Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[andysays]

No...

Maybe you should at least read and attempt to understand the wiki page you just linked to before continuing any further out of your depth...

 

[NoXion]

No, I barely know what our own parliament is doing one day from the next.

What's your theory in this master end game of 27 countries on the working time directive? Bildeberg?

What has the Bilderberg Group got to do with anything? Because it looks from here like you're trying to equate anti-EU positions in general with conspiracy nonsense. Which would be a transparent attempt to de-legitimise any and all opposition to the EU no matter what its political basis.

 

[paolo]

They should, but they don't. Funny, that.

You're now ascribing the responsibility to the EU - that it's for them to protect us.

The EU are to blame for not enforcing their *minimum* rules?

Not the UK, the sovereign state, but the EU are not enforcing things?

 

[teuchter]

Any thoughts as to why 'the EU' doesn't enforce it more strongly?

Because governments such as the UK one have strongly resisted things like getting rid of the 48hrs 'opt out'.

 

[hash tag]

Tim calls for May to go shock 'In the name of God, GO' Wetherspoons boss REVEALS Theresa May's 'essential Brexit flaw'

 

[toblerone3]

FFS. The Greek people must be really glad how the EU added to their welfare.

.

 

[mauvais]

The WTD isn't just 48 hours. That's the only optional bit, and it's the UK that made it optional, whilst complaining about the entire WTD as the creeping 'social charter'. French working time regulations aren't optional, IIRC.

 

[paolo]

What has the Bilderberg Group got to do with anything? Because it looks from here like you're trying to equate anti-EU positions in general with conspiracy nonsense. Which would be a transparent attempt to de-legitimise any and all opposition to the EU no matter what its political basis.

"They should, but they don't. Funny, that."

It's the nod and wink of your comment. Bilderberg reference is extreme, but the "funny that" was what led me there.

 

[Supine]

After all this time there are still fundamental misunderstandings regarding roles and responsibilities when it comes to legislation and enforcement.

 

[paolo]

Maybe you should at least read and attempt to understand the wiki page you just linked to before continuing any further out of your depth...

I'm out of my depth more often than Raab has seen lorries at Dover.

Is there anything in the WTD that forcefully *removes* UK workers rights?

 

[redsquirrel]

You're now ascribing the responsibility to the EU - that it's for them to protect us.

The EU are to blame for not enforcing their *minimum* rules?

Not the UK, the sovereign state, but the EU are not enforcing things?

You really cannot think in terms other than "the EU" vs "the UK" can you?

 

[JimW]

After all this time there are still fundamental misunderstandings regarding roles and responsibilities when it comes to legislation and enforcement.

The main point being made was we were regularly assured protecting workers' rights was something the EU did by the sort of people who would then go on berate leave voters for not understanding the issues.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The WTD isn't just 48 hours. That's the only optional bit, and it's the UK that made it optional, whilst complaining about the entire WTD as the creeping 'social charter'. French working time regulations aren't optional, IIRC.

But France is in the EU. How can that be possible? And what about all those French state owned companies? How are they allowed?

Maybe just maybe what's gone on in the UK since 1979 wasn't caused by the EU.

Calling out the EU for its flaws and failures is one thing. Pretending it is this all powerful force that is ruining our lives, holding us back, is just fantasy. Dangerous fantasy as it feeds in to the UKIP daily express daily mail Sun nonsense that's been fuelling division and xenophobia for decades. Up yours delors haha.

 

[andysays]

You're now ascribing the responsibility to the EU - that it's for them to protect us.

The EU are to blame for not enforcing their *minimum* rules?

Not the UK, the sovereign state, but the EU are not enforcing things?

It's the responsibility of the member states to enforce the rules within their jurisdictions, not the EU.

If people have signed the opt-out, then the rules (such as they are) are not being broken, that's the whole point of the opt-out.

You clearly have very little idea of how this works and appear to be clutching at straws...

 

[NoXion]

You're now ascribing the responsibility to the EU - that it's for them to protect us.

The EU are to blame for not enforcing their *minimum* rules?

Not the UK, the sovereign state, but the EU are not enforcing things?

The WTD isn't just 48 hours. That's the only optional bit, and it's the UK that made it optional, whilst complaining about the entire WTD as the creeping 'social charter'. French working time regulations aren't optional, IIRC.

All of which puts the lie to the notion that the EU is any friend of workers. It was within the interests of UK state and capital to make that bit optional, and oh look what happened.

"They should, but they don't. Funny, that."

It's the nod and wink of your comment. Bilderberg reference is extreme, but the "funny that" was what led me there.

If you think I was implying anything conspiranutty, then you're delusional. The EU is openly committed to capitalism and its rules (as well its behaviour in the real world) reflect that.

 

[mauvais]

The EU are pursuing Article 7 against Hungary by the way which unfortunately is about as strong as it gets, since expulsion is impossible. The strongest punishment is to remove voting rights but then you can argue that's anti-democratic (ho ho ho) so...

 

[paolo]

The original point I reacted to was

“vaunted granter of workers' rights”

I think we’ve established that there is no vaunted granter.

 

[Supine]

I'm betting it's mainly UK conservative company owners who will be happy to avoid the upcoming EU anti tax avoidance directive. I'm sure the workers would prefer more money going into the pot for fair distribution.

 

[mauvais]

All of which puts the lie to the notion that the EU is any friend of workers. It was within the interests of UK state and capital to make that bit optional, and oh look what happened.

I think you're trying to have your cake & eat it here - EU protections were weakened by UK capital, certainly, but the ultimate influence was positive and much further than the UK wanted to go were it left alone.

The UK strongly opposes any attempt to tell people that they can no longer work the hours they want

UK Government Employment Secretary, 1993. Are things any different now?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think you're trying to have your cake & eat it here - EU protections were weakened by UK capital, certainly, but the ultimate influence was positive and much further than the UK wanted to go were it left alone.
UK Government Employment Secretary, 1993. Are things any different now?

I'd even go further than that. With regulations such as those guaranteeing holiday and sick pay to part-time workers, which were brought in by the EU, not the UK independently, you have one win that extends across 27 countries. How is that not a good thing? And as keeps being pointed out, these things are invariably minimums - any state is free to take things further if they wish.

I see confused thinking in a lot of posts here. The EU is simultaneously too powerful and not powerful enough.

 

[Gerry1time]

The EU has been supporting the privatisation and marketisation of public services for decades. What the fuck do you think happened in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, etc

If you're going to argue for Remaining ok, but this nonsense of the white knight EU is not just wrong but revolting when people are dying as a result of policies enacted by the EU.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. What I was saying was that as neo-liberal as the EU undoubtedly is, it's still seen as a left wing construct by many on the even-further-right due to its support for things like quality standards and to some degree workers' rights. I'm no fan of the EU either, but I was just pointing out that the slide towards a no deal brexit isn't due to lack of care from the far right, it's something they're proactively pushing.

 

[paolo]

That wasn't what I was saying at all. What I was saying was that as neo-liberal as the EU undoubtedly is, it's still seen as a left wing construct by many on the even-further-right due to its support for things like quality standards and to some degree workers' rights. I'm no fan of the EU either, but I was just pointing out that the slide towards a no deal brexit isn't due to lack of care from the far right, it's something they're proactively pushing.

The Mayfair dinner that brought Europe's far right together

 

[andysays]

The WTD isn't just 48 hours. That's the only optional bit, and it's the UK that made it optional, whilst complaining about the entire WTD as the creeping 'social charter'. French working time regulations aren't optional, IIRC.

Funnily enough, my previous employer was under the impression that the whole thing was optional and that he could insist that I didn't have four weeks paid holiday a year.

Maybe I should have reported him to the EU...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Funnily enough, my previous employer was under the impression that the whole thing was optional and that he could insist that I didn't have four weeks paid holiday a year.

Maybe I should have reported him to the EU...

Your employer was doing something illegal. So you should have reported him to the UK authorities, who could have done something about it, not the EU - this is UK law, brought in through the EU. We're entitled to 20 days' paid leave plus bank holidays, or a pro-rata equivalent, by law. And the vast majority of UK employers do comply with this, given that it's the law.

Holiday entitlement

 

[pocketscience]

Your government will not have to answer to the EU. They'll do exactly what they want

You seem to be an expert on EU regurlations, so can you anwer me this;
when remainers were challenged up thread, that Corbyn's plan to nationalise key industries would be hindered by the regulations of EU competition law (were the UK to be bound to the EU), those remainers suggested that the UK could simply ignore EU rules just like France and Germany regularly do.
So can the UK gov ignore those EU rules thattyou're suggesting they answer to? and if so, why do you think that tory governments haven't previously ignored those rules anyway and gone all out Singapore?

and you think they're suddenly going to change their spots and give more money to the NHS and the more vulnerable? Not a chance. No they'll up taxes and screw every last penny out of public servants. The super rich will not stick around...sure they'll keep a few pads but they won't live in The UK long enough every year to pay taxes. Banks will stop giving loans....because of high risk and no guaranteed returns if trade is shite....think about that for a minute...there goes manufacturing and industry. Small businesses may as well kiss their asses goodbye.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that this post brexit goverment will up taxes and cut spending on the NHS? what kind of government would that be? Tory, Labour, who?

I mean, forgive me for thinking you've got this a bit arse about face, I can only imagine that as an Irish citizen your opinion may be distorted if you think the prospects of raised taxes causing the super rich to fuck off is something negative.
Are you particularly worried that Apple (and just about every other rich multi-national) may leave Ireland when they're told to pay more taxes?

 

[NoXion]

I think you're trying to have your cake & eat it here - EU protections were weakened by UK capital, certainly, but the ultimate influence was positive and much further than the UK wanted to go were it left alone.
UK Government Employment Secretary, 1993. Are things any different now?

The point is that such "protections" will always be gimped by the interests of capital, because that's ultimately what they are designed to serve. It's for them, not for us. When the National Minimum Wage was introduced (no thanks to the EU by the way), younger workers and apprentices got fucked, and are still getting fucked with poorer rates.

I'd even go further than that. With regulations such as those guaranteeing holiday and sick pay to part-time workers, which were brought in by the EU, not the UK independently, you have one win that extends across 27 countries. How is that not a good thing? And as keeps being pointed out, these things are invariably minimums - any state is free to take things further if they wish.

It's not a win, it's not even a concession, grudgingly given after demands and action by European workers. Those minimums are borne out of a desire by the EU for regulatory harmonisation. That they may have resulted in slightly better conditions than might otherwise have occurred is incidental.

 

[not-bono-ever]

The U.K. choosing to take an ill considered and destructive route into gerrymandered neoliberalism under the EU umbrella yet simultaneously ensuring that the EU is also the taking the popular ogre across the water role in the performance is a quite remarkable piece of engineering

 

[andysays]

Your employer was doing something illegal. So you should have reported him to the UK authorities, who could have done something about it, not the EU - this is UK law, brought in through the EU. We're entitled to 20 days' paid leave plus bank holidays, or a pro-rata equivalent, by law. And the vast majority of UK employers do comply with this, given that it's the law.

Yes, I know all that. That's what I told him and that, among other reasons, is why I told him to stick his job.

The bit about reporting him to the EU was a joke referring to paolo's apparent belief that it's for the EU to enforce

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I know all that.The bit about reporting him to the EU was a joke referring to paolo's apparent belief that it's for the EU to enforce

In this instance, the UK is compliant with EU law. If a member state were not to comply with EU law, then yes, the EU would need to do something about it. And evidently it isn't always successful when a member state doesn't comply. Fact remains that your legal right to four weeks plus public holidays came in as an EU directive. If you want to see how bad things could potentially get, have a look at the US and its holiday entitlement. You know how many days a worker is legally entitled to there? A big fat ZERO. That's the direction the r/w brexiteers want to take the UK in - 'flexibility to remain competititve in this tough world...' Things can get far worse than they are now, and if brexit succeeds they probably will.

 

[mauvais]

The point is that such "protections" will always be gimped by the interests of capital, because that's ultimately what they are designed to serve. It's for them, not for us. When the National Minimum Wage was introduced (no thanks to the EU by the way), younger workers and apprentices got fucked, and are still getting fucked with poorer rates.

No shit. But until you remove the influence of the entire external environment of global capital, this is like leaving your umbrella at home and arguing with the rain.

It's not a win, it's not even a concession, grudgingly given after demands and action by European workers. Those minimums are borne out of a desire by the EU for regulatory harmonisation. That they may have resulted in slightly better conditions than might otherwise have occurred is incidental.

It's not incidental if you value your 'slightly better' conditions. I don't need to give a shit if it's the product of harmonisation. Is it better or worse?