I know a little bit about Dyson because I dealt with them for several years. I have little doubt that article in the Spectator is driven from good Dyson spin, as it sounds so much better than, “We want to increase our margins” I’ll give you an example of an actual experience from working with them. June 2016 I went to Malaysia for a supplier event and I sat and listened to Jim Rowan, who from memory was Dyson COO then and he told the room that they were upping sticks from Malaysia to take manufacturing and assembly to the Philippines. He actually told us it was due to the tax free period in malaysia coming to an end and that meant a cost 8% to Dyson. They weren’t staying to pay it. Back in 2002 they told us they were moving to Malaysia to “make it easier to enter target new markets like the US.” Why that was easier from Singapore, I don’t know. Money probably the answer. In this latest announcement, I think only two Senior Officers are moving to Singapore, so clearly that suggests it is a Google-esque move if the HQ, so less tax being paid here. Money, bugger all to do with EU stoppIng progress.
I've seen some figures on the brexit voting on another site and thought it was time to do a bit of research. Lots of info here. https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results Overall numbers and % Leave 17,410,742 51.9% Remain 16,141,241 48.1% 1,269,501 3.8% to leave Such an important decision shouldn't have been a simple majority and should have been a mandate to negotiate a leaving deal to be ratified by the electorate. Given what's known now in particular the ramifications of a no deal exit a second vote is needed. I fact I'd be happy to see article 50 revoked without a vote. Also came across this https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/brexit-how-a-fringe-idea-took-hold-tory-party which makes interesting reading. How about this today:- Richard Harrington, the business minister, said this morning he was “delighted” when he read the boss of Airbus branding the UK government’s handling of Brexit a “disgrace”. Speaking to an audience of German industrialists, he said that no deal must be stopped and he was prepared to be sacked for saying so. The negotiation should have been by a cross party committee co-opting expert advice as required. Jab
Yet pre Brexit vote his investment was going here according to leavers and now post Brexit vote it's not. Also EU would be the one going against globalism in this example. Using internal investment from their own funds and restrictions to control industry rather than free trade. Result being we lose jobs and the EU is behind in this market. As to the real question as to whether the restrictions are worth the loss of investment, I haven't really done the research to say but I haven't heard of too many issues in California so I would probably side against the EU in this decision. Though the need to have a decision on regulation across Europe is obvious with EU traffic mixing and the inefficiency of having to make dozens of different verieties of the same car and software running it.
"AIRBUS ADMITS THE GOVERNMENT PUT THEM UP TO IT" https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/airbus-admits-government-put/
No matter what the result it is people are after, the only way to push it through is by another public vote, there is just not enough support in in the commons for any of the options on the table. May's deal is currently the least popular option on all sides, but if the public supported it, MPs would have no choice but to vote for it, the same can be said for "No Deal" and remain to a lesser degree...
You really will swallow any old bollocks of it supports your increasingly tenuous view of reality, won’t you Imps?
Something strange is happening. If a company says "X will happen" or "X is happening" or "We will be forced to do Y" and the following words are "Because the market is forcing us to" or "due to external market factors" or whatever, then 99% of people will read that as reasonable. If the words following are "because of Brexit", around 30% of people will immediately inform us that it's not true/the company don't know what they are doing/the market's changed/the company had been told to say that/insert another hundred reasons the company is incorrect. Unfortunately, it's become so unconscious and knee-jerk that the people saying it don't even realise they are doing it. And if it's highlighted, they create a false equivalence whereby the people who take the news at face value are acting in exactly the same way. Not true; we're being consistent in assuming (regardless of stated reason, Brexit or no Brexit) that companies generally know their businesses better than we do. Vin
Surely only a matter of time before something gets pinned on the dumb fat orange dolt himself and he gets impeached.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47002713
So Airbus' stance on leaving the EU has nothing to do with all the money the EU put their way then? Or will they be suing Guido for publishing details of £64bn going their way in the last 5 years? Or was that to build all the jets flying in and out of Davos at the moment?
Sometimes it pays to keep it simple Imps. Airbus are a large employer who have categorically stated that their presence in the U.K. is under threat from Brexit. Nothing in your post alters that situation one bit. But yeah, Davos...global elite...Juncker’s booze habit...etc
Is EU funding a business in the UK to help it compete with a multinational meant to be an anti EU argument? Your usual anti globalist arguments should put you on the other side of this one. What are you saying the negative is?
Ah, Davos. Of course. To understand the full significance of Davos, here's something that will clarify. Wake up, sheeple. Vin
If you found out that the reasons you've stated weren't the real reasons for the changes and that the moves afoot could, in their entirety, be blamed on Brexit, would you change your mind at all about the wisdom of a No Deal Brexit? Vin
The blame game goes on. It's apparently the EU's fault that the UK's Theresa May's stupid UK red lines have led us to the position where the UK intends to breach its UK-negotiated treaty obligations regarding Northern Ireland (part of the UK, lest you forget) What a ****ing triumph! Vin
Do we actually know what May is trying to negotiate as to customs checks between NI and Ireland? I know she originally wanted to use black magi--- sorry technology. but we obviously don't have time to prepare the ritua- uh software for that before Brexit so would still need some sort of stopgap but having a hard time finding out what's being proposed.
Nobody knows. It's all boring detail that politicians can paint over by saying "trust us, it'll be fine". This is why No Deal is gaining such momentum. Basically, No Deal is political shorthand for "I'm not going to be bothered with the detail of how anything works. This is a simple proposal that you can easily understand and we'll all be OK". I cannot recommend highly enough that you listen to the latest edition of the Cakewatch podcast where an Australian trade negotiator (who has no skin in the game) points out that trade agreements are complex, detailed and as dry as dust (yet makes it entertaining). Compare that to "Everything will be just fine" as a message and you can see why the "No Deal" madness is gaining ground so quickly. I'm beginning to suspect that No Deal is where we're headed. Yes, me, the eternal optimist. If we do leave in a Crash Brexit, Britain's in for a torrid time and a very large number of businesses will go to the wall. The effects will be shocking. Not to me, I read dull economic forecasts, but to the people telling us it'll be just dandy. But they'll blame it on everyone but themselves. Vin
I'm so sorry to bang on about this. Really sorry. I know it's tedious telling everyone that the sky may fall in if we Crash Brexit. But if this doesn't chill you to the bone about a No Deal Brexit, I don't know what will. Succinct, to the point and I'm ready and waiting to be told it is just project fear. Wake up! What a ****ing triumph. Vin
This is one of the ironies of Brexit: the EU's one-time popularity owed rather substantially to the simplicity it imposed, and now it's being undone because it's too complicated. Yeah, the EU has a tonne of Byzantine rules and regulations, but so too does every national government, by necessity. One set of complicated regulations is nothing compared to 28 sets of such. No Deal is the simplest solution for the public, but the most complicated for those who will regularly need to negotiate it.
It’ll all be that nasty EU’s fault. See? Told you that’s why we should have left them? We’re better than them and don’t need them ..... oh, and I’m moving my business to Eire, my children have got German passports and I short-sold sterling, so I’ve made a ****full of money ......
