So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

5 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

 I quite like another power being the ultimate legal authority.

People manipulated into feeling this way are the problem. It's kind of juvenile in outlook. How do you account for feeling such a curious  preference?

[P.K.]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

The UK is quite capable of looking after its own standards. I find it hilarious that folk would prefer to take an education from Brussels than to trust in our ability to govern ourselves. It is a malady that has overtaken us in recent decades until half the population believes it. Quite ludicrous. Wake up people! We are better than this.

You're in dangerous waters Woolster.

Personally I think it's absolutely right that the EU should set certain standards on workers rights in member countries. Having worked in a multinational I can assure you that UK workers rights lagged far behind our rivals like France, Germany, Italy etc. So I'm all for the the EU setting what are really really basic workers standards like holidays.

Now across the EU we have seen a rise in the "gig" economy. As it's risen many member states have taken positive steps to prevent workers being exposed to the vagaries of the markets and unscrupulous employers. Doing what they can to give vulnerable workers more protection. There is one member country that has done the square root of fuck-all about this. Can you guess which Entity it is?

Brexiteers like yourself have recently been crowing about the UK employment figures. However you don't seem to have paid any attention to the productivity levels, which have stalled or fallen. Now you can read all sorts into figures as suits your agenda. But more employed folks producing the same or less? You don't suppose there's job sharing going on do you? As in a rising gig economy.

The UK is quite capable of looking after it's own (low) standards all right....

[quilp]

22 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Brexiteers like yourself have recently been crowing about the UK employment figures. However you don't seem to have paid any attentitn to the productivity levels, which have stalled or fallen. 

Despite brexit, or those dastardly crowing brexiteers, those productivity levels have been falling for a decade... 

Edited June 14, 2019 by quilp

[P.K.]

6 minutes ago, quilp said:

Despite brexit, or those dastardly crowing brexiteers, those productivity levels have been falling for a decade... 

They've actually been rising steadily since the financial crash of 2008.

Just like the UK gig economy.....

[quilp]

No they haven't, as confirmed by both the bbc and guardian. Go look for yourself. On the subject of production/productivity what about this?

 

[P.K.]

What about it?

I assert that UK productivity has been growing since the last crash.

Post up your figures that say differently.

And while you're about it try and show that Jo Brand was employed by the BBC and continue your backing for  everyone's favourite toad Nigel Farage.

You're losing it...

[quilp]

Oh fuck off. 

[Freggyragh]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

I was responding to PK's assertion of the "benefits" of the ECJ. Are we not adult enough to deliberate on these issues for ourselves without a superior authority issuing directives from outside?

The situation leaves you open to the possibility in both scenarios which is an affront to an independent nation.

The ECJ doesn’t issue directives. The EU civil service (The European Commission - appointments are made by the political leaders; the Council, and ratified by the Parliament).  drafts directives. The purpose of directives is to ensure that the Single Market works. For example, if you allow each state to decide if they want the ships that use their ports to be insured or not then you can predict that one country would offer an advantage to unscrupulous shipping companies by not requiring that ships entering it’s ports be insured. One by one, other countries would follow suite and then one day you would find you had thousands of uninsured ships in EU ports. As a member of the EU the U.K. doesn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured. As an ‘independent’ country the U.K. wouldn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured because that would be just one of the endless details to be discussed in every single trade negotiation - and whatever you’ve been snorting you should understand there’s no chance in hell that the U.K. would be granted exceptions over such matters by any of the big markets. 

The draft directives then go to the Parliament (those people elected the other week), and then to the Council (political leaders - so, in the UK’s case, whichever power-hungry Tory can convincingly promise the best chances of career advancement to the most fellow Tory MPs). The wording of national legislation is left up to individual countries so they can tailor the rules to suit (so Ireland, for example, exempts tampons from tax, but the U.K. doesn’t). 

Then the right-wing U.K. press write complete bullshit about what was agreed. 

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

In the event of a dispute over the fair implementation of a directive or regulation of the Single Market then the ultimate court of arbitration for the EU is the ECJ. 

The U.K. itself has only ever been involved in two actions at the ECJ: 

• France v. United Kingdom (case C-141/78), judgement of 14.10.1979 on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission
• Spain v. UK (case C-145/04), judgement of 12.09.2006 on Commonwealth voting rights in Gibraltar, no infringement

If you have any specific cases of where you think the ECJ has in anyway acted against your interests, or the interests of the U.K., or the U.K,’s sovereignty, could you give us, as ever, just one example to look at? 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Freggyragh

[RIchard Britten]

7 hours ago, quilp said:

No they haven't, as confirmed by both the bbc and guardian. Go look for yourself. On the subject of production/productivity what about this?

 

[RIchard Britten]

Doesn't understand the difference between net or gross, yet wants to run the country...

The sad state of British politics where a scarecrow who spent his formative years getting buggered by his class mates and dresses like he fell through a Sally Army shop backwards at speed.

Its almost like America said "look at our bumblefuck leader" and the UK said "hold my pint".

Edited June 14, 2019 by RIchard Britten

[manxman1980]

9 hours ago, woolley said:

People manipulated into feeling this way are the problem. It's kind of juvenile in outlook. How do you account for feeling such a curious  preference?

Were the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales manipulated into accepting Westminster as being a superior authority outside of their own countries?  Do those countries not have a right to a "sovereign" Government and not to be ruled by a "foreign" power?

I can understand that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for a lot longer than the EU.  I can even understand the argument that we are "stronger together" but I still find it contradictory that many in favour of leaving the EU also believe in maintaining the United Kingdom and rule from Westminster.  Surely if you are in favour of self-governance and independent nations then Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England should be separate countries in their own right and not governed from a central seat of power?  

I sometimes wonder if the EU was based in London rather than Brussels if the UK population would feel differently towards the EU.... 

[manxman1980]

15 hours ago, P.K. said:

Dear me. Fancy an EU directive enforced by the ECJ on things like unscrupulous employers being made to give their employees basic rights like holidays.

"Those ECJ bastards!" I hear you say....

What was your response Woolster?

I seem to recall it was something like "They're very good at spending other people's money" or similar and absolutely dripping with sour grapery.

Funny thing is that the UK Government often adds to the EU directives on employment rights.  Examples include;

• Paid Annual Leave:  EU Min:  4 weeks.  UK Min: 5.6 weeks.
• Paid Maternity Leave:  EU Min:  14 weeks.  UK Min: 39 weeks.

The UK has also updated it's own legislation from time to time to incorporate EU directives, for example, the Equality Act which consolidated legislation and case law that had existed in the UK as well as some EU directives. 

Of course good old Nigel Farage blames the EU for giving additional rights to UK workers so there are a lot of people who seem to think that the EU is dictating employment law to the UK.  

[Barrie Stevens]

55 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Were the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales manipulated into accepting Westminster as being a superior authority outside of their own countries?  Do those countries not have a right to a "sovereign" Government and not to be ruled by a "foreign" power?

I can understand that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for a lot longer than the EU.  I can even understand the argument that we are "stronger together" but I still find it contradictory that many in favour of leaving the EU also believe in maintaining the United Kingdom and rule from Westminster.  Surely if you are in favour of self-governance and independent nations then Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England should be separate countries in their own right and not governed from a central seat of power?  

I sometimes wonder if the EU was based in London rather than Brussels if the UK population would feel differently towards the EU.... 

The constituent parts of the UK do have a right to be independent subject to demand and a referendum. Scotland has had an indecisive go. Ireland made a choice generations ago the matter still presenting an inconclusive settlement thus far. Wales has not shown sufficient pressure to leave the UK. England likewise has not demonstrated sufficient demand although elected regional assemblies once proposed were rejected. Devolution was introduced as a sop in the face of demands for more local autonomy. Clearly there is an acknowledgement that the UK can no longer be governed from a central seat of power. That is why it is no longer governed from a central seat of power to the same extent as before. Police Scotland I believe no longer requires officers to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen..

[woolley]

10 hours ago, P.K. said:

They've actually been rising steadily since the financial crash of 2008.

Just like the UK gig economy.....

By far the majority of new jobs created are full time on permanent contracts. You listen to too much Momentum inspired black propaganda.

[woolley]

8 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

The ECJ doesn’t issue directives. The EU civil service (The European Commission - appointments are made by the political leaders; the Council, and ratified by the Parliament).  drafts directives. The purpose of directives is to ensure that the Single Market works. For example, if you allow each state to decide if they want the ships that use their ports to be insured or not then you can predict that one country would offer an advantage to unscrupulous shipping companies by not requiring that ships entering it’s ports be insured. One by one, other countries would follow suite and then one day you would find you had thousands of uninsured ships in EU ports. As a member of the EU the U.K. doesn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured. As an ‘independent’ country the U.K. wouldn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured because that would be just one of the endless details to be discussed in every single trade negotiation - and whatever you’ve been snorting you should understand there’s no chance in hell that the U.K. would be granted exceptions over such matters by any of the big markets. 

The draft directives then go to the Parliament (those people elected the other week), and then to the Council (political leaders - so, in the UK’s case, whichever power-hungry Tory can convincingly promise the best chances of career advancement to the most fellow Tory MPs). The wording of national legislation is left up to individual countries so they can tailor the rules to suit (so Ireland, for example, exempts tampons from tax, but the U.K. doesn’t). 

Then the right-wing U.K. press write complete bullshit about what was agreed. 

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

In the event of a dispute over the fair implementation of a directive or regulation of the Single Market then the ultimate court of arbitration for the EU is the ECJ. 

The U.K. itself has only ever been involved in two actions at the ECJ: 

• France v. United Kingdom (case C-141/78), judgement of 14.10.1979 on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission
• Spain v. UK (case C-145/04), judgement of 12.09.2006 on Commonwealth voting rights in Gibraltar, no infringement

If you have any specific cases of where you think the ECJ has in anyway acted against your interests, or the interests of the U.K., or the U.K,’s sovereignty, could you give us, as ever, just one example to look at? 

So the effect of this is what? You think that the UK is going to choose to abandon insurance for shipping in its waters? Why would it do such a thing? But in any case, it matters not how these things work or in what detail you delve. The principle being fought for is that they are decided at national level and agreed in negotiation has as happened since time immemorial as opposed to being imposed on a supranational level by a remote oligarchy. It's easy enough to understand.