Oxford Mini weighed down by 'post-Brexit red tape'
A group of Liberal Democrat MPs are calling on the government to take urgent action over "post-Brexit red tape" in order to safeguard the future of jobs at Oxford's Mini plant.The MPs met with management and union representatives on Monday in the wake of the manufacturer BMW's decision to delay the reintroduction of electric vehicle making there.Last month BMW said "multiple uncertainties facing the automotive industry" had led to its decision to pause work on the £600m upgrade of the Cowley plant.Calum Miller, MP for Bicester and Woodstock, told the BBC that many of his constituents working at the plant are worried for their jobs.
He said: "Because of the way Brexit has been implemented, hundreds of pages of paperwork need to be completed just for one car. "If we can do more to work with our European partners to reduce that burden, then it will be easier for BMW to make the right decision and invest in the plant's future in Oxford."Freddie van Mierlo, MP for Henley and Thame, also attended the meeting and described the lack of investment in infrastructure as worrying."The charging infrastructure simply isn't there and we haven't seen the capacity built for battery manufacture in the UK, and that is causing problems," he said.The MPs say their discussions were "fruitful" and they plan to meet the Minister for Industry in April to press for clarity on the government's plans for the car industry.
2030 deadline
In 2023 BMW announced plans to invest hundreds of millions of pounds to prepare the factory to build a new generation of electric cars.Production of two new electric Mini models was due to begin at the plant in 2026.The industry has been in a long-running debate with the government over its targets for electric vehicle production, with manufacturers saying they will not be able to meet the current targets.The Department for Transport (DfT) said it recognised the challenges they were facing and was listening to concerns.It said it was consulting on "reinstating the 2030 electric vehicle deadline while also protecting jobs", a decision it said was "supported by a majority of manufacturers who have been working towards this date and are on track to meet their zero emission vehicle mandate targets".The DfT said it was investing more than £2.3bn to support industry and consumers to make the switch to electric.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
19 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer
A Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under a field in Cambridgeshire has been bought by a trust with the intention of preserving it as a historic site. Norman Cross, the world's first purpose-built prisoner of war camp, was privately owned by a farmer, and has been bought by Nene Park Trust. Located near Peterborough, it contains the remains of around 1,770 French, Dutch and German soldiers captured in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars fought between the French and other European nations. The trust says it wants to preserve the site and make it available to the public as a historic and green space. The camp now lies barely visible under a field used for arable crops and grazing. But it previously held a self-contained town, with barracks, offices, a hospital, school, marketplace and banking system, according to historian Paul Chamberlain. It operated from 1797 to 1814 and housed around 7,000 French prisoners. The location was chosen because it was far from the sea, making it difficult for any escapees to return to France. Prisoners made intricate models from bone, wood and straw to sell at the camp market and trade for food, tobacco and wine. Around 800 of these artefacts, which include miniature ships and chateaus, are on display at the nearby Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery. The trust received £200,000 of grant funding from Historic England and £50,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to buy the camp following years of negotiations. Its acquisition was fought for by resident Derek Lopez, who owned the Norman Cross Gallery near Yaxley and was an advocate of Peterborough's history. He died last year before seeing the sale complete. Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England, said: 'The Norman Cross prisoner of war camp represents a pivotal moment in our shared European heritage that deserves to be better known.' Matthew Bradbury, chief executive of Nene Park Trust, said he was 'delighted' to take on the ownership of Norman Cross and wanted 'to share its green space and unique stories for generations to come'. Heritage minister Baroness Twycross said: 'Norman Cross represents a poignant chapter in our shared European story. 'The remarkable stories of those held in what was the first purpose-built prisoner of war camp should be remembered now and in the future. 'This partnership has secured this valuable heritage site for generations to come.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
OnlyFans is giving HMRC what it wants
Fenix International occupies the ninth floor of an innocuous office block on London's Cheapside. The street's name comes from the Old English for marketplace, and once upon a time Cheapside was just that: London's biggest meat market with butcher shops lining either side of the road. Today, the street houses financial institutions and corporate HQs. But Fenix still runs a marketplace. Some may even call it a meat market, albeit one that operates on the phones of hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Its name: OnlyFans. OnlyFans is best understood not just as a porn site, but as a social media platform with a paywall. Creators – mostly women – post photos, videos and voice notes behind monthly subscriptions. Users pay extra to tip the women, customise content and have one-to-one chats with their favourite models. Not everything on OnlyFans is X-rated, but that's the content that makes the money. An entire ecosystem has grown around OnlyFans since it was founded nine years ago by two British brothers, Tim and Thomas Stokely. One 'e-pimp' explained that successful models outsource much of their work to offshore call centres to give the illusion of intimacy with customers. Low-paid workers in Venezuela or the Philippines are hired to impersonate creators over text chats, maintaining dozens, even hundreds, of relationships with lonely men. OnlyFans' profits are enormous. In 2023, it generated nearly £5 billion in sales – up more than 2,000 per cent in four years. The company paid £127 million in tax last year, £110 million of that in corporation tax. Because Fenix is based in London, the bulk of that cash is flowing straight into the Treasury. For comparison: Britain's fishing industry – supposedly a red-line issue in Brexit – brings in just £876 million and pays next to nothing in corporation tax, while also receiving £180 million a year in tax concessions. We don't think of OnlyFans as a media company (if we think of it at all) and so we ignore what it is in business terms: a staggering success. With more than four million 'content creators' and 305 million subscribers, it would easily rank in the top three British publishing companies. It is perhaps the most successful creator-based subscription service ever. Traditional platforms can't compete – OnlyFans' revenues are twice that of North America's Aylo, which operates the world's biggest porn websites. Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting. The Office for National Statistics estimates Britons spend in excess of £6 billion annually on it. It is one of the few British industries which remains a net (digital) exporter. Indeed, OnlyFans is perhaps the strongest unicorn (a privately held start-up worth more than $1 billion) in the country. It's more profitable than any other British tech start-up. And it's doing something our other digital start-ups can't: exporting to America while keeping tax revenues onshore. Two-thirds of its revenue now comes from the US, proving that even in a global tech economy dominated by Silicon Valley, British firms can still compete. OnlyFans' success makes it all the more striking that, according to Reuters, Fenix is in talks to sell. Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company is leading a group of investors in negotiations to buy the business for £6 billion. It's rumoured that other suitors are vying for attention and that shares may be sold on the stock market. Either way, one of Britain's few successful exports could soon be gone. It's awkward to defend pornography, and so politicians don't try. Parliament hosts thousands of lobbying events every year – payday lenders, bookies, vape companies, even arms dealers turn up for drinks and canapés. There is no 'sex tech reception'. Ministers fall over themselves to visit impressive-looking factories that are in fact barely relevant. For example, Glass Futures, a research and production plant for the glass industry based in St Helens, was recently picked by Keir Starmer as the perfect location for his speech decrying 'Farage's fantasy economics'. The plant is a not-for-profit that makes £7 million in annual sales. OnlyFans pays more in tax in a month than Glass Futures earns in a year. But no MP would be caught dead at OnlyFans' Cheapside HQ, despite, I'm told, many invitations to visit. Neither has any politician ever defended the porn industry in a debate on innovation, exports or growth. The most recent House of Lords research note on 'the impact of pornography on society' contains no mention of the words 'economy', 'tax' or 'finance'. Of course, money isn't everything. The harms of porn – to women, to relationships, to the minds of teenage boys – are real and considerable. We might well be better off banning the whole thing. But if we are going to wage a moral war on porn, we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing. The money is real – and it's already in the bank of HMRC.
