Hard Brexit

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

In other words you've got nothing

 

Its all very very simple. Hope you agree

 

[Francis Albert]

33 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Its all very very simple. Hope you agree

 

It is certainly simple. Can't argue with that.

[Justin Z]

The blue and yellow bars really ought to be significantly thinner on the left side (and the blue one on the right), but it gets the point across well enough.

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

It is certainly simple. Can't argue with that.

 

Lets put this myth to bed then. 

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

The blue and yellow bars really ought to be significantly thinner on the left side (and the blue one on the right), but it gets the point across well enough.

 

Agreed mate. If you enjoy Brexiteers getting torn a new one every day then tune into LBC radio at 10am. James O’Brien slaughters them. He’s asked numerous times to name one EU law that they disagree with, not one has given a coherent reply yet. 

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Lets put this myth to bed then. 

Not sure what myth you were referring to and in saying it was simple I wasn't being complimentary.

The labels on the left side should read either Brussels, London and Edinburgh or EU, UK and Scotland (Sadiq Khan doesn't head the UK government which may be a pity ... and of course Scotland is currently, by the wish of Scotland part of the UK) )  And the blue EU bit on the right should be larger to reflect the fact that an independent Scotland would not have the opt outs the UK currently has and would probably have to adopt the Euro.

But more fundamentally reducing debate to a simple .. no simplistic diagram is nonsensical.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Space Mackerel]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not sure what myth you were referring to and in saying it was simple I wasn't being complimentary.

The labels on the left side should read either Brussels, London and Edinburgh or EU, UK and Scotland (Sadiq Khan doesn't head the UK government which may be a pity ... and of course Scotland is currently, by the wish of Scotland part of the UK) )  And the blue EU bit on the right should be larger to reflect the fact that an independent Scotland would not have the opt outs the UK currently has and would probably have to adopt the Euro.

But more fundamentally reducing debate to a simple .. no simplistic diagram is nonsensical.

 

Scotland would not have to adopt the Euro, this is another myth that needs putting to bed.

 

Anyway, as ever, ithe thread is about Brexit. Here’s a wee ditty about Moggs bodyguard partying in a Nazi uniform. 

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/05/excl-rees-mogg-white-shirt-partying-in-nazi-uniform/

 

 

 

 

[jake]

7 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Scotland would not have to adopt the Euro, this is another myth that needs putting to bed.

 

Anyway, as ever, ithe thread is about Brexit. Here’s a wee ditty about Moggs bodyguard partying in a Nazi uniform. 

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/05/excl-rees-mogg-white-shirt-partying-in-nazi-uniform/

 

 

 

 

Daily sport type post.

 

[jake]

7 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Agreed mate. If you enjoy Brexiteers getting torn a new one every day then tune into LBC radio at 10am. James O’Brien slaughters them. He’s asked numerous times to name one EU law that they disagree with, not one has given a coherent reply yet. 

Here's one big fat juicy one for starters .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

[jake]

Got a wee list Space if you want.

 

LBC radio .

How fekin ironic

[JamboX2]

I see Anna Soubry has finally stood up for the majority of the Tory Party's MPs in denouncing Mogg and Bojo.

 

Wonder how this will play out.

[Boris]

35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

I see Anna Soubry has finally stood up for the majority of the Tory Party's MPs in denouncing Mogg and Bojo.

 

Wonder how this will play out.

 

Given this whole farce is essentially about internal Conservative Party politics, it's quite possible we could see a split.  Depends on how much backbone the rest of the Tory MP's have.

 

Interestingly, it would seem that were May to ease off on the "hard Brexit" rhetoric, then there would undoubtedly be a leadership challenge.

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Given this whole farce is essentially about internal Conservative Party politics, it's quite possible we could see a split.  Depends on how much backbone the rest of the Tory MP's have.

 

Interestingly, it would seem that were May to ease off on the "hard Brexit" rhetoric, then there would undoubtedly be a leadership challenge.

 

 

 

Tory party will shatter in due course IMHO. 

UKIP have already started. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

8 hours ago, jake said:

Here's one big fat juicy one for starters .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

 

Cmon jake, prove the listeners of LBC and me wrong and give us an EU law that grinds your gears. 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Given this whole farce is essentially about internal Conservative Party politics, it's quite possible we could see a split.  Depends on how much backbone the rest of the Tory MP's have.

 

Interestingly, it would seem that were May to ease off on the "hard Brexit" rhetoric, then there would undoubtedly be a leadership challenge.

 

 

 

George Osbourne wrote recently that May should sod her backbenchers and work on the Parliamentary numbers as whole: i.e. work with her soft-brexit mps and the Liberals, Labour and SNP. A "National PM" if you like. Deal being, in the event the hard right mount a coup she can simply hold a vote of confidence and win it with opposition backing.

 

All a PM needs is a majority of support in the House. Nothing about parties.

 

As you say this is fast becoming a story of what the Tories internal squabbles dictate. In order to prevent this cycle of European blood letting she should do what Cameron and Major never did - say piss off or back the party line. Labour became electable in the 80s that way with Militant. Time the Tories did with the European Reform Group.

 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

George Osbourne wrote recently that May should sod her backbenchers and work on the Parliamentary numbers as whole: i.e. work with her soft-brexit mps and the Liberals, Labour and SNP. A "National PM" if you like. Deal being, in the event the hard right mount a coup she can simply hold a vote of confidence and win it with opposition backing.

 

All a PM needs is a majority of support in the House. Nothing about parties.

 

As you say this is fast becoming a story of what the Tories internal squabbles dictate. In order to prevent this cycle of European blood letting she should do what Cameron and Major never did - say piss off or back the party line. Labour became electable in the 80s that way with Militant. Time the Tories did with the European Reform Group.

 

 

Its really all about the extreme English Nationalists within the Tory party who want to pull up the drawbridge and take us back to sometime around the end of the Second World War.  

Sky News reported it this morning as "discussing things around the Brexit War Cabinet"  

 

 

[The Comedian]

BREXIT IS GOOD

 

 

[JamboX2]

35 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Its really all about the extreme English Nationalists within the Tory party who want to pull up the drawbridge and take us back to sometime around the end of the Second World War.  

Sky News reported it this morning as "discussing things around the Brexit War Cabinet"  

 

 

 

The WW2 stuff, I agree is overplayed. But this isn't just the English. There's a widespread disgruntlement at society in general in the UK. When living standards slump or stay stagnant it results in things like Brexit, Trump and dare I say independence as these populist panaceas are painted as the only solution to the problems faced. 

 

Fact is, and a great one at that, the increased interconnectivity of the world makes Brexit (of the hard Brexiteers) near impossible to do without blowing up the economy.

 

We've seen polls move away from hard Brexit as realities become known.

[Space Mackerel]

42 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The WW2 stuff, I agree is overplayed. But this isn't just the English. There's a widespread disgruntlement at society in general in the UK. When living standards slump or stay stagnant it results in things like Brexit, Trump and dare I say independence as these populist panaceas are painted as the only solution to the problems faced. 

 

Fact is, and a great one at that, the increased interconnectivity of the world makes Brexit (of the hard Brexiteers) near impossible to do without blowing up the economy.

 

We've seen polls move away from hard Brexit as realities become known.

 

Cmon, all these people accused of Tory party infighting for 20-30 years are nothing more than English Nationalists. It’s not because of Trump or the crash in 2008 or migrants. It’s a self belief they are better than everyone else, a throw back to the Victorian era and Winston Churchill etc. 

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Cmon, all these people accused of Tory party infighting for 20-30 years are nothing more than English Nationalists. It’s not because of Trump or the crash in 2008 or migrants. It’s a self belief they are better than everyone else, a throw back to the Victorian era and Winston Churchill etc. 

 

So Goldie, Laing, Forsyth, Ruth Davidson, Rifkind are all English Nationalists too?

 

Even then the stuff you refer to as being what they dream of is British over English history. Shared history. Not singular.

 

I agree they are nationalists but not purely English. 

 

It's semantics though because behind the label (I prefer Faragists - which our Spain based friend will no doubt get straight away) they're wreckers. One desire above all else.

[jake]

11 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Cmon jake, prove the listeners of LBC and me wrong and give us an EU law that grinds your gears. 

Here's one I'd hope grinds your gears.

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike

 

 

Don't kid yourself that the EU is a workers protectorate.

It's not.

It protects neo liberal capitalism and the wealthy nations.

 

Let me know when you have read this and I will move on to the next one.

Perhaps you can share it with LBC.

?

[jake]

Oh Spacey what's your thoughts on fuel poverty?

[Boris]

12 hours ago, jake said:

Here's one I'd hope grinds your gears.

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike

 

 

Don't kid yourself that the EU is a workers protectorate.

It's not.

It protects neo liberal capitalism and the wealthy nations.

 

Let me know when you have read this and I will move on to the next one.

Perhaps you can share it with LBC.

?

 

It does seem rather loaded toward the employer, but I guess it is the interpretation of "freedom of movement" that has led to this.

 

If you think that the Rees=Moggs of this world are somehow wanting to leave the EU to protect workers rights within the UK though, I fear you will be disappointed.

[jake]

24 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

It does seem rather loaded toward the employer, but I guess it is the interpretation of "freedom of movement" that has led to this.

 

If you think that the Rees=Moggs of this world are somehow wanting to leave the EU to protect workers rights within the UK though, I fear you will be disappointed.

I don't put any faith in the Tory party for that.

 

[Space Mackerel]

15 hours ago, jake said:

Here's one I'd hope grinds your gears.

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike

 

 

Don't kid yourself that the EU is a workers protectorate.

It's not.

It protects neo liberal capitalism and the wealthy nations.

 

Let me know when you have read this and I will move on to the next one.

Perhaps you can share it with LBC.

?

 

First case sounds like militant Swedish workers taking things too far. Latvians getting sent to Sweden to work for a Latvian subsidiary. 

 

Second case sounds similar as Eddie Stobart upping sticks and heading to base his operations in France. Or the banks moving to Paris, Berlin etc anytime now. Brexiteer James Dysons operations are in Malaysia now. 

 

You honestly think that JRM and the rest of the far right of the Tory party gives a shiny shite about low paid workers rights?

Edited February 7, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[Space Mackerel]

15 hours ago, jake said:

Oh Spacey what's your thoughts on fuel poverty?

 

No idea, enlighten me. 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

It does seem rather loaded toward the employer, but I guess it is the interpretation of "freedom of movement" that has led to this.

 

If you think that the Rees=Moggs of this world are somehow wanting to leave the EU to protect workers rights within the UK though, I fear you will be disappointed.

Although the Tory Government yesterday announced new measures to protect workers rights in the "gig economy". Hope they don't fall foul of any EU rules.

[Space Mackerel]

22 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

So Goldie, Laing, Forsyth, Ruth Davidson, Rifkind are all English Nationalists too?

 

Even then the stuff you refer to as being what they dream of is British over English history. Shared history. Not singular.

 

I agree they are nationalists but not purely English. 

 

It's semantics though because behind the label (I prefer Faragists - which our Spain based friend will no doubt get straight away) they're wreckers. One desire above all else.

 

Quite.

 

 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Quite.

 

 

 

Don't get the point of this to my post.

[Space Mackerel]

26 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Don't get the point of this to my post.

 

Some of them are extreme British Nationalists. 

[Space Mackerel]

NO DINOSAURS, NO SUUUURENDER!!!

 

 

[JamboX2]

11 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Some of them are extreme British Nationalists. 

 

But that's extreme Ulster Unionism...

[jake]

7 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

First case sounds like militant Swedish workers taking things too far. Latvians getting sent to Sweden to work for a Latvian subsidiary. 

 

Second case sounds similar as Eddie Stobart upping sticks and heading to base his operations in France. Or the banks moving to Paris, Berlin etc anytime now. Brexiteer James Dysons operations are in Malaysia now. 

 

You honestly think that JRM and the rest of the far right of the Tory party gives a shiny shite about low paid workers rights?

You asked me for bad EU law I gave you an example.

I'm not defending the Tories you weredefending the EU and asked me for examples.

 

That you think workers who gain a decent wage good conditions that wish to protect that against companies moving en masse replacement workers as a cheaper option as workers being militant marks you down as a Tory .

 

All be it a tartan one.

[JamboX2]

17 minutes ago, jake said:

You asked me for bad EU law I gave you an example.

I'm not defending the Tories you weredefending the EU and asked me for examples.

 

That you think workers who gain a decent wage good conditions that wish to protect that against companies moving en masse replacement workers as a cheaper option as workers being militant marks you down as a Tory .

 

All be it a tartan one.

 

How does Brexit stop this?

 

Businesses want to be in the biggest and easiest to trade in markets going. The EU gives every UK company a guaranteed potential market across 27 nations. So why does cutting that to 65million help matters at all?

 

If anything the fall in trade will lead to a rise in unemployment and a drain of skilled jobs to other nations.

 

Your problems are simply the fault of feckless governments. Not the EU.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

How does Brexit stop this?

 

 

A good question, although an unfair one given how little material jake has to work with.

 

The real question is not about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that you don't like.  It's about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that could be made better by Brexit, or that the UK tried and failed to change.

 

The Laval judgement was issued over 10 years ago.  Has it made any fundamental difference to the rights of unions and union members?  Not that I've seen.  Did the UK try but fail to change the rules?  No.  Will the UK seek to change the rules after Brexit?  Almost certainly not.

 

In contrast, look at the amount of employment law protecting workers that has come from the EU rather than UK (or in my case Irish) domestic sources.  Legislation to protect part-time workers, temporary workers, agency workers, and young workers.  Legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation.  Legislation to underpin health and safety in workplaces.

 

That's not to say that the UK can't mimic or even occasionally exceed the EU's standards in these areas.  But if anyone seriously thinks that the Conservatives will reach for the best standards for workers rather than the worst, they are in a mental state that is on a scale somewhere between deluded and deranged.

[jake]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

How does Brexit stop this?

 

Businesses want to be in the biggest and easiest to trade in markets going. The EU gives every UK company a guaranteed potential market across 27 nations. So why does cutting that to 65million help matters at all?

 

If anything the fall in trade will lead to a rise in unemployment and a drain of skilled jobs to other nations.

 

Your problems are simply the fault of feckless governments. Not the EU.

Take the answer I gave space in the context of the discussion I was having with him.

 

 

 

 

To answer your point separately though.

It's a similar problem to the TTIP .

Multi nationals being able to sue national governments or ignore labour laws and rights because it affects their business in comparison to other nations signed up to that treaty.

Thats what happened in the example I gave Space.

 

Brexit is many things Jambo it's been voted for some bad reasons and imo some very good ones.

 

Your notion that the EU protects workers is far removed from reality.

And using the Tories as the only alternative to the EU is not really an argument.

Last time I checked democracy allows us to vote for other parties beside them.

 

I thought you liked Corbyn?

 

Perhaps you should read what he has had to say about the state of affairs regarding the EU.

[jake]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

A good question, although an unfair one given how little material jake has to work with.

 

The real question is not about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that you don't like.  It's about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that could be made better by Brexit, or that the UK tried and failed to change.

 

The Laval judgement was issued over 10 years ago.  Has it made any fundamental difference to the rights of unions and union members?  Not that I've seen.  Did the UK try but fail to change the rules?  No.  Will the UK seek to change the rules after Brexit?  Almost certainly not.

 

In contrast, look at the amount of employment law protecting workers that has come from the EU rather than UK (or in my case Irish) domestic sources.  Legislation to protect part-time workers, temporary workers, agency workers, and young workers.  Legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation.  Legislation to underpin health and safety in workplaces.

 

That's not to say that the UK can't mimic or even occasionally exceed the EU's standards in these areas.  But if anyone seriously thinks that the Conservatives will reach for the best standards for workers rather than the worst, they are in a mental state that is on a scale somewhere between deluded and deranged.

You really need to speak with workers who have experience of working in other EU member states.

 

There's no doubt that legislation and regulations have been passed and no doubt with good intentions.

The reality is though that especially in the southern European countries that life is unaffordable.

Anecdotal it may be and no doubt Aussie will come along and call me a liar.

But workers are not protected in lots of EU countries.

Especially low paid and part time.

 

You and Jambo are for the EU.

I'm not.

 

I'm sick of reading my own comments as to why never mind yours.

Wished I hadn't bit to Space.

 

☺

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

A good question, although an unfair one given how little material jake has to work with.

 

The real question is not about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that you don't like.  It's about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that could be made better by Brexit, or that the UK tried and failed to change.

 

The Laval judgement was issued over 10 years ago.  Has it made any fundamental difference to the rights of unions and union members?  Not that I've seen.  Did the UK try but fail to change the rules?  No.  Will the UK seek to change the rules after Brexit?  Almost certainly not.

 

In contrast, look at the amount of employment law protecting workers that has come from the EU rather than UK (or in my case Irish) domestic sources.  Legislation to protect part-time workers, temporary workers, agency workers, and young workers.  Legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation.  Legislation to underpin health and safety in workplaces.

 

That's not to say that the UK can't mimic or even occasionally exceed the EU's standards in these areas.  But if anyone seriously thinks that the Conservatives will reach for the best standards for workers rather than the worst, they are in a mental state that is on a scale somewhere between deluded and deranged.

Maybe Ireland (since you mention it) needed the EU to help drag it into the twentieth century but the UK had good employment law, HSE legislation and non-discrimination law even before it joined, thanks to the Labour government of the 60s and 70s and even to an extent to Tory (now of course  "fascist" or "neo-fascist" governments) before and after (Thatcher and her successors were surprisingly liberal on "social" issues). The Thatcher Government did some considerable damage to workers rights  but on the other hand reversed economic decline that would have hurt workers perhaps more than anything else.

I think there is at  least a question whether tying ourselves to a rest of Europe where neo-fascism is far stronger than in the UK is a good thing. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

A good question, although an unfair one given how little material jake has to work with.

 

The real question is not about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that you don't like.  It's about a piece of EU law or a Court of Justice decision that could be made better by Brexit, or that the UK tried and failed to change.

 

The Laval judgement was issued over 10 years ago.  Has it made any fundamental difference to the rights of unions and union members?  Not that I've seen.  Did the UK try but fail to change the rules?  No.  Will the UK seek to change the rules after Brexit?  Almost certainly not.

 

In contrast, look at the amount of employment law protecting workers that has come from the EU rather than UK (or in my case Irish) domestic sources.  Legislation to protect part-time workers, temporary workers, agency workers, and young workers.  Legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation.  Legislation to underpin health and safety in workplaces.

 

That's not to say that the UK can't mimic or even occasionally exceed the EU's standards in these areas.  But if anyone seriously thinks that the Conservatives will reach for the best standards for workers rather than the worst, they are in a mental state that is on a scale somewhere between deluded and deranged.

 

Couldn't put it better Uly!

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe Ireland (since you mention it) needed the EU to help drag it into the twentieth century but the UK had good employment law, HSE legislation and non-discrimination law even before it joined, thanks to the Labour government of the 60s and 70s and even to an extent to Tory (now of course  "fascist" or "neo-fascist" governments) before and after (Thatcher and her successors were surprisingly liberal on "social" issues). The Thatcher Government did some considerable damage to workers rights  but on the other hand reversed economic decline that would have hurt workers perhaps more than anything else.

I think there is at  least a question whether tying ourselves to a rest of Europe where neo-fascism is far stronger than in the UK is a good thing. 

 

If anything what you've described is the issues of leaving this to political changes. Thatcherism was a disaster for unions. They weren't the only thing holding the economy back - bad management and no long term planning helped here too. Compare the UK to Germany: stronger manufacturing base, stronger unions and better employment rights as a result. Britain has some of the weakest union legislation in the EU. In a lot of EU nations they are vital stakeholders in the economy - here a hindrance and excuse.

 

Why has that not changed or been bettered domestically? Politics.

 

British politics is too in hoc to the right wing press and to old Thatcherite dogma. Look at our more politically consensual and centrist neighbours where coalitions in parliaments build widely accepted and long sighted decisions in comparison to knee jerkism and headline grabbing nonsense here.

 

Britain needed dragged forward on a lot in the 90s: maternity and paternity leave, overtime pay, working time directives, holiday pay to name but a few. Christ we thought a minimum wage would kill the economy up till Brown implemented it in 1998.

 

Britain frankly is archaic and needs woken up.  Being in the EU assists that and moderates the domestic extremes of the Rees-Moggs who'd happily rip up all that "red tape" tomorrow, damn anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

Effectively - laws can be amended freely by each parliament. But if there's a base level you can't duck below then we're all better off for having that safety net.

 

Anyone who believes this will be good and safe with the trajectory of the Tories is nuts. Frankly nuts.

[jake]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

If anything what you've described is the issues of leaving this to political changes. Thatcherism was a disaster for unions. They weren't the only thing holding the economy back - bad management and no long term planning helped here too. Compare the UK to Germany: stronger manufacturing base, stronger unions and better employment rights as a result. Britain has some of the weakest union legislation in the EU. In a lot of EU nations they are vital stakeholders in the economy - here a hindrance and excuse.

 

Why has that not changed or been bettered domestically? Politics.

 

British politics is too in hoc to the right wing press and to old Thatcherite dogma. Look at our more politically consensual and centrist neighbours where coalitions in parliaments build widely accepted and long sighted decisions in comparison to knee jerkism and headline grabbing nonsense here.

 

Britain needed dragged forward on a lot in the 90s: maternity and paternity leave, overtime pay, working time directives, holiday pay to name but a few. Christ we thought a minimum wage would kill the economy up till Brown implemented it in 1998.

 

Britain frankly is archaic and needs woken up.  Being in the EU assists that and moderates the domestic extremes of the Rees-Moggs who'd happily rip up all that "red tape" tomorrow, damn anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

Effectively - laws can be amended freely by each parliament. But if there's a base level you can't duck below then we're all better off for having that safety net.

 

Anyone who believes this will be good and safe with the trajectory of the Tories is nuts. Frankly nuts.

Reading your last sentence sounds like you have given up on doing anything about politics in the UK .

And place your future in the hands of European politics.

Have you seen the share of German French Dutch Italian Polish Austrian Hungarian parliaments far right representation?

Frankly anyone who puts their faith in that is as you say nuts.

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

If anything what you've described is the issues of leaving this to political changes. Thatcherism was a disaster for unions. They weren't the only thing holding the economy back - bad management and no long term planning helped here too. Compare the UK to Germany: stronger manufacturing base, stronger unions and better employment rights as a result. Britain has some of the weakest union legislation in the EU. In a lot of EU nations they are vital stakeholders in the economy - here a hindrance and excuse.

 

Why has that not changed or been bettered domestically? Politics.

 

British politics is too in hoc to the right wing press and to old Thatcherite dogma. Look at our more politically consensual and centrist neighbours where coalitions in parliaments build widely accepted and long sighted decisions in comparison to knee jerkism and headline grabbing nonsense here.

 

Britain needed dragged forward on a lot in the 90s: maternity and paternity leave, overtime pay, working time directives, holiday pay to name but a few. Christ we thought a minimum wage would kill the economy up till Brown implemented it in 1998.

 

Britain frankly is archaic and needs woken up.  Being in the EU assists that and moderates the domestic extremes of the Rees-Moggs who'd happily rip up all that "red tape" tomorrow, damn anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

Effectively - laws can be amended freely by each parliament. But if there's a base level you can't duck below then we're all better off for having that safety net.

 

Anyone who believes this will be good and safe with the trajectory of the Tories is nuts. Frankly nuts.

A revealingly eurocrat post. Politics, politicians (other than those who are part of the "consensus") and above all voters are held in something like contempt.

You assume for some reason that social progress in the UK would in the absence of the EU have stopped in 1974. And perhaps the 40% youth unemployed in parts of the EU should be asked how successful EU labour laws have been in "dragging them forward".

As Jake says the far right has been and is far more successful in Europe than in the UK ... in part because "consensual" coalition based government gives no voice to those whose views (left or right) stray from the consensus. 

 

 

[Geoff the Mince]

On 05/02/2018 at 17:16, Space Mackerel said:

 

Agreed mate. If you enjoy Brexiteers getting torn a new one every day then tune into LBC radio at 10am. James O’Brien slaughters them. He’s asked numerous times to name one EU law that they disagree with, not one has given a coherent reply yet. 

Did you enjoy his comments that anyone who believes Infowars and says Sandy Hook was staged is a nut job? 

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, jake said:

Reading your last sentence sounds like you have given up on doing anything about politics in the UK .

And place your future in the hands of European politics.

Have you seen the share of German French Dutch Italian Polish Austrian Hungarian parliaments far right representation?

Frankly anyone who puts their faith in that is as you say nuts.

 

Not at all - British politics however is currently in a gutter.

 

What we are talking about are your rights: economic, social, political and human. 

 

We have a Human Rights Act to protect your political and human rights by giving direct effect to the ECHR.

 

Why are the rights protected by the social chapter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights bad? 

 

We aren't talking about domestic politics as a beacon. No nation is atm. But because that's subject to change we need base lines we can't duck below - these things provide that! 

[Ulysses]

23 hours ago, jake said:

I'm sick of reading my own comments as to why never mind yours.

 

I can't argue with that. 

[Ulysses]

22 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe Ireland (since you mention it) needed the EU to help drag it into the twentieth century....

 

No need.  That's the kind of cesspit comment the discussion could do without. 

[jake]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

I can't argue with that. 

 ? 

 

That believe it or not kind of cheered me up buddy.

 

[Ulysses]

Just now, jake said:

 ? 

 

That believe it or not kind of cheered me up buddy.

 

 

That was the intention.

 

In the end all of us on this thread are just going round and round in circles while people with more power and influence will actually decide what happens.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Why are the rights protected by the social chapter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights bad? 

 

 

Good question.  I was at a lecture this morning about the new EU data protection directive that comes into effect in May.  It's tedious, it's boring, it's the stuff of bureaucrats' dreams - but it is a fight between the good guys and the bad guys, with the EU's institutions, especially the Court of Justice, championing the rights of people to privacy and dignity over the rights of companies to make a buck.

[Francis Albert]

54 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

No need.  That's the kind of cesspit comment the discussion could do without. 

Are irish women still having to travel to the uk to get an abortion? If so why has the eu and the european court of human rights not intervened? Sorry it may be a cesspit comment but it it was a reaction to the suggestion that the uk needs the eu to teach it about human rights.

PS i recognise the question applies to all of Ireland and that the uk is culpable in relation to NI.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Francis Albert