FOI request reveals James Dyson funded water reservoir on his farm with EU funding

An FOI request has revealed James Dyson financed the construction of a water reservoir on his farm with EU funding.

The billionaire arch Brexiteer took money from the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to pay for the development, despite campaigning for Britain to leave the union.

The farm, dubbed Beeswax Dyson in Lincolnshire, has received £4.2 million of European subsidies between 2016 and 2017.

Susan Elan Jones MP, leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said that Dyson was the “worst sort of pro-Brexit establishment hypocrite” after the findings were revealed.

The revelations came shortly after it was revealed that Dyson’s head office is to be switched from the UK to Singapore.

Dyson also announced it will build its first electric car in Singapore in a blow to UK manufacturing.


Rees-Moggs, racists and Brexit profiteers: who’s in Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party?

Since you’re here …

Real, independent, investigative journalism is in alarming decline. It costs a lot to produce. Many publications facing an uncertain future can no longer afford to fund it. This means journalists are losing the ability to hold the rich and powerful to account.

We do not charge or put articles behind a paywall. If you can, please show your appreciation for our free content by donating whatever you think is fair to help keep TLE growing.

Every penny we collect from donations supports vital investigative and independent journalism. You can also help us grow by inviting your friends to follow us on social media.

Donate Now Button

5 Responses

  1. Neil Deakin

    The UK is a net contributor to the Eu budget. Last year the UK gave approx 8 billion more than it received back so. Dyson is NOT receiving EU money, he is getting some of the UK’s money back.

    1. Martin

      The UK is a net contributor to the Eu budget…. for which we receive unfettered free trade access to 27 other member states with an estimated population of about 513 million.

  2. Stuart Brown

    Let’s be clear on the nature of the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with who has moved what to where, why and so on. It is a far more fundamental moral issue: the hypocrisy lies in wanting to cut one’s fellow-countrymen off from a funding source from which one has oneself benefited.

Leave a Reply