Hot Air

[BlueLoo]

And yet you are prepared to have 50 years of Brexit shìt before you see any Brexit benefits?

I'm happy that Britain remains independent.

That's already a big enough benefit.

 

[gant]

If you don't have the paperwork it kinda stands to reason you don't fill the criteria, much like you couldn't just turn up in an EU country without fufilling EU rules.
That said I think we've reached agreement I can have a right to work in an EU country which notch said I couldn't.

 

[gant]

I'm happy that Britain remains independent.

That's already a big enough benefit.

Noseall isn't bothered about giving the country away, it's all about the bottom line to him.

 

[denso13]

I can have a right to work in an EU country which notch said I couldn't.

No he said you have lost the right to. Which you have.

 

[noseall]

I'm happy that Britain remains independent.

That's already a big enough benefit.

Sovereignty lol. Another bullshìt reason for leaving.

 

[gant]

No he said you have lost the right to. Which you have.

How can that be so if I can under albeit a different set of terms and conditions.

 

[BlueLoo]

Sovereignty lol. Another bullshìt reason for leaving.

No.
Independence.
The difference may be lost to you tbh

 

[denso13]

How can that be so if I can.

You can't without a visa. You could before. You have lost the right to work without permission.

 

[noseall]

No.
Independence.
The difference may be lost to you tbh

Tell me about this independence and how it’s benefitted the UK and how the lack of it affected you pre- brexit vote?

 

[gant]

I've added under different terms and conditions to that post.

 

[BlueLoo]

Tell me about this independence and how it’s benefitted the UK and how the lack of it affected you pre- brexit vote?

How's having your own IR working out for you?

 

[blup]

I don't think that can be true. The major part of the judgment revolves around subsection 4a) of the honest opinion defence. The opinion and the facts are intrinsically bound together. Having the honest opinion relies on the fact being proved. There are pages and pages of discussion about the meaning of moving a global head office, relocating a business etc. in order to determine whether it was a fact that Dyson did actually move its global head office to Singapore

If that's so the defence would have failed if they'd only proved relocation of a few staff rather than the hq, which seems bizarre.

Blup

 

[noseall]

Tell me about this independence and how it’s benefitted the UK and how the lack of it affected you pre- brexit vote?

I guess blue loo doesn’t know, or is incapable of answering.

Just another brexer shmuck.

 

[BlueLoo]

I guess blue loo doesn’t know, or is incapable of answering.

Just another brexer shmuck.

I just did.

 

[JonathanM]

If that's so the defence would have failed if they'd only proved relocation of a few staff rather than the hq, which seems bizarre.

It wasn't for lack of trying! The judge complained about the voluminous evidence and correspondence. And then he wrote this about the relocation:

116. I cannot accept the Claimant’s characterisation that all that really happened was that two highly ranked executives moved to Singapore, or that the corporate restructuring took place simply to facilitate their relocation to Singapore. That significantly understates the reasons for, and saliency of, the move.

117. Nor can I accept the argument that there was no relocation because the two main operating companies remained in the UK with the same functions as before. Again, that is too narrow a depiction. It is true as far as it goes but it ignores the position of the three new holding companies and the fact that DJGL no longer had subsidiaries in 26 countries worldwide. The fact that the two main UK operating companies did not move does not mean that part of the Dyson business did not move.

And then:

118. I therefore conclude that the fact indicated in the article was true.