4 ms·
That seems the wrong question. The better question is: why did he stay in britain while it was in the EU, and why is he leaving now that the UK is leaving the E
by graeme 8y ago
That seems the wrong question. The better question is: why did he stay in britain while it was in the EU, and why is he leaving now that the UK is leaving the EU? Especially as he advocated that leaving would improve trade and industry.
The answer might be as simple as: "Signapore was the right place and we were planning this move before Brexit was on the horizon"
But it certainly gives the appearance that Brexit is bad for business and he doesn't want to operate with the consequences of the policy he advocated.
- switch007 8y agoNot to be a pedant, and it it doesn't invalidate your comment, and probably for the benefit of others, but the UK is still in the EU.
- graeme 8y agoThanks, fixed it. Had meant to write leaving and not in.
- zeroname 8y agoIn the short run, Brexit will be bad for business, especially if it happens as uncoordinated as it looks now. In the long run, nobody knows, but at least there's potential to negotiate favorable deals without dealing with the EU.
- jayalpha 8y agoOut of curiosity, what kind of "undiscovered territory" were you thinking about? As posted by me before: a) USA. Very little taxes in trade with the EU already. Little to gain with FTA. b) Canada? Okay, but the UK has this Free trade agreement (FTA) already via the EU. c) Mersocur? FTA to be signed with the EU soon. d) Japan und Korea? Have FTAs with EU e) India? Very demanding. Also want easier immigration to the UK in a FTA. Prediction: Will fail. f) Australia? Ok, easy to get. Point for the UK g) China? Possible. But only goods, since China loves to export goods. Financial services? Forget about it. Also, trust me, the Chinese have not forgotten the Opium war. Also the recent Ship of the Royal Navy in disputed waters did not help. h) Africa. Many (economically) small countries. Not all countries have ties to the UK. i) Russia/CIS. This the UK could get but this they don't want. So?
- fmajid 8y agoe) is particularly egregious, as it is given as an example of how the EU is hobbling the UK. In fact the EU-India FTA negotiations failed because of British intransigence on the Indian demand for streamlined (non-immigrant) visas, vetoed by the then UK Home Secretary,... Theresa May.
- checkdigit15 8y ago> "how the EU is hobbling the UK" Sorry if I'm misreading, but do you mean "how the EU is being hobbled by the UK"? In the sentence above it sounds like the EU wanted the agreement but the UK (and May's veto) prevented the EU from doing it.
- graeme 8y agoThey mean people in the uk say that the eu hobbled the uk's ability to trade with the eu. But actually, the uk hobbled the eu. So the example is wrong.
- wirrbel 8y agoFor employees, collective bargaining is often much better than individual negotiation. I upped my salary for example by joining a unionized company, before I was at a non-unionized company and felt that I was better at negotiations than my peers. Maybe there is a point for states to collectively bargain in trade agreements.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pytester 8y agoWhen businesses move to Singapore, the reason is usually "they offered us an enormous tax break and/or subsidies". In Dyson's case they probably got a sweetheart deal due to their brand.