A thank you to Brexiteers.
- Thread starter MrSki
- Start date
Supine
Newt Member
You never miss an opportunity for a dig do you. Not that brexit has changed anything with regards to paying tax on merch.
I’ve sold tshirts for a club night i ran and record label. I didnt need to pay tax because i never made enough money to worry about it. Big tour bands probably do, or maybe they don’t. I have no idea.
Some things shouldn't be photoshopped
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Supine
Newt Member
I look forward to your comprehensive analysis of merch tax implications.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Financial transactions attracts taxation. That is the most simplistic explanation of how tax works and society is funded.
It really isn't that hard.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
You should keep on not worrying about it
Nothing for anyone else here to worry about either then
Last edited:
Supine
Newt Member
for sure
posting the link i was trying to share some good news with Ed. I didn’t think I’d be getting into a discussion on taxation
Colin Hunt
Active Member
This reply is a bit late but here goes. Apologies for the wall of text.
Secondly, the massive gap between the UK and certain EU countries in terms of the proportion of workplaces covered by collective bargaining agreements is a reflection of the underlying structure of industrial relations in different countries. In most cases, those structures predate the EU or are the result of domestic policies which the EU has not influenced. As such, it's not counterintuitive at all for me to say that the EU has undermined collective bargaining rights even though many countries within the EU have strong collective bargaining traditions. As I'll show, under EU law those traditions are no match for the EU's four freedoms. As an aside, it's also worth noting that only 6/27 EU countries are fully compliant with their international obligations on the right to strike as set out in ILO Conventions 87 and 98, so it's not like the collective bargaining cup runneth over in most EU member states.
With that out of the way, there are two principal ways in which the EU sought to undermine collective bargaining rights in order to secure its four freedoms. The first is through directives and ECJ/EFTAC decisions, which have modified domestic collective bargaining and imposed new burdens on trade unions in certain situations. The second is through the EC's country specific recommendations and the post-crisis bailout terms imposed on struggling EU states, both of which completely changed collective bargaining laws in certain EU states, with disastrous effects.
1. Directives and Court Decisions:
The Posted Workers Directive 1996 allows workers who are temporarily posted by a company located in one member state to work in another member state to be subject to the law of the member state in which their company is located, as opposed to the law of the state in which they are working. While certain core areas of the law of their host country had to be observed (working time, health and safety, pay, discrimination protections, etc) applicable sector-wide collective bargaining agreements were not listed as core areas (except for universally applicable collective agreements in the construction sector). This allowed posting companies to pay their workers lower wages than had been collectively agreed across sectors, provided that the minimum floor of rights had been met. It's clearly an example of the EU working against collective bargaining rights to facilitate the free movement of services and workers, and was justified at the time as making it easier for smaller enterprises to operate in other member states. The result of this directive was a gradual increase in the usage of posted workers, abuses such as rotational postings, and the creation of companies in countries with poor labour laws in order to exploit the directive. As a result of these abuses, the directive was amended in 2018. Now posted workers are entitled to collectively bargained rights that emanate from large, representative regional or sectoral collective agreements. Of course, countries where there is no sectoral bargaining (possibly due to EU pressure, which will be discussed later) have no such agreements.
That's an example of the EU working against collective bargaining rights by allowing companies that post workers to ignore them. Two ECJ cases also show the EU working against collective bargaining rights (in particular, the right to strike).
International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007): This case concerned the reflagging of a Finnish ship so that Estonian workers could be employed on lower wages than existing Finnish crewmembers in contravention of a collective agreement. The union went on strike and the case ended up before the ECJ. While the ECJ recognised that the right to strike was a fundamental one, it was held that a strike which limits the freedom of establishment of a company may be contrary to EU law and thus illegal (even if all domestic laws on balloting etc had been complied with). This case is an example of the EU injecting uncertainty into member state collective bargaining laws by making strikes that were previously completely legitimate into potentially illegal strikes, simply because their employer had a connection to another EU member state.
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007): This case concerned a Latvian company that posted Latvian construction workers to Sweden and undercut Swedish workers (while complying with the PWD). When they refused to sign the Swedish construction sector's collective agreement the union blockaded their premises and prevented them from operating in Sweden. The ECJ decided that, as Laval were not likely to know their obligations in advance, and as they had complied with the minimum levels of posted worker protection specified in the PWD, the strike was not a justified restriction of their freedom of movement. The union were fined.
Both the above cases show the EU modifying member state collective bargaining laws to protect the free movement of services, one of the four freedoms that the EU is based on. In all member states this effectively created a two-tier system of strikes. Strikes that were directed at domestic companies only remained subject to domestic law, but strikes with potential cross-border effects had to both comply with domestic law and the new requirements that they be justified in restricting free movement, and proportionate relative to the matter in dispute.
As these requirements existed outside of domestic law and were never properly defined outside of a few ECJ cases, they caused chaos in member state labour law regimes. For example, in 2008 BALPA balloted to go on strike, and British Airways strong-armed them by declaring that their cause was a disproportionate restriction on their freedom to provide services in the EU. Even though a potential strike was legal under English law, BA demanded damages of £100million per day to account for lost revenue caused by the strike (trade union damages are capped in English law but not under the ECJ case law that BA relied upon). As a consequence, the strike was stopped.
While the impact of these cases on English collective bargaining was reduced slightly by the decision in Govia GTR Railway Limited v ASLEF [2016] which limited their potential application to industrial actions that directly hindered the free movement of services, it is still true that ECJ decisions made collective bargaining and the right to strike subordinate to the rights of multinational corporations. Not only that, the uncertainty that the ECJ's rulings created certainly had a chilling effect on potential strike actions across the EU as the BA/BALPA dispute shows.
Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (2015): This case was an advisory opinion produced by the EFTA Court, so it was not binding on Norway. However, the reasoning of the EFTA Court takes the Viking and Laval approach even further so it merits discussion here as a reflection of EU judges' views on collective bargaining. In this case Holship (a Danish company) wanted to provide its own casual workers to load and discharge its cargo - contravening a long-standing Norwegian collective agreement. The Norwegian transport union threatened a boycott to force Holship to sign the agreement and abide by it.
EFTAC advised that as the agreement went beyond the 'core object and elements of collective bargaining', it could be considered a breach of competition law. EFTAC also advised that the principle in Viking applied, and that as the agreement went beyond the Court's definition of collective bargaining, any boycott would breach Holship's freedom of establishment. The effect of this judgment was to effectively annul all collectively bargained dock labour schemes similar to Norway's across the whole of the EEA. The sector in Norway was permanently casualised to safeguard one of the EU's four freedoms. Additionally, the European Commission openly encouraged companies to challenge similar schemes in other member states.
I think that the above evidence is enough to show that the EU has a destructive track record when it comes to collective bargaining. The EU repeatedly fights collective agreements when they impede the free establishment of foreign companies, places onerous restrictions on certain industrial actions (even when compared to the awful restrictions placed on trade unions in the UK), and allows companies that post workers to undercut collective agreements.
2. Commission Recommendations and Bailout Terms
Where the EU has intervened in member state laws concerning collective bargaining, it has had a serious negative impact. To give the example of Greece and Portugal, the terms of their post-crisis bailouts included the suspension of sector collective agreements and in the Greek case associations of persons were empowered to conclude collective agreements instead of unions. The end result of these measures (and others) was that the number of Greek workers covered by collective agreements fell by 84%. In Portugal the number of workers covered fell by 89%.
In Romania and Ireland the European Commission intervened to recommend that new laws not be brought in line with treaty obligations, with the consequence that certain workers were denied their collective bargaining rights, in contravention of several treaties.
The common theme in the case law and the actions of the EC and other EU institutions over the past 25 years is that worker rights are subordinate to the rights of their bosses. That is something that the EU has in common with the UK (in fact, it may have imported the concept from us), which is why I said that the EU is no better when it comes to trade union rights. I can add some sources for the claims in this part of my post if you want, but right now I've run out of steam after a lot of typing.
Before I get into the meat of the EU's systematic attempts to limit collective bargaining rights to secure its four freedoms I've got a few preliminary points. Firstly, it's not a relative question. The EU either systematically worked against collective bargaining rights or it didn't. The UK being tougher on collective bargaining rights in some areas that don't touch on the EU's four freedoms is not relevant to what I was saying.
Secondly, the massive gap between the UK and certain EU countries in terms of the proportion of workplaces covered by collective bargaining agreements is a reflection of the underlying structure of industrial relations in different countries. In most cases, those structures predate the EU or are the result of domestic policies which the EU has not influenced. As such, it's not counterintuitive at all for me to say that the EU has undermined collective bargaining rights even though many countries within the EU have strong collective bargaining traditions. As I'll show, under EU law those traditions are no match for the EU's four freedoms. As an aside, it's also worth noting that only 6/27 EU countries are fully compliant with their international obligations on the right to strike as set out in ILO Conventions 87 and 98, so it's not like the collective bargaining cup runneth over in most EU member states.
With that out of the way, there are two principal ways in which the EU sought to undermine collective bargaining rights in order to secure its four freedoms. The first is through directives and ECJ/EFTAC decisions, which have modified domestic collective bargaining and imposed new burdens on trade unions in certain situations. The second is through the EC's country specific recommendations and the post-crisis bailout terms imposed on struggling EU states, both of which completely changed collective bargaining laws in certain EU states, with disastrous effects.
1. Directives and Court Decisions:
The Posted Workers Directive 1996 allows workers who are temporarily posted by a company located in one member state to work in another member state to be subject to the law of the member state in which their company is located, as opposed to the law of the state in which they are working. While certain core areas of the law of their host country had to be observed (working time, health and safety, pay, discrimination protections, etc) applicable sector-wide collective bargaining agreements were not listed as core areas (except for universally applicable collective agreements in the construction sector). This allowed posting companies to pay their workers lower wages than had been collectively agreed across sectors, provided that the minimum floor of rights had been met. It's clearly an example of the EU working against collective bargaining rights to facilitate the free movement of services and workers, and was justified at the time as making it easier for smaller enterprises to operate in other member states. The result of this directive was a gradual increase in the usage of posted workers, abuses such as rotational postings, and the creation of companies in countries with poor labour laws in order to exploit the directive. As a result of these abuses, the directive was amended in 2018. Now posted workers are entitled to collectively bargained rights that emanate from large, representative regional or sectoral collective agreements. Of course, countries where there is no sectoral bargaining (possibly due to EU pressure, which will be discussed later) have no such agreements.
That's an example of the EU working against collective bargaining rights by allowing companies that post workers to ignore them. Two ECJ cases also show the EU working against collective bargaining rights (in particular, the right to strike).
International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007): This case concerned the reflagging of a Finnish ship so that Estonian workers could be employed on lower wages than existing Finnish crewmembers in contravention of a collective agreement. The union went on strike and the case ended up before the ECJ. While the ECJ recognised that the right to strike was a fundamental one, it was held that a strike which limits the freedom of establishment of a company may be contrary to EU law and thus illegal (even if all domestic laws on balloting etc had been complied with). This case is an example of the EU injecting uncertainty into member state collective bargaining laws by making strikes that were previously completely legitimate into potentially illegal strikes, simply because their employer had a connection to another EU member state.
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007): This case concerned a Latvian company that posted Latvian construction workers to Sweden and undercut Swedish workers (while complying with the PWD). When they refused to sign the Swedish construction sector's collective agreement the union blockaded their premises and prevented them from operating in Sweden. The ECJ decided that, as Laval were not likely to know their obligations in advance, and as they had complied with the minimum levels of posted worker protection specified in the PWD, the strike was not a justified restriction of their freedom of movement. The union were fined.
Both the above cases show the EU modifying member state collective bargaining laws to protect the free movement of services, one of the four freedoms that the EU is based on. In all member states this effectively created a two-tier system of strikes. Strikes that were directed at domestic companies only remained subject to domestic law, but strikes with potential cross-border effects had to both comply with domestic law and the new requirements that they be justified in restricting free movement, and proportionate relative to the matter in dispute.
As these requirements existed outside of domestic law and were never properly defined outside of a few ECJ cases, they caused chaos in member state labour law regimes. For example, in 2008 BALPA balloted to go on strike, and British Airways strong-armed them by declaring that their cause was a disproportionate restriction on their freedom to provide services in the EU. Even though a potential strike was legal under English law, BA demanded damages of £100million per day to account for lost revenue caused by the strike (trade union damages are capped in English law but not under the ECJ case law that BA relied upon). As a consequence, the strike was stopped.
While the impact of these cases on English collective bargaining was reduced slightly by the decision in Govia GTR Railway Limited v ASLEF [2016] which limited their potential application to industrial actions that directly hindered the free movement of services, it is still true that ECJ decisions made collective bargaining and the right to strike subordinate to the rights of multinational corporations. Not only that, the uncertainty that the ECJ's rulings created certainly had a chilling effect on potential strike actions across the EU as the BA/BALPA dispute shows.
Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (2015): This case was an advisory opinion produced by the EFTA Court, so it was not binding on Norway. However, the reasoning of the EFTA Court takes the Viking and Laval approach even further so it merits discussion here as a reflection of EU judges' views on collective bargaining. In this case Holship (a Danish company) wanted to provide its own casual workers to load and discharge its cargo - contravening a long-standing Norwegian collective agreement. The Norwegian transport union threatened a boycott to force Holship to sign the agreement and abide by it.
EFTAC advised that as the agreement went beyond the 'core object and elements of collective bargaining', it could be considered a breach of competition law. EFTAC also advised that the principle in Viking applied, and that as the agreement went beyond the Court's definition of collective bargaining, any boycott would breach Holship's freedom of establishment. The effect of this judgment was to effectively annul all collectively bargained dock labour schemes similar to Norway's across the whole of the EEA. The sector in Norway was permanently casualised to safeguard one of the EU's four freedoms. Additionally, the European Commission openly encouraged companies to challenge similar schemes in other member states.
I think that the above evidence is enough to show that the EU has a destructive track record when it comes to collective bargaining. The EU repeatedly fights collective agreements when they impede the free establishment of foreign companies, places onerous restrictions on certain industrial actions (even when compared to the awful restrictions placed on trade unions in the UK), and allows companies that post workers to undercut collective agreements.
2. Commission Recommendations and Bailout Terms
Where the EU has intervened in member state laws concerning collective bargaining, it has had a serious negative impact. To give the example of Greece and Portugal, the terms of their post-crisis bailouts included the suspension of sector collective agreements and in the Greek case associations of persons were empowered to conclude collective agreements instead of unions. The end result of these measures (and others) was that the number of Greek workers covered by collective agreements fell by 84%. In Portugal the number of workers covered fell by 89%.
In Romania and Ireland the European Commission intervened to recommend that new laws not be brought in line with treaty obligations, with the consequence that certain workers were denied their collective bargaining rights, in contravention of several treaties.
The common theme in the case law and the actions of the EC and other EU institutions over the past 25 years is that worker rights are subordinate to the rights of their bosses. That is something that the EU has in common with the UK (in fact, it may have imported the concept from us), which is why I said that the EU is no better when it comes to trade union rights. I can add some sources for the claims in this part of my post if you want, but right now I've run out of steam after a lot of typing.
Last edited:
Raheem
Well-Known Member
For right now, that's TLDR, but thanks for going to the trouble, and I will get round to it.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Except that I've haven't denied anything at all, I've explicitly said
It's frankly pointless attempting to engage with you on this issue, as you appear unable to discuss it coherently or in good faith, so please do us both a favour - don't bother responding to this post or addressing any more of your ill thought out knee jerk nonsense to me in future.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
For this to count as genuine evidence, you would need to have figures specifically for timber imports pre-Brexit and since, and you would also need to show how much of the decrease was down to Brexit, rather than the other supply factors we've already recognised are contributing to the problem.
Again, I'm not saying Brexit hasn't been a factor, but so far we've seen absolutely nothing which actually proves that it is.
Johnny Doe
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't need any of that. I see it everyday - you mean you'd need it to believe it. Because reading back, you are quite determined not to unequivocally accept what was obvious would happen, what has obviously happened and what was the main obvious cause.
So feel free to have a dig for the data, and maybe convince yourself it doesn't entirely prove what's as plain as day.
Enjoy.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Apparently, they resumed supplies in January ten days later or so after their initial announcement.
Just a quick google about timber supplies shows a very complex and fascinating international situation. with covid being a big contributor to high prices and shortages across the globe never mind any additional issues in the UK with Brexit.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Project Fear told us the least likely outcome of negotiations would be tarriff-free trade - emphasising that made catastrophising easier.
Yet here we are, and no catastrophe. Plain as day.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Your one trick pony presence indicates catastrophe. Can't you take your project fear bollocks elsewhere?
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Do please like that post cos it's important he gets another vacuous day off to a meaningful start.
bimble
floofy
People didn't want Brexit because of facts and data so it's entirely pointless trying to convince them it was a shit idea using facts and data. They are never ever going to change their mind.
Like first there were no empty shelves it was all Remoaner lies, then even if maybe there are empty shelves it was cos of covid now i don't know, back to it being a remoaner lie i think.
Kind of fascinating to watch them but a total waste of time trying to change their mind.
Like first there were no empty shelves it was all Remoaner lies, then even if maybe there are empty shelves it was cos of covid now i don't know, back to it being a remoaner lie i think.
Kind of fascinating to watch them but a total waste of time trying to change their mind.
gosub
~#
WTF We are in the middle of a massive clusterfuck. Or hadn't you noticed. Not entirely down to Brexit (but it has played its part) not entirely down to Covid (but it has played its part). And it is the middle. This is first year of Brexit proper, and it hasn't been a seamless transition, lessons will be learned and things will normalise but right now can we just get through harvest season.
bimble
floofy
No it's not, doesn't start properly til next year.
Brexit red tape hits UK manufacturing of goods from cars to fridges
January deadline is scuppering UK supply chains as they reel from the pandemic
www.independent.co.uk
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Oh no!!!
Enjoyed my wild rocket last night, down from 99p to 59p. Won't someone think of McDonalds lettuce
Enjoyed my wild rocket last night, down from 99p to 59p. Won't someone think of McDonalds lettuce
andysays
Love and solidarity
What exactly do you see everyday?
Unless it's containers full of Swedish timber being refused point blank admittance to the UK because we don't want nasty foreign timber here, I really don't see how you can decide what the causes of a shortage might be.
No one is disputing the shortage, and I'm not denying that some of it may be a result of Brexit, but your response is utterly unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced that Brexit is to blame for absolutely everything.
Unfortunately there appear to be a lot of gullible people who are willing to believe any old unevidenced claim as long as it allows them to maintain their smug "told you so" position.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
You really have convinced yourself this is true. Fascinating to observe how this takes hold, and then seemingly perpetuates itself. I guess this is how extremism is created.
Tell me, something, what is the IMFs latest expectation for the UK economy?
bimble
floofy
You talk about your 59p salad a lot. You should definitely leave a rave review, cos everyone else seems to think it’s disgusting.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
This place is just too bizarre at times. Thanks for the LOL.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
double
Similar threads
