[emn13]

Well, so he claims. Is that actually true? But regardless; even if he had reason to dislike certain regulators - that makes for a really poor reason to argue to remove yourself from the equation when it comes to influence over those regulations. If anything, if indeed the rule-making process was corrupt, that argues against Brexit, not for it (from the perspective of business primarily involved in selling goods affected by those regulations).

In fact, it sounds like those regulations hurt his competitors at least as much as Dyson: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/anger-as-eu-ba... - "Dyson vacuum cleaners score highly in the ratings. However, the manufacturer has many concerns about flaws in the system that will ultimately be unhelpful for consumers."

Notably, Dyson "won" in that review; it only lost the case for hundreds of millions in damages.

[blibble]

> that makes for a really poor reason to argue to remove yourself from the equation when it comes to influence over those regulations.

here's a few Dyson subsidiaries:

   - Dyson BV (Dutch)
   - Dyson Austria GmbH
   - Dyson GmbH (German)
   - Dyson Finland Oy
   - Dyson Ireland Ltd
   - Dyson SAS (France)
   - Dyson Spain SLU
   - Dyson Sweden AB
   - Dyson sp zoo Poland

it's a large multinational, not some micro-enterprise, brexit has little to no impact on his ability to "influence" regulations

[emn13]

Of course it does - as a well known British business, it'll get the kind of attention and care from its home turf it won't elsewhere in the form of some small subsidiary. And the guy isn't exactly known for being timid or restrained; he's tried to litigate his grievances in via the press repeatedly - and that's going to be less effective moving forward. Even if he gets a hearing in the continental press (which I kind of doubt, because why would the public care?), he and his business are likely to be defined by his brexiteer stance - not exactly a great way to sway opinion his way. (And just to be sure to undermine his British support, he decided to move to Singapore too... I guess that's his own little Brexit?)

Most other sane business tried to stay away from this whole minefield at least in public, and that sure looks like the better call in retrospect.

[blibble]

the EU is not China

those subsidiaries are EU companies: they have the same right to market access and to be treated in the same way under EU law as those of Bosch or Miele

and they're capable of suing if they're treated differently

the fact the CEO of the parent company thinks the EU is shit doesn't change this

[emn13]

Politics isn't some formulistic emotionless process; having access to supportive media, which in turn influence public opinion and pressure politicians, who in turn are not entirely free from bias and have agency to pick and choose which priorities they will address most quickly - that kind of stuff matters. Companies try to have great PR even when it doesn't directly influence sales because of this. Additionally, companies spend quite a bit on lobbying. Influence matters, and being a home-grown darling is likely to grant much more of it than being a fairly faceless corporation that's likely not remembered much (and if it is, remembered for negative things).

Regulations are never perfect - and Dyson's own cases clearly show that. But being able to nudge their evolution such that flaws don't hurt you specifically too much is valuable, even if it's not any kind of enforceable right.

Also, while I have a great deal of respect for the value of the EU, no organization is entirely free from regulatory capture (or effects like it). That's not some kind of anti-EU rant; I'm entirely willing to accept that the EU is probably on the healthier end of the spectrum here. But just because they're no worse than others doesn't mean lobbying isn't a thing.