Brexit Penny Dropping?

[P.K.]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

But they couldn't. It's that regular memory failure you have, PK. The one about the supremacy of EU Law in the EU.

Not so.

If any member state decided that it would not accept an EU directive or regulation then it would give Brussells a massive headache. After the display of sovereignty by Hungary, probably the nearest thing Russia has to a friend in the EU, it will be interesting to see what happens next...

But in over forty years it never happened. I remember a conversation on this being recalled by Ken Clarke. Apparently David Davis, the failed brexit negotiator, told Clarke we had to leave the EU in case it did happen! As justifications for economic self-harm go it's got to be the most feeble yet...

This is the point though. As more and more Project Fear becomes Project Reality it seems to me the brexiteers have no justifications left for the whole farrago except for the nebulous "sovereignty" so-called argument. I say "so-called" because for over forty years it was never even the tiniest issue for anyone except for the tediously constant barrage of anti-EU rhetoric from the low-brow Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph.

Here's a laugh, why don't the brexiteers try and convince the rest of us that those four rags were not in thrall to the agenda of the owner but actually had the UK's best interests at heart...?

What fun that would be!

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

So presumably you would then support Scottish,  Welsh, Northern Irish and Manx independence from the UK.

If you believe Freedom is so important how could you possibly deny those nations there own freedom?

That makes no sense. Apart from the IOM they are all part of the UK and a cording to the last referendum and opinion polls,have no desire to leave. 
 

Scotland have had a recent referendum. There is provision in the Good Friday Agreement for a referendum re N Ireland and it is obvious that there is no appetite for independence in Wales

Are you suggesting they are kicked out of the UK against their will?

Edited December 20, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Add second para

[The Voice of Reason]

10 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Can I just check what you are saying here. 

Are you suggesting that the UK does not require any form of workers rights to be enshrined in law?  Even by the UK Parliament? 

 

No I’m not saying that ( maybe my wording was a bit clumsy) but it is definitely required and workers rights should be enshrined in legislation by the UK itself.

Why should the EU legislate for the UK ( which is the crux of all this)?

[manxman1980]

14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

That makes no sense. Apart from the IOM they are all part of the UK and a cording to the last referendum and opinion polls,have no desire to leave. 
Are you suggesting they are kicked out of the UK against their will?

The question implied that Woolley would presumably support indepence for those countries if they wanted it.

Same applies to you and every other Brexiteer. 

Ireland left the UK in the past so why is it so hard for you to imagine a time when the other nations wish to leave as well?

I agree that the independence movements in those countries don't yet appear to have a majority,  however, we thought that the same about the Leave campaign in the run up to the EU Referendum. 

[manxman1980]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

No I’m not saying that ( maybe my wording was a bit clumsy) but it is definitely required and workers rights should be enshrined in legislation by the UK itself.

Why should the EU legislate for the UK ( which is the crux of all this)?

The EU didn't legislate.  It creates directives that the member states then choose to implement in their own way.

The UK had a tendency to go above and beyond in certain areas or already had legislation that offer more protection than the EU directives.

It is right to say for instance that the Health and Safety at Work Act had been the model for a lot of legislation around the globe.  Its also the root cause of many of the "elf n safety gone mad" claims.

[The Voice of Reason]

14 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The EU didn't legislate.  It creates directives that the member states then choose to implement in their own way.

Ok then.

Why should member states be obliged to implement EU directives?

It’s interference in the domestic legislative process. Which brings us back round again to the issue of sovereignty.

[woolley]

10 hours ago, woolley said:

But they couldn't. It's that regular memory failure you have, PK. The one about the supremacy of EU Law in the EU.

 

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Not so.

I'm sorry, old chap, but you are wrong, and it absolutely is so. EU Law is supreme above the laws of any member state. EU regulations have immediate binding force across all member states without reference to domestic assemblies, and directives allow two years for adoption. No ifs or buts. There was never a conflict of actual law for the simple reason that Parliament knew that there was no point is passing contrary legislation, so it simply nodded through anything that was Brussels derived, often to an empty chamber. Again, the CAP is an obvious example of something that would never have been adopted given a national choice. A serious deficit in scrutiny and democracy.

It's a bit similar to the principle that Tynwald doesn't pass anything the UK couldn't stomach because it wouldn't gain Royal Assent. That principle is covert, the one concerning the EU is very much overt.

Anyway, I'm sliding back into answering nonsense that I've been rebutting ad nauseam for 8 years, so I will now refrain.

[woolley]

4 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

So presumably you would then support Scottish,  Welsh, Northern Irish and Manx independence from the UK.

If you believe Freedom is so important how could you possibly deny those nations there own freedom?

Another point I've answered many times here.

You ask me a question in the first paragraph, then wrongly assume my negative answer in the second. Those nations are free now as far as I am concerned. If they wish to leave the UK, however, I acknowledge their right to do so. I wouldn't advocate them doing so because I believe the UK is a coherent and successful state, and that the British are better together.

The Isle of Man is a separate case. I don't think sovereign independence is viable or desirable.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

The EU didn't legislate.  It creates directives that the member states then choose to implement in their own way.

I have always done my best to be reasonable to everyone and maintain decorum here but, I am sorry, this is complete piffle. You do not understand the subject. See answer to the similarly confused PK above.

https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en

Edited December 20, 2023 by woolley
Add link to EU.

[manxman1980]

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Ok then.

Why should member states be obliged to implement EU directives?

It’s interference in the domestic legislative process. Which brings us back round again to the issue of sovereignty.

 

6 hours ago, woolley said:

I have always done my best to be reasonable to everyone and maintain decorum here but, I am sorry, this is complete piffle. You do not understand the subject. See answer to the similarly confused PK above.

https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en

Easier to respond to you both at once.

In the area where I have expertise there has been very limited cases where the UK Government has not added bells and whistles to the EU Directives.  An example off the top of my head ;

- Working Time Directive:  Implemented in the Working Time Regulations.  The EU directive provides a minimum of 4 weeks holiday per year.  The UK legislation provides a minimum of 5.6 weeks.  The UK also included an option for a worker to opt out of the maximum number of hours to be worked per week.  This was not done across the EU.

The current Government, whilst under a different PM, had started to indicate that they would cut the the amount of holiday back to 4 weeks and remove the maximum 48 hour working week.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

 

Easier to respond to you both at once.

In the area where I have expertise there has been very limited cases where the UK Government has not added bells and whistles to the EU Directives.  An example off the top of my head ;

- Working Time Directive:  Implemented in the Working Time Regulations.  The EU directive provides a minimum of 4 weeks holiday per year.  The UK legislation provides a minimum of 5.6 weeks.  The UK also included an option for a worker to opt out of the maximum number of hours to be worked per week.  This was not done across the EU.

The current Government, whilst under a different PM, had started to indicate that they would cut the the amount of holiday back to 4 weeks and remove the maximum 48 hour working week.

Well thanks for your answer. Nice to discuss things in a civilized fashion.

But I’m afraid it still doesn’t answer my original question.

Why should EU member states be obliged to implement EU directives?

But it goes further, why should the EU even be issuing directives about working practices in member countries?
Why should they be determining or policing what the UK does, even though as you say the UK goes over and above “ the directive”.

Its not what the UK signed up to all those decades ago.

[The Voice of Reason]

13 hours ago, P.K. said:

 

This is the point though. As more and more Project Fear becomes Project Reality it seems to me the brexiteers have no justifications left for the whole farrago except for the nebulous "sovereignty" so-called argument. I say "so-called" because for over forty years it was never even the tiniest issue for anyone except for the tediously constant barrage of anti-EU rhetoric from the low-brow Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph.

Here's a laugh, why don't the brexiteers try and convince the rest of us that those four rags were not in thrall to the agenda of the owner but actually had the UK's best interests at heart...?

What fun that would be!

Indeed, it would be quite a jolly jape!

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well thanks for your answer. Nice to discuss things in a civilized fashion.

But I’m afraid it still doesn’t answer my original question.

Why should EU member states be obliged to implement EU directives?

But it goes further, why should the EU even be issuing directives about working practices in member countries?
Why should they be determining or policing what the UK does, even though as you say the UK goes over and above “ the directive”.

Its not what the UK signed up to all those decades ago.

The intention is to create a level playing field and ensure that EU citizens have equal rights.  Obviously it is not always perfect as each Member State can choose to put in place additional rights or protections to suit the culture in their countries.

The basic idea was that a worker in, for example, Hungary should have the same minimum rights as a worker in the UK or Germany for instance.  It ensures that member states cannot partake in a race to the bottom in a battle for trade and/or jobs.  The knock on effect of member states choosing to enhance workers rights is to make those states more attractive places for migrant workers to go and work in.  That is why there was economic migration from the eastern member states to the western member states.

There was of course some work that went the opposite direction though as land for factories and local labour costs were cheaper but without dropping below the minimum standards in the EU.

The reason for a lot of Eastern European workers coming to the UK to work on farms picking fruit was a result of the lower wages in their home nations, the fact that they were used to the type of work they were being asked to do and the lack of western Europeans who are willing to go and work in a field picking fruit.  The same applies to job in factories such as meat packing where Eastern Europeans saw it as a well paid job but the nationals in the country saw it as poorly paid or too much hard work.

As I mentioned in my earlier post it appears that one iteration of the current Conservative Government (Truss & JRM) appeared to be setting the UK on that race to the bottom by planning to cut workers rights.  That appears to have been shelved under the current PM but with backbenchers like JRM around it is very possible that these ideas may be revisited.

It is interesting that many UK Governments have complained about legislation from Brussels when in fact in most cases it was either lies (bendy banana's & pillows for kippers) or was the making of the UK Government itself.

You can extend all of the above to pretty much every other area of legislation where the focus was on creating an equal and fair society across Europe.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

12 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The intention is to create a level playing field and ensure that EU citizens have equal rights.  Obviously it is not always perfect as each Member State can choose to put in place additional rights or protections to suit the culture in their countries.

The basic idea was that a worker in, for example, Hungary should have the same minimum rights as a worker in the UK or Germany for instance.  It ensures that member states cannot partake in a race to the bottom in a battle for trade and/or jobs.  The knock on effect of member states choosing to enhance workers rights is to make those states more attractive places for migrant workers to go and work in.  That is why there was economic migration from the eastern member states to the western member states.

There was of course some work that went the opposite direction though as land for factories and local labour costs were cheaper but without dropping below the minimum standards in the EU.

The reason for a lot of Eastern European workers coming to the UK to work on farms picking fruit was a result of the lower wages in their home nations, the fact that they were used to the type of work they were being asked to do and the lack of western Europeans who are willing to go and work in a field picking fruit.  The same applies to job in factories such as meat packing where Eastern Europeans saw it as a well paid job but the nationals in the country saw it as poorly paid or too much hard work.

As I mentioned in my earlier post it appears that one iteration of the current Conservative Government (Truss & JRM) appeared to be setting the UK on that race to the bottom by planning to cut workers rights.  That appears to have been shelved under the current PM but with backbenchers like JRM around it is very possible that these ideas may be revisited.

It is interesting that many UK Governments have complained about legislation from Brussels when in fact in most cases it was either lies (bendy banana's & pillows for kippers) or was the making of the UK Government itself.

You can extend all of the above to pretty much every other area of legislation where the focus was on creating an equal and fair society across Europe.

 

Can we not have an equal and fair society across the world? 
 

Rather than bestowing unfair advantages to those who happen to live in close geographical proximity?

Particularly as the globe is shrinking so much these days ?

( the bendy banana thing does have some basis in truth by the way, but let’s not get into that here. by comparison it’s not much of an issue) 

[woolley]

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.