative return on the investment [and we get the benefit].
I dont know what you mean by "cost of capital"* of 12 % but as far as i can see they have made a 10% profit that you are calling a 2% loss because it is less than they expected. It less profit, not no profit, it is not a loss as its 10 % more than they have spent.
I am not "STW" here I really dont get that at all.
* Wiki
The cost of capital is the rate of return that capital could be expected to earn in an alternative investment of equivalent risk.
so they have made less profit than they could elsewhere but not actually "lost" out as such on the actual contract. I say that is profit personally just not as much as you want.
You are correct that you still do not get cost of capital.
Like any investment, this requires major debt and equity capital. [b]Both have a cost involved.[/b] For the project to make investment sense and to be viable over its life, the return has to exceed the cost.
This has nothing to do with less profit or what they expect. in fact that is 100% wrong (that is not meant to sound rude btw). But if you believe that this, "is profit personally just not as much as you want", then stay clear of the investment world. [b]You will get burnt.[/b] But as a starting point do not ignore the WIKI bit just before your quote. It's quite important, as is the opening line.
If we do not have the domestic capacity to complete this project and the UK companies don't want to participate in a consortium for whatever reason, then it is pretty pointless to carp on about foreigners getting the work. At best, it is a red herring.....as I said. Otherwise...and I'm sure that cap doesn't fit anyone here.
You are correct that you still do not get cost of capital.
Is this deliberate or do you just not realise when you do it?
Was the rest meant to make me understand or patronise me to within an inch of my life?
I learnt that apparently I should stay away from investments as I would get burnt turning my £100 into £110. I am still unclear as to WHY or what this "cost" is.
Teachings your jobs innit.
I am sure we can all see why.
the return has to exceed the cost
What is the cost of the investment then if not the £100 invested?
Again a serious question borne of confusion and the unending optimism you may explain instead of mocking.
If we do not have the domestic capacity to complete this project and the UK companies don't want to participate in a consortium for whatever reason
Really. And you talk about "red herrings".
It's almost as good as this one :
But to really complicate matters, ask why the French themselves conclude that EDF has an unviable business model that tries to combine LT investment needs with energy prices held artificially low by the state. Ring a bell?
In the style that you would use.........either disingenuous at best, or blatantly misleading at worse.
Well I have explained it once, you still got it wrong and I said that you didn't still didn't understand it - the bit you quoted. Not more I can do, if you think that is insulting then so be it. It wasnt meant to be. But yes I am so crap at teaching it that my son gets it first time. Go figure.
Just read the WIKI thing - its not great but it says the same thing. And if you want to continue to confuse profits and profitability again so be it. I tried to help. Given the last post you will excuse me if I decline to answer why £100 is not the cost of investment. But it isn't. I am sure the answer will be found (like most things?) on wiki.
Good try Ernie, I see your humour and my post on the other thread was wasted. So all that remains is Bon Nuit.
You are Michael Gove and I claim my death by patronisation
I see nothing in your answer that explains why the cost of spending £100 is not £100. I just see statements that tell me it is not BUT you have NOT told me WHY.
The cost of capital is the rate of return that capital could be expected to earn in an alternative investment of equivalent risk.
so the cost is that they could invest it elsewhere and make money elsewhere?
I am not really sure this is a cost in any real sense [ it would be a factor in any investment decision for obvious reasons [they are, generally,only in it for the money]. I am not sure this is a real cost though but I doubt we will agree on that.
I dont see how expecting 12% and getting 10% is a 2 % loss- your estimate was wrong that is all [ inserts lame joke about economists and predictions]. You cannot lose what you never had.
I am not trying to STW this at all I dont get your point - you can insult me or you can try and explain it again - its your choice.
I'll have a stab at answering the cost of capital thing - it's basically like a loan. Imagine the cash reserves of a EDF are operated as a bank. When a project like this comes along, the EDF bank "lends" money to enable the project to be delivered, and in this case does that over 10+ years before getting any returns.
The cost / return on the loan for the EDF bank is based on:
- inflation - lending £100 now and getting £100 back in 10 years time effectively represents a significant loss as £100 won't buy the same amount in ten years time. This is a time value of money factor.
- the return the EDF Bank could achieve by investing the money in something else.
So in the case of the EDF Bank, the cost of capital represents an internal "interest rate" on the money that will be set aside for the project. If that interest rate is below the amount EDF could make on another investment and does not at least track inflation, they may still make a profit i.e. getting £110 back on their £100 investment but the loss compared to the other loan / investment is also taken into account - with inflation / time value of money they would need a return of at least £120 just to break even.
teamhurtmore - Member
Given the last post you will excuse me if I decline to answer why £100 is not the cost of investment..
Nothing in the cold light of day makes me change this point and I will refrain from commenting on, "I am not really sure this is a cost in any real sense." To correct that would simply be patronising after all. But since I am by your reckoning a crap teacher, I will do what all crap teachers do and leave the angry boy to himself at the back. Better for all concerned.
Rob thank you
That made perfect sense and I now understand what we have been discussing and why there is a cost above what the investment actually is - I get the reason.
Many Thanks
THM All good teacher blame the "angry boy" when they have failed to understand. Its deffo best practice!
Just to add some info, I see an interesting page from fullfact.org that examines the profitability of electricity companies in the UK.
[url= http://www.fullfact.org/factchecks/energy_generation_profits-29248 ]fullfact.org[/url]
and highlights why the anti-French and Chines arguments are either red-herrings at best or xenophobia at worst.
Just to take a step back...
The primary role of a country's government is to protect its economy and its people.
The first problem regarding nuclear power in the UK is down to successive Tory, Labour, and now Tory governments not planning far enough ahead about major infrastructure decisions, or supporting a sufficiently skilled private industry to carry them out. This point, I grudgingly accept, can't really be pinned on Cameron.
The second problem then comes. If there isn't a suitable UK company to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations, then who do we get to do it?
Here, the answer should be obvious: the government uses its own capital to resurrect something akin to the CEGB, and we do the work ourselves, contracting in foreign companies where required. This not only maintains UK control over our energy infrastructure (isn't this the main reason we're trying to step away from gas?), but also avoids the rather sensitive security matter of foreign powers having detailed knowledge of key parts of our energy infrastructure. I don't think that anyone can argue that these two points are not good outcomes of a new plant being British made.
Choosing not to go down this path means that the current government is derelict in its primary role (to protect its economy and its people).
It's not xenophobic to say this. The UK should be investing this sort of money in its own economy, not the French and Chinese economies. As has already been said, they can certainly find the money to bail out banks and invade people when they want to. I believe they've also found 50bn to build a railway that's a little quicker than the existing one. This, I assume, won't be much use without the electricity needed to power it.
So, why are we not going down the "made in Britain" route? Well, as far as I can tell, it's a flawed idealistic reason. To me, that doesn't really justify the millstone being placed around our necks.
