It is a blessing in disguise. A merger may have provided short-term shareholder value for a few, but to the detriment of long-term value for the other stakeholders, such
as employees, suppliers and the UK regions supported by BAE’s businesses.
J Bentley, Andover
Can’t help to think a trick was missed. Does it really matter if the new HQ is not in Munich?
Ron Chambard, Swadlincote, Derbyshire
What opportunity has been lost? Synergy of size and job losses, I guess: BAE Systems should aggressively move into the civilian market if they believe they could compete.
Eamonn Quinn, Oxford
War, sorry “defence,” is not a cottage industry. If you’re going to play the game you need to wear the big-boy trousers. The UK is unlikely to ever act unilaterally and it’s not like Lockheed and Boeing aren’t in the US government’s pocket (or vice versa). But given the comparative size of defence budgets I know who I’d throw my lot in with.
John Ovenden, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire
Is it yet another indicator that we need a clear and effective government strategy to retain UK ownership of businesses that are important to our economy? Sorry, did I just say “clear and effective government strategy”? I’m obviously over-reaching.
Frazer Mackay, Glasgow
On the one hand it is a shame that BAE Systems miss out on the civil aviation opportunities that the merger presented but on the other it’s a good job that the protection was in place to prevent BAE Systems’ US defence market from being adversely affected.
Richard Duffell, Crook, Cumbria
I have mixed feelings as I have not heard a business case for the merger. I’m not a shareholder so I wouldn’t profit from it. I suspect our monopolies and mergers people would prevent it on the grounds that the company would be too big.
Martin Roberts-Jones, Eastleigh, Hampshire
The only opportunity lost is the opportunity to save British jobs, and the only blessing is for the rest of Europe. BAE’s lack of diversification by concentration on military has driven it into a corner where there was going to be no way out. Good luck to the employees.
Duncan Saunders, Derby
It is really hard to know whether this is good or bad. Let’s move on and make the best of where we are, which I guess means working more closely with the Americans.
Jeff Bulled, Lidlington, Bedfordshire
As an employee for over 34 years, I’ve seen the company change a lot but when I first heard about the merger talks I felt there were too many vested interests at stake to see this come to fruition. Our corporate position is that it was an opportunity to add to the strategic vision rather than a replacement for it. It remains to be seen if that’s a valid assessment but I sense employees are in for yet another period of instability with the rumour mill working at full tilt.
Geoff Donkin, Beverley, East Yorkshire
I wasn’t enthralled by the level of influence that the French and German governments would reportedly be able to exert. However, commentators claim that BAE is now susceptible to a takeover by the likes of Lockheed Martin, so is US ownership preferable to the collapsed merger?
Barry Le’Febour, Worthing, West Sussex
The danger of not merging is the fall-off in military hardware worldwide. But the French and Germans have never done us any favours and are more nationalistic and favour their own industry. On the whole, a welcome collapse that I hope will concentrate our minds.
Ian Ford, Winchester
There is a massive grey area about perceived benefits in the spectrum of European integration, particularly when national interests are threatened. Not having a colossus with a 220,000 workforce spread throughout Europe must surely be the best thing for Great Britain plc and its engineers.
Geoff Miles, Tonbridge
Retention of independence is unlikely to lead to problems with the EADS developments, whilst retaining the professional relationships with the US Department of Defense.
Barry Kempster, Newcastle-under-Lyme
If the political masters could not agree to the HQ location, nationality of the CEO, etc, etc, and thus retain a national security aspect for involved countries, then it was right to block this “convenient” merger.
Robert Rourke, Melton Mowbray
This deal fell through because it became politicised. If European governments cannot support what was supposed to be a commercially sound union of two great companies, then what is the point of the EU? A blessing in disguise? I don’t think so – just another example of political self-interest over economic benefit.
Peter Airey, Crieff, Perthshire
How much of our defence knowledge do we want to give away? It is neither a blessing nor a lost opportunity. This is simply good for our safety and defence!
Fred Bunce, Gloucester
Sometimes the best investments are the ones you don’t make!
Sid McFarland, Cheltenham