Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35829329)

I'm saying that the British public should elect their governments, and thereafter they deserve whatever their government gives them.

The presupposition in your position is that the British government is somehow not competent and requires to be overruled.

As a British citizen and a democrat, who recognises the right of the Government to govern, even when it is run by a party I did not choose, I find your position mildly offensive.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35829329)

I'm saying that the British public should elect their governments, and thereafter they deserve whatever their government gives them.

The presupposition in your position is that the British government is somehow not competent and requires to be overruled.

As a British citizen and a democrat, who recognises the right of the Government to govern, even when it is run by a party I did not choose, I find your position mildly offensive.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35829334)

Yes it's odd how a lot of people love to moan about our governments whilst at least having the power to overturn them (or secure mid term changes in policy) on a regular basis, whilst at the same time supporting the imposition of laws, rules and regulations from Eurolalaland which they can do nothing about. Presumably they're so entirely confident that everything which ever emanates from Brussels will be good for them and the UK (as opposed to countless other nations) that they won't want to vote anyone out... How's that for nuts?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35829327)

Because a gang of traitorous, Britain-loathing politicians wanted to end our existence as a nation state and sold the European project to us as a "common market", in the full knowledge that that wasn't its aim, and that the British public wouldn't vote for it if they understood what it was meant to be about.

They took us in without a referendum, then held one on staying in two years later, using the inbuilt bias towards status quo that comes with every referendum to better their chances of getting popular support for it.

That referendum result has been used to justify everything we have signed up to in the EU ever since, with occasional opt-outs to stop national outrage getting too loud.

Originally Posted by Big Brian (Post 35829337)

When I worked in the hotel trade I was working till 11 pm at night and starting again at 7pm the next day. This was 1997 - 2000. Are you telling me they were breaking the law? I was only part time meant to do 16-20 hours a week but ended up doing more. I've seen me do a 7-3 shift without a break on several occasions during those dates and the Union said NOHING about it.

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829336)

That is your position and I accept and understand it. My original point on the WTD was that the supposition that everything that comes out of Brussels must be bad. I asked for any that made anyones life worse, and the only one so far is about getting hotel and restaurant kitchens inspected once every five years because it is a bit of an inconvenience.

There is always open skies (25 million visits to Europe by UK citizens last year compared with 10 million in 1980); mobile phone roaming charges, credit card fees - all bad I tell thee :)

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829342)

I spent 20 years working in hotels so I know your background! I presume you meant started at 7 am and not 7 pm! That would not be against the WTD because you started your shift at 3 pm to 11 pm and then next shift was 7 am to 3 pm. So long as you had an 11 hours rest break before the start of the first shift and another 11 hours after the end of second shift then you are within WTD. What they couldn't do (and in all my time never did do) was finish you at 3 pm and then put you on a night shift starting at 11 pm.

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829339)

But our Government has a vote on the items that come out of Brussels and many of them have to be unanimous. There are a number that are by majority vote - that is a majority of other elected Governments. And even then they still have to pass the (elected) European parliament.

Even if the conception is they are put together by suits in Brussels (known as civil servants ...... who generally have the same qualifications as the people who put are Laws together also generally known as civil servants).

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829333)

So how many Brits lived in Spain prior to 1973?

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829326)

Ok. The working time directive gave the right to every employee:

· A maximum working week of 48 hours
· A rest period of 11 consecutive hours a day
· A rest break when the day is longer than six hours
· A minimum of one rest day per week
· The statutory right to four weeks' holiday

It was introduced by the EU in 1992 but the UK did not introduce until 1998. In 1996 the Government took the EU to court to try and stop the introduction and lost. The Government was supported by the opposition.

Before this time, the number of holiday was written into Law by a 1938 act which basically said you had 7 days holiday (extended to 8 in 1978 by the introduction of the May Day holiday). Outside of that it was up to your employer to decide the number of holidays that should be given. The Government argued this was a burden on Companies and it should be up to individual companies led by market forces that should decide how many holidays you should have.

There was also nothing to indicate you should have a break (the WTD introduced 10 mins for 4 hours worked; 30 mins if more than 6 hours worked).

So this was the "garbage" that was introduced and would not have been introduced but for the EU. Are you saying we should abolish it?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35829359)

Yes it is because most that legislation can be opted out of by the employees on a majority vote in the workplace ,it can be very limiting as far as working hours are concerned and costly for the employer and employee alike.Also if you think that we only have that legislation because we joined the EU then you are mistaken ,most of the developed world has that type of legislation ,indeed most of the legislation that comes out of Europe is basically the same as elsewhere in the developed world ,safety standards come to mind .In short we do not need nor ever have needed a European super state to give us modern legislation,rights or freedoms

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829363)

Why is it limiting for the employee? In terms of 48 hour working week, the employee can opt out if they wish to. Costly for the employer? You work for Sports Direct?

If you think it would have been introduced without the EU, then why did the Government at the time try to take the EU to court to stop it coming in?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35829349)

That figure is proving rather hard to get at, however so far I have established that the Spanish population in the UK was 58,000 in 1973, and the UK population figure, while not specified, was clearly significant enough (and likely near enough parity), that the two governments bilaterally agreed to grant each other's citizens access to their domestic health services.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...201973&f=false

Also according to that link, a bilateral agreement preventing double taxation of Spaniards in the UK and Brits in Spain, was also signed in 1973,which does begin to pour cold water on your earlier suggestion that exiting the EU automatically means Brits visiting other European countries will lose advantageous tax agreements.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35829365)

because that includes overtime and therefore money earned ,employees cannot opt out individually it has to be a collective within the company .When i was driving for a living our company opted out of the night time working hours because it was far too restrictive for employees and employers .What's wrong with employees working as many hours as they want (within H&S restrictions),i certainly do not need an unelected official telling me how much money i can earn

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:49 ----------

Incidentally when i was driving i used the GB driving hours regulations instead of the EU driving hours regulations because it meant i could drive for longer and therefore earn more

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829367)

That health agreement was to allow Spanish citizens in the UK access to the NHS and in return Spain wouldn't try to regain Gibraltar and also allowed Gibraltar to become part of the EC.

Think you are getting what happens with double taxation rules mixed up. The UK has double taxation rules with virtually the whole western world. Basically, it means that if you are taxed in Spain at one rate, you can deduct the tax you have paid in Spain against your UK tax allowance (and similarly Spanish citizens can do the same from UK earnings). That is nothing to do with the EU. There are no income tax rules within the EU and even if there was, we would still be entitled to opt out. It is in the treatys already.

For a UK tax payer, as it stands, if you rent a property in Spain the allowances you can offset are very similar to that of the UK and in Spain the tax rate is 19%. There are, however, other taxes you can offset as well that you pay in Spain so you can offset the full amount. It gets complex!

At the current time, all let property in the UK is at the basic rate (20%) however, this is changing come next month and the rate you pay is based on your income rate so if you are a higher rate tax payer that is the liability you will have to pay (ie the difference between 40% and 19% in Spain.

When Spain joined the EU in 1986, and various decress since then, the rules became if you rent a property and you are not a citizen of the EU, then you pay 22% of all income. That means you cannot offset the costs against the income - its a huge difference.

I agree that will only affect the 200,000 Brits with property rentals in Spain, but the amounts involved will be significant. I cannot see Spain changing their Laws to suit the Brits to be honest. In fact, the Spainish Government is probably rubbing its hands together ready for a windfall (and if people choose to sell then they will still get their 8.5% property tax (paid by the buyer so they definitely get their money) or if people choose not sell but also not to rent they still get their INIR tax so they won't be bothered).

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------



Contracts of Employment are individual. Employees can opt out individually if they wish. Even if the company recognises unions for purposes of that clause, you can still opt out.

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35829367)

That health agreement was to allow Spanish citizens in the UK access to the NHS and in return Spain wouldn't try to regain Gibraltar and also allowed Gibraltar to become part of the EC.