[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I didn't say that it was brought in at the behest of France. That may have been the case (Jacques Delors was the chief Brussels turd at the time) but I'm not claiming it. I am claiming that France strongly supported the 48 hour rule and opposed our opt-out.

The CAP supported France's inefficient farming methods, another restrictive practice. The UK has consistently failed to have the CAP revised to remove the weighting toward France.

The rules are skewed in many areas to suit French internal interests.

As to productivity - that needs definition (see further argument below this paragraph). My network team colleagues at work provide 120% effort over paid hours; highly productive. People should be free to choose their level of effort and in many cases need the money so remunerated.

The article to which you link is short of a definition to cover the meaning of productivity for the first graph, which shows productivity falling as working hours rise across OECD countries, If that graph is a decline in the efficiency of output, albeit output would rise in quantum, yes of course; people get tired.

However, the second graph based on a WWI productivity study, shows output rising but at a falling rate as working hours rise. Ignoring the assistive effect of automation today, it is clear that additional hours will increase the output quantum and if that is the objective, so be it.

I think that the sinister French influence on the WTD is one of the background lurkers that fuelled the 52/48 Referendum result.

That sill doesn’t answer why the WTD is a bad thing unless French influence itself is a bad thing. The French may have opposed our opt out but we still got it.