Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

It’s truly painful to watch James Dyson delivering a hodgepodge of pure nonsense about the benefits of Brexit. He founded & leads a successful business. Yet every “fact” is wrong.

All he has left is emotion.

He must know it.

What does it tell us that he says it anyway? A 🧵/1.

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1382200442545922049

He may believe “independence of spirit” & personal determination explain his success. He has both, in quantities which set him apart from most people. Yet even if it were the reason (spoiler: it isn’t), compared to the UK his business is tiny, simple & profoundly different. /2.

Sir James’s personal qualities helped him through key challenges, as the individual central to Dyson Ltd. /3.

So did the skills he obtained at the Royal College of Art, a national institution; from mentors; his freedom to exploit overseas markets; & as the company grew, the talents & commitment of others. /4.

Unlike a company, a country can’t expand its geographic footprint, or re-headquarter, to gain global market advantage. Unless it’s creating an empire. Which, Sir James surely recognises, isn’t part of any credible (or desirable) UK future. /5.

A country’s purpose isn’t to deliver benefits for a small group of owners, shareholders or even workers. /6.

It’s there to provide beneficial outcomes for all its citizens & residents. In a heavily interdependent world, that includes a large element of reciprocally beneficial effort for & with like-minded countries & groupings. /7.

The legal, regulatory, financial & security frameworks of the UK, Japan, US, EU, other countries, & the institutional structures they participate in, are vital to the ability of even a trillion $ company, like Apple Inc, let alone (relatively) tiny Dyson, to function. /8.

Countries compete. But, in the US-led system of the last 75 years, on which all countries - even disruptors & rivals - rely, competition is strictly circumscribed. /9.

Powerful technologies have created ever increasing regional & global geopolitical/ economic interdependencies. Those have to be managed. No Dyson could survive if not. /10.

In the US-led system, countries (with the US, the lynchpin, as a partial exception) can’t be permitted to attempt to compete each other out of existence, or anything close. Where such tendencies get out of hand, potential or actual disaster is never far away. /11.

The Berlin blockade & the Cuban missile crisis could each have led to a nuclear holocaust. The Yugoslavia conflict led to Srebrenica. China’s approach to Taiwan & Russia’s to Ukraine could yet lead to catastrophe. /12.

It’s no accident, therefore, that the EU & NATO, both indispensable pillars of the US-led system, place huge emphasis on cooperation among their members & with other, like-minded countries & blocs. /13.

Sir James’s claims that UK vaccine efforts & ability to employ, in the UK, people from outside the EU depend on Brexit are both obviously false & merit no further attention. Except, again, to puzzle as to why, on national TV no less, he would expose himself in such a manner. /14.

His view on trade is trickier & worth thinking about. Again, though, a spoiler: he’s wrong. On the straightforward question of global trade deals, he knows - but implies otherwise - the UK benefitted & would continue to, as a member, from major EU deals around the world. /15.

Nonetheless, does Brexit open up a better UK trade position than EU membership would allow? An all-singing, all-dancing trade deal with the US would make up a quarter of what the UK loses by leaving the EU single market & customs union. /16.

All the trade deals the UK could, in a reasonable best case, still do with the rest of the world would add up to another quarter of what’s been lost (that also presupposes the EU wouldn’t do improved deals, from which the UK would have benefitted, as an EU/SM+CU member). /17.

That therefore leaves half the damage as irrecoverable. If we’re being highly optimistic. Is there a way out of that? /18.

Yes, if we assume being in the EU reduces UK competitiveness. If competitiveness gains from leaving outweigh the hammering from greater trade & investment barriers, then there’s a net UK economic benefit to be had. /19.

The problem is there’s no good reason to think the UK will become more competitive as a result of the alteration to its trading circumstances. And there’s plenty of reason to think the opposite. /20.

First, because the myths about uncompetitive EU rules, like Boris Johnson’s endless, infamous stories from Brussels in the Daily Telegraph, are pretty much all just that: myths. Consequently, the supposed gains to be had are, putting at its kindest, exaggerated. /21.

Secondly, the UK’s reduced exposure to international trade (see above) will tend to reduce competitiveness. That’s what the theory & evidence tell us. Claims to the contrary - not that Sir James explicitly makes them - are, frankly, bizarre. /22.

Again, we’re left wondering why Sir James could appear to be in denial about all this. He’d never approach his business in such a careless way. /23.

Does he genuinely not know? It’s possible. /24.

Being highly successful in business can be akin to a shark (or whale - I don’t wish in any way to be pejorative) swimming in an ocean. Surviving & flourishing. But with no idea what the vast sea around you is, or how it’s vital to your ability to sustain yourself & grow. /25.

Or is he a cynic, seeking to manipulate the public mood for his own ends? Some hold that view. I don’t see it myself. /26.

Sir James is in many ways a remarkable person. He’s created a highly successful business empire. He’s become enormously wealthy as a result. /27.

His views seem to be distorted by experiences which, valuable in some important contexts, have left him ill-equipped to recognise the true nature of the ocean in which he swims & which provides the life support system without which his business & his wealth wouldn’t exist. /28.

That wouldn’t be a problem, if he saw the issue & were willing to educate himself. There are plenty of ways of achieving that. /29.

But his BBC interview appears to show a person so blinded by emotion that he retreats into vague generalities & “alternative facts” when called upon to explain his support for the UK’s most disastrous decision of the post-war era. /30.

In that, he’s a true tribune of the UK people. A significant minority of them, at any rate, if the polls are to be believed.

But it’s no way to run a railway.

Or a company.

And certainly not a country. /31. End