o/t democracy is dead

[Brin]

I shook my head when I saw WanChai trying to make Dyson into a Brexit issue. In addition to your points, it is noteworthy that Dyson moved his production to Malaysia and Singapore in 2002 - 14 year before the referendum.

The bottom line is that Dyson is now an international company that derives just 4% of its turnover from the UK. It is, nonetheless a timely reminder that countries need to be competitive on issues such as cost and taxation in order to attract and retain businesses.

SIR James Dyson.....

Dyson’s design and commercial success lent authority to his quest to revive the spirit of invention in Britain. In 1997 he published Against the Odds (cowritten with Giles Coren), an autobiographical account of his persistence in the face of discouragement. The following year he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In 2002 the James Dyson Foundation was established with the aim of encouraging young people to enter engineering through the awarding of prizes and grants.

In 2009 the Conservative Party invited Dyson to propose policies to encourage innovation, and he replied in March 2010 with Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the Leading High Tech Exporter in Europe, a report that suggested, among other ideas, more freedom for universities to design unconventional engineering curricula and more collaboration between universities and technology companies.....and then his Knighthood followed bless him, courtesy of the Tories.

[Redshank]

Perhaps if remainers had accepted the result of the referendum from the outset and pushed towards finding a deal that, perhaps, reflected the closeness of the vote (i.e. no hard Brexit) rather than take the immediate stance that Brexit must be avoided at all costs, then we may well be in a much stronger and clearly defined position. As it is, all sides are hopelessly entrenched with argument from any remainer for a “people’s vote” immediately attracting hostility and suspicion as to the real motive. Something has to give and remainers could help immensely if they stopped banging on about another vote and concentrated more on what sort of Brexit they prefer.

[KerrAvon]

SIR James Dyson.....

Dyson’s design and commercial success lent authority to his quest to revive the spirit of invention in Britain. In 1997 he published Against the Odds (cowritten with Giles Coren), an autobiographical account of his persistence in the face of discouragement. The following year he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In 2002 the James Dyson Foundation was established with the aim of encouraging young people to enter engineering through the awarding of prizes and grants.

In 2009 the Conservative Party invited Dyson to propose policies to encourage innovation, and he replied in March 2010 with Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the Leading High Tech Exporter in Europe, a report that suggested, among other ideas, more freedom for universities to design unconventional engineering curricula and more collaboration between universities and technology companies.....and then his Knighthood followed bless him, courtesy of the Tories.

What's your point, Brin? Are you denying that Dyson is an example of someone who brought innovation and entrepreneurial drive together to create a world beating company? Or are you questioning the work he has done sponsoring students to study engineering?

[MillerBill]

What's your point, Brin? Are you denying that Dyson is an example of someone who brought innovation and entrepreneurial drive together to create a world beating company? Or are you questioning the work he has done sponsoring students to study engineering?

The hard remainiacs backed by the fat cat multi corps are trying their best to destroy the people's wish to come out of the sinking EU.I've noticed Blair and Osborne have been desperately using the scare tactics again.What's in it for them?

[ragingpup]

Businesses are likely to respond to any change in their operating environment. Personally, I think any form of Brexit will have a negative impact upon the economy of this country in the short to medium term at least, but that is irrelevant as Brexit is what the electorate chose in 2016 (perhaps they wouldn’t have if your Great Leader had spoken out on the issue as opposed to hiding in his office).

One change to the operating environment that business take into account is Corporate Taxation rates. On that point, I'm guessing that you didn't look at the detail of the P&O announcement? They are reflagging in Cyprus to take account of more favourable tax rates than they will get if they remain in the UK. There is a lesson there for you but I appreciate that your politics make you likely to ignore it.

Your points on tax and corporate behaviour and oft made and well understood. It will always be in mind as to how any future government places tax rates with regard to international competition, and I will continue to maintain that being competitive does not, as you seem to repeatedly implicate, automatically mean that you have to have the very lowest tax rate of all. But let’s not do that dance again.

The point of this post is to highlight that the company is relocating its business from the UK to Cyprus as it wishes to retain the EU tax benefits (not UK) which it enjoyed whilst located in the UK. Thus increasingly conflicting with the views of many on here who maintain that the UK will economically benefit from a hard Brexit.

[frogmiller]

The hard remainiacs backed by the fat cat multi corps are trying their best to destroy the people's wish to come out of the sinking EU.I've noticed Blair and Osborne have been desperately using the scare tactics again.What's in it for them?

EU jobs. That could be one hell of a compremise the EU made for the UK giving in. Having one of those two heading the ship would be brilliant for Britain wouldn't it?

[KerrAvon]

Your points on tax and corporate behaviour and oft made and well understood. It will always be in mind as to how any future government places tax rates with regard to international competition, and I will continue to maintain that being competitive does not, as you seem to repeatedly implicate, automatically mean that you have to have the very lowest tax rate of all. But let’s not do that dance again.

The point of this post is to highlight that the company is relocating its business from the UK to Cyprus as it wishes to retain the EU tax benefits (not UK) which it enjoyed whilst located in the UK. Thus increasingly conflicting with the views of many on here who maintain that the UK will economically benefit from a hard Brexit.

Given that you have used the word 'implicated', I would assume that you know that I have never said that it is necessary to have the lowest tax rate to be competitive. If I'm wrong about that, you will doubtless be able to give some examples of me saying it or even 'implicating' it.

The whole basis of my many circular arguments with MMM is that having the highest or lowest tax rate is not what matters as he appears to believe; it is about having a tax rate that its competitive having regard to every other factor that determines the cost of operating in a particular country.

The point is that if Labour gains power and raids businesses for vast amounts of cash through its tax rises and its seizure of 10% of every decent sized public company (a tax raid by another name) it will be carnage for UK jobs as this country would be made a significantly less attractive place to operate.

Brexit on any terms will clearly have implications for whether businesses will choose to operate here and upon the scale of their operations if they remain. Anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand, but I repeat the point that I made earlier that Brexit is what the electorate voted for.

Go on - admit it. You hadn't researched the detail of the P&O decision had you? After all, it had been carefully left out of the Guardian article.

As an aside, did you watch Abbott's performance on QT last week? I don't normally watch it, but have watched it on catch up to see what the fuss is about. Are you sticking to the Momentum issued interpretation that she was bullied? I thought she got the humpty on after the audience mocked her when she was defending The Great Leader's decision not to come out of his office to talk to May and that it went downhill after that. A great pick for Home Secretary in a Labour government.

[great_fire]

"People's Vote" is really annoying as it's actually an oligarchs' vote or a patricians' vote, it has nothing to do with "the people" as George Soros, Blair and the rest of establishment are behind it.

[ragingpup]

Given that you have used the word 'implicated', I would assume that you know that I have never said that it is necessary to have the lowest tax rate to be competitive. If I'm wrong about that, you will doubtless be able to give some examples of me saying it or even 'implicating' it.

The whole basis of my many circular arguments with MMM is that having the highest or lowest tax rate is not what matters as he appears to believe; it is about having a tax rate that its competitive having regard to every other factor that determines the cost of operating in a particular country.

The point is that if Labour gains power and raids businesses for vast amounts of cash through its tax rises and its seizure of 10% of every decent sized public company (a tax raid by another name) it will be carnage for UK jobs as this country would be made a significantly less attractive place to operate.

Brexit on any terms will clearly have implications for whether businesses will choose to operate here and upon the scale of their operations if they remain. Anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand, but I repeat the point that I made earlier that Brexit is what the electorate voted for.

Go on - admit it. You hadn't researched the detail of the P&O decision had you? After all, it had been carefully left out of the Guardian article.

As an aside, did you watch Abbott's performance on QT last week? I don't normally watch it, but have watched it on catch up to see what the fuss is about. Are you sticking to the Momentum issued interpretation that she was bullied? I thought she got the humpty on after the audience mocked her when she was defending The Great Leader's decision not to come out of his office to talk to May and that it went downhill after that. A great pick for Home Secretary in a Labour government.

Oh my God, how many times do you want to go over the same bloody debate! I understand the whole of your argument on corporate tax but just don't agree with how you apply it. For reasons given in great depth many times before. I respect your argument but don't agree with it. Now get over it.

Hadn't research the P&O detail above what was in the Guardian article. It clearly referred to the decision being becasue they lose the EU tax benefits. What more is there to understand of their reasons for leaving?

Abbott? Why bring that up? I saw her, she was crap and annoying as usual, no change there. But why do you ask? No I didn't see any particular 'bullying'. Not read anything from Momentum other than a Facebook link which I wasn't interested to click on. Why do you ask? Bit weird...

[Exiletyke]

I saw Abbott & as usual she was bloody awful
But you don't need to ask why he brought it up as it's all part of his relentless but somewhat tedious campaign to villify anything left of his world
He needn't bother as Abbott is quite capable of making a pillock of herself without any assistance [particularly from someone with such a glaringly obvious limp to starboard]