In defence of James Dyson building electric cars in Singapore
And… here we go, again. We are deep into twenty four hours of strange, protectionist, fanatical Remainer outrage about the pro-Brexit entrepreneur James Dyson, he of the innovative vacuum cleaners, announcing that his company will build its new electric cars in Singapore.
A blizzard of tweets from furious Remainers calling Dyson and the Brexiteers liars flowed all day. An alleged university lecturer tweeted:
“These #Brexiteers are nothing more than a bunch of charlatans and faux “patriots.”
More politely, though nonetheless in a spirit of economic illiteracy, the pro-Brussels New European tweeted:
“Passionate Leaver Sir James Dyson has delivered a stirring vote of confidence in Brexit Britain – by manufacturing his new electric cars in Singapore.”
Inevitably, broadcaster James O’Brien, the pretend Remainer and secret Brexiteer who brilliantly satirises metropolitan virtue-signalling in his radio show for LBC, piled in.
Even the normally quite sensible Labour MP Wes Streeting tweeted:
“James Dyson wants British taxpayers to subsidise his agriculture business. But he is planning to manufacture his electric car in Singapore. There’s still a word for this…”
Indeed, there is a word for this – the Singapore decision – and it is “capitalism”. Dyson’s company says that Singapore makes sense because it is nearer the supply chains and markets for which the new cars are primarily being built – China and Japan.
Incidentally, Dyson’s position on agriculture is that subsidies that come from the EU (via British taxpayers) should be continued by the British government after Brexit. Many Brexiteers and Remainers think this makes sense, even if it is best done simply to smooth the adjustment to a new system. Dyson, with interests in agriculture, is perfectly entitled to his view. Should anyone with views or interests in UK agriculture now be forbidden from making foreign investments if they voted for Brexit?
This will not do, say Dyson’s angry critics. According to some ultra-Remainers, whose case is supposed to rest on the claim that they are outward-looking opponents of narrow nationalism, because Dyson is for Brexit he should instruct his management and inform investors that production of the new electric vehicles will be carried out according to his views on British politics, apparently.
Now, the British economy has been operated according to an “open” global model since the early 1980s. Margaret Thatcher’s administration scrapped exchange controls in 1979, and then with brutal results exposed domestic industry and nationwide industries to global competition. All this took place well before the introduction of the EU’s Single Market.
Ever since, British policy has been based – under Conservative, Labour and coalition governments – on the understanding that investment flows in and it flows out, and we make decisions as an economy globally based on where the money and markets are.
There are drawbacks to the Thatcherite approach. Only a fanatical true believer would pretend there is no downside.
And there is a coherent counter view that the UK should operate an industrial policy. David Edgerton’s fascinating study of 20th century Britain published this year turns the conventional reading of history on its head and demonstrates that the 1950s and 1960s UK economy, more closed than open relatively speaking, was much more dynamic in terms of infrastructure, investment, energy policy and manufacturing than is widely believed.
But this is Brexit, so we must not have a sophisticated discussion about any of these matters. A Brexiteer and successful British investor and inventor must build his factories in Britain because some hopping mad Remainer on Twitter says so.