hazard Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Global Britain https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/dyson-to-move-company-hq-to-singapore Sir James Dyson, the British billionaire inventor and outspoken Brexiter who called on the government to walk away from the EU without a deal, is moving the headquarters of his vacuum cleaner and hair dryer technology company to Singapore. The Dyson chief executive, Jim Rowan, said the move from Wiltshire to Singapore had “nothing to do with Brexit” but was about “future-proofing” the business. The move of Dyson’s legal entity from the UK to Singapore “will happen over the coming months”, meaning it could take place before Brexit. Singapur je inače, skoro potpisao trgovinski sporazum sa EU.
Marvin (Paranoid Android) Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Nick Robinson: "It’s a strange thing isn’t it, that you’re here in Davos telling business leaders the UK is about to take, voluntarily, a course of action it knows is against the national interest." Liam Fox: "Let’s take a step back. We’re enacting the will of the people." Nick Robinson: "So you’re telling voters that we are deliberately, consciously, knowingly going to harm their economic prospects because they voted for it two years ago?” Liam Fox: "We can’t deny the British public what they voted for."
Sludge Factory Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 2 hours ago, hazard said: Global Britain https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/dyson-to-move-company-hq-to-singapore Singapur je inače, skoro potpisao trgovinski sporazum sa EU. Vratice se u Britaniju kad ona bude postala ofsor raj
hazard Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Ludilo se diže na novi nivo: Džejkob Ris-Magog: Quote Rees-Mogg said that Theresa May should close parliament temporarily if necessary (or prorogue it, to use the technical term) to stop MPs passing a bill blocking a no-deal Brexit. He also said that, if May refused to do this, she would be to blame for the bill passing, and Brexiters would hold her to account. He said: If no deal were taken off the table, her majesty’s government would have had to connived in doing it. It cannot be done if the government is determined to stop it. If the House of Commons undermines our basic constitutional conventions, then the executive is entitled to use other vestigial constitutional means to stop it, by which I basically mean prorogation. Prorogation normally lasts for three days, and any law that is in the process before prorogation falls. I think that would be the government’s answer. That is the government’s backstop, to use a choice phrase. And if the government allows no deal to be taken off the table, that would be a failure of the government, and then it would be the job of backbench MPs to hold the government to account.
hazard Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Wealthy Brexiteers like James Dyson are jumping ship. Why might that be? Quote After all, Dyson’s announcement came on the same day that P&O revealed that it will be re-registering its entire cross-Channel fleet of ferries under the flag of Cyprus. To their credit, P&O were upfront: they’re doing this because of Brexit. Similarly, Sony is moving its European HQ from London to Amsterdam. Meanwhile, Bentley is stockpiling parts, and Dixons Carphone and Pets at Home are making similar moves. “We don’t want families to run out of food for their pets” after March 29, the latter company said in a line that, oddly, did not appear on the side of a bus during the 2016 campaign. Again, these firms could not be clearer. In the words of Bentley’s chief executive: “It’s Brexit that’s the killer … It would put at fundamental risk our chance of becoming profitable.” Another line that never made it as a Vote Leave slogan. How apt it is that one of those P&O ferries soon to be flying under the proud colours of Cyprus is called the Spirit of Britain. For this is the spirit now animating alarming numbers of Britain’s captains of industry: with the Brexit iceberg looming, they’ve concluded that they need to find safe harbour somewhere else. So why then might James Dyson be so coy? Why would he not admit it if he is shipping out to avoid Brexit, rushing to Singapore, whose trade agreement with the EU, signed in October, could well give Dyson better access to European markets than the company would have if it stuck around in no-deal Brexit Britain? Perhaps he feared the charge of hypocrisy, given that he was one of the few business leaders to back leave, a man who once urged a no-deal exit from the EU, arguing that “they’ll come to us”. And yet had he faced such a charge, he’d have hardly been lonely. For hypocrisy is emerging as a defining trait of the loudest Brexiteers. Recall the gap between Jacob Rees-Mogg’s position as leader of the European Research Group and his stance as co-founder of, part-time worker for and 15% stakeholder in Somerset Capital Management – which has warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit and which has now set up not one but two funds in Dublin. Recall too the advice from fellow arch-Brexiteer John Redwood, who has a sideline as chief global strategist for the Charles Stanley investment bank, suggesting a year after the Brexit referendum that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.” Whether it’s Nigel Farage taking care to ensure two of his children can live, work and travel freely across the EU by having German passports, or Nigel Lawson, who lives in France, taking the precaution of applying for French residency, the pattern is familiar. It suggests a Brexiteer elite who believe that the pain of Brexit is for the little people. They are rich or powerful or connected enough to be insulated from the damage it will cause, making them free to sound off about its supposed benefits in the abstract – sovereignty! control! – while everyone else deals with the grim reality. So Dyson and his base will be safe in Singapore, leaving Britain to deal with the consequences of the disastrous decision he demanded. With every day the mess of Brexit is becoming clearer, and it will take more than a high-priced vacuum cleaner to clear it up – no matter how much it sucks.
MancMellow Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Mda. Onemogucimo parlament da radi. Odakle li mi je to poznato...
radisa Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Jebeš ga, mogla bi kraljica da uzme svoja ovlasćenja i malo im se svima najeba majke... Ponašaju se kao da vode mesnu zajednicu Donji Prćilovci, a ne nekadašnju imperiju...
MancMellow Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, radisa said: Jebeš ga, mogla bi kraljica da uzme svoja ovlasćenja i malo im se svima najeba majke... Nisam siguran koja su njena smatranja po ovijem pitanjima... Dajte Charlsa III
hazard Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 24 minutes ago, MancMellow said: Nisam siguran koja su njena smatranja po ovijem pitanjima... Dajte Charlsa III A šta ako on odluči da ipak bude George VII?
MancMellow Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Impliciras da stanoviti MP ima biznis pravljenja kriza da bi na njima zaradio usled posedovanja familijarnog know-howa?
Paul Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) ma jok, naglasih vec u originalnom postu od prije ....neznam ,recmo pola godine, da nisam pristalica teorija zavjere :D Edited January 23, 2019 by Paul
Paul Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) u cemu je stos, takvim recmo odgovara privatizacija zdravstvenog sistema...slazes se? Edited January 23, 2019 by Paul
Roger Sanchez Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Quote For the EU to prosper, Britain must leave Until recently I was a committed remainer and wedded to the belief that the best way out of this Brexit mess for the EU was simply to try to ensure it didn’t happen. But the events of the past month illustrate why there is, rightly, a growing mood in Brussels for a completely different outcome: for the EU to prosper, Britain must leave. The rationale is simple, Brexit is – either now or in the not-so-distant future – inevitable. That is because Britain continues to demand impossible conditions for its membership of the community-based, compromise-led, multinational organisation the modern EU represents. Even in trying to exit, Britain is still arguing about “red lines” of its own making. This approach would only amplify if it somehow ended up remaining a member. What he said.
MancMellow Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Quote The fact is, without Britain, the internal functioning of the EU...becomes easier. To ostaje da se vidi. Ne kazem da je u krivu, samo kazem da cemo videti. Mislim da nije bas do te mere slucaj da Britanija ne treba EU, ali je cinjenica da joj ovakva Britanija ne treba. Ceo britanski pristup evrointegracijama, od samog pocetka, je totalni shambles. Tuzna je cinjenica da je jedini koji je tu nesto stvarno razumeo u stvari Blair.
Recommended Posts