Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And you can opt out of the 48 hour rule in the working time regs, and it’s averaged over 26 weeks.

I said that. It was the sneaky way of getting the WTD through in the face of the UK's objection that I was highlighting.


---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Fake news ..

Or rather the chief Brussels turd.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Fake news ..

Looks very real to me - Juncker is a piss head and is stumbling like a drunken bum, not fake news.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

What's wrong with the working time directive and Transfers of Undertakings Directive? They seem pretty good at preventing exploitation of workers to me. I guess employers would like to have the right to not provide holidays, rest breaks, etc. or give pay cuts on takeovers but I bet employees don't.

The EU directives are often far too restrictive and complicated, and these are two prime examples of that. You don't have to have this type of complex, inflexible legislation to ensure that people are protected in employment.

We did have holidays before we joined the EU, you know!

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They're not necessarily bad for employers as they give staff the reassurance not to walk out of the door in the event of a takeover/divestment thereby increasing the valuations of companies. Working time directive lots of companies require you to sign a contract against it so not too relevant in the UK.

I challenge you to get your head around all the clauses of the Acquired Rights Directive and the associated case law, Andrew. It is a perfect example of all that is wrong with this bureaucratic institution. At least we are able to write laws that make sense.

By the way, it is unlawful to require your workers to 'sign a contract against it' as you put it. You can opt out of certain clauses but it must be voluntary.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I challenge you to get your head around all the clauses of the Acquired Rights Directive and the associated case law, Andrew. It is a perfect example of all that is wrong with this bureaucratic institution. At least we are able to write laws that make sense.

By the way, it is unlawful to require your workers to 'sign a contract against it' as you put it. You can opt out of certain clauses but it must be voluntary.

Really not an issue Old Boy. I fear you might be falling into the temptation to gold plate any legislation you see, as was shown by your Special Brew-strength hyper-interpretation of GDPR. Meanwhile, the rest of us just take these things in our stride with our British pragmatic approach.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Really not an issue Old Boy. I fear you might be falling into the temptation to gold plate any legislation you see, as was shown by your Special Brew-strength hyper-interpretation of GDPR. Meanwhile, the rest of us just take these things in our stride with our British pragmatic approach.

Then you'll be able to take Brexit in your stride - crash out and all.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Then you'll be able to take Brexit in your stride - crash out and all.

The World's full of change but there's no looking back to the good old days selling Austin Allegros with square steering wheels to subservient Africans. There will be no clean Brexit except in services and BoJo and chums are last week's news. Brexit is slightly more drastic than a piece of employment legislation, but you may disagree.

[Sephiroth]

I see. Brexit only slightly exceeds the drasticness than the employment legislation foisted on us by the EU. If only "slightly more drastic", then our "British pragmatic approach" should be able to cope.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I see. Brexit only slightly exceeds the drasticness than the employment legislation foisted on us by the EU. If only "slightly more drastic", then our "British pragmatic approach" should be able to cope.

You might have missed the British irony in "slightly".

[Sephiroth]

I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?

The Irish border. The European supply chain. Many reasons.
But is a clean Brexit actually going to happen? I suspect not. The Eurosceptics don't have anywhere near the 159 names needed to bring Theresa May down.

[Sephiroth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The Irish border. The European supply chain. Many reasons.
But is a clean Brexit actually going to happen? I suspect not. The Eurosceptics don't have anywhere near the 159 names needed to bring Theresa May down.

Why cannot there be a pragmatic approach to crashing out?The EU might erect an Irish border; we can handle that. The European supply chain: that'll sort itself out - these are our friends - remember? Or are they only our friends if we tow their line? British pragmatism can deal with that.

Maybe British pragmatism might result in a second referendum; I doubt it but it would not be an unreasonable step even if unlikely.

We should be addressing ourselves to the pragmatic approach needed to deal with the now foreseeable exit scenarios instead of continually espousing the Remain cause whether through irony or argument.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?




Why cannot there be a pragmatic approach to crashing out?The EU might erect an Irish border; we can handle that. The European supply chain: that'll sort itself out - these are our friends - remember? Or are they only our friends if we tow their line? British pragmatism can deal with that.

Maybe British pragmatism might result in a second referendum; I doubt it but it would not be an unreasonable step even if unlikely.

We should be addressing ourselves to the pragmatic approach needed to deal with the now foreseeable exit scenarios instead of continually espousing the Remain cause whether through irony or argument.

Not keen on going over old ground again as that goes against the ethos of this thread but the maths shows a clean Brexit is not possible.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not keen on going over old ground again as that goes against the ethos of this thread but the maths shows a clean Brexit is not possible.

That's a dodge. I've simply asked, particularly in the spirit of this thread, that you put your mind to work on a pragmatic approach to the two Brexit scenarios ir new referendum.

If by a "clean break" you mean crashing out, of course we can crash out. It's automatic if there is no agreement by 29-Mar-19. Otherwise what did you mean? Clarity is important.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's a dodge. I've simply asked, particularly in the spirit of this thread, that you put your mind to work on a pragmatic approach to the two Brexit scenarios ir new referendum.

If by a "clean break" you mean crashing out, of course we can crash out. It's automatic if there is no agreement by 29-Mar-19. Otherwise what did you mean? Clarity is important.

No dodge mate and I personally recommend against using such terminology on this thread. The explanations on WTO requirements have been done to death in the previous thread and are there for you to feast your eyes upon..
Things are vaguer on crashing out so that's quite interesting. A no-deal would bring the Government down and let Labour in with no foreseeable Brexit and the Eurosceptics wouldn't want to risk that. They can always come back for another bite of the cherry.

[Sephiroth]

Oh well - At least I tried to test the sincerity of your own words in terms the "British pragmatic approach" that you introduced to the topic.

Alas not to be so.