Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by 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.

My words are sincere and I'm sure we will get a pragmatic Brexit and not the ideological one that you favour. That's the British way of doing things.

[Sephiroth]

A few posts ago, you gave reasons why the "British pragmatic approach" would not apply to any form of Brexit. (You said: The Irish border. The European supply chain. Many reasons. ).

Now you're "sure we'll get a pragmatic Brexit … That's the British way of doing things". There is some missing consistency here.

You mention that I favour an ideological Brexit. Whose ideology would that be? I'm perfectly capable of forming my own views on the matter. You may have noticed in earlier posts that I don't care whether or not we stay in the EU, provided that we keep pricking the Brussels turds with our picador sticks; after all, the past 45 years have led to growth in prosperity.

On the other hand, as a matter of democratic principle based on the Referendum result, if we leave, we should leave properly and go to WTO. An equally valid democratic principle is to hold a second referendum on the basis that there with the additional information available to the public, they should confirm or revise their earlier decision.

I am not the ideological person that you make me out to be.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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!

Certainly for the UK and some other countries, the lower limits of the WTD are exceeded by some measure (28 days holiday in the UK vs. 20 specified in the WTD) There is also the ‘opt out’ clause but, as others have said, that is sometimes enforced by employers which is a bit dodgy. My work contract is somewhat fluffy on this issue saying ‘there may be times when you may need to work more than 48 hours per week as needed’. My Belgian work mate has a much more restrictive contract giving him time off in lieu if he works more than 2 hours after 6pm, including travelling. Lucky sod!

I see these directives as the minimum standard. How do you feel they are more restrictive and complicated than a UK law?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Certainly for the UK and some other countries, the lower limits of the WTD are exceeded by some measure (28 days holiday in the UK vs. 20 specified in the WTD) There is also the ‘opt out’ clause but, as others have said, that is sometimes enforced by employers which is a bit dodgy. My work contract is somewhat fluffy on this issue saying ‘there may be times when you may need to work more than 48 hours per week as needed’. My Belgian work mate has a much more restrictive contract giving him time off in lieu if he works more than 2 hours after 6pm, including travelling. Lucky sod!

I see these directives as the minimum standard. How do you feel they are more restrictive and complicated than a UK law?

As I've pointed out, the 48 hours rule was there to protect French restrictive labour practices[ and had to be shennanigan'd through because of the British veto.


To be fair, I don't have any problem with the rest of the WTD and thank goodness that at least we have an opt out on the 48 hour article.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]As I've pointed out, the 48 hours rule was there to protect French restrictive labour practices[ and had to be shennanigan'd through because of the British veto.

OK, if the WTD was brought in at the behest of France, why is this a problem? Other countries do less hours than France in the EU (link - http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/pro...tRedirect=true)

It looks like there is an inverse relationship between hours worked and productivity - https://www.economist.com/free-excha...uld-get-a-life

[OLD BOY]

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.

I stand by what I said about GDPR, Andrew, which is indeed another example of EU over-the-top bureaucracy. This has proven to be a major problem for organisations - particularly small organisations - and I know this having heard from those I deal with as well as employees of larger organisations what a pain in the neck this has been.

The two most difficult pieces of legislation HR people have to deal with, for example, are the Transfer of Undertakings and Working Time Regulations, both of which emanate from EU Directives. Many simply don't understand these laws in any detail and when you refer questions to employment lawyers, it is pretty clear that they don't properly understand the detailed provisions either. A huge amount of case law has resulted, some of which appears contradictory. I won't go on, but you get my drift.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

OK, if the WTD was brought in at the behest of France, why is this a problem? Other countries do less hours than France in the EU (link - http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/pro...tRedirect=true)

It looks like there is an inverse relationship between hours worked and productivity - https://www.economist.com/free-excha...uld-get-a-life

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

Correction: A no-deal would give the voting electorate what they wanted and the Conservatives would return with a nice majority to reflect what they had achieved.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Correction: A no-deal would give the voting electorate what they wanted and the Conservatives would return with a nice majority to reflect what they had achieved.

I wish that were to be the case. Unfortunately the Conservatives have totally botched Brexit because they didn't go in hard to the EU at the start of the Article 50 process.

May, despite her words back then, treated the Referendum result as a 4% margin rather than a Leave instruction. This is evidenced by her carefully crafted words "... this delivers the Referendum result". If the voting public forgive that, it'll only because Corbyn will absolutely wreck this country and they know it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I wish that were to be the case. Unfortunately the Conservatives have totally botched Brexit because they didn't go in hard to the EU at the start of the Article 50 process.

May, despite her words back then, treated the Referendum result as a 4% margin rather than a Leave instruction. This is evidenced by her carefully crafted words "... this delivers the Referendum result". If the voting public forgive that, it'll only because Corbyn will absolutely wreck this country and they know it.

They have not botched Brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Even if all the ducks were in a row when we applied to leave the EU, we still had to give notice.

If the EU rejects the deal being put to them now, we will bow out of the EU under WTO rules, which most Brexiteers expected us to do. If they accept, we will have the best of both worlds.

Hardly a 'botch up'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They have not botched Brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Even if all the ducks were in a row when we applied to leave the EU, we still had to give notice.

If the EU rejects the deal being put to them now, we will bow out of the EU under WTO rules, which most Brexiteers expected us to do. If they accept, we will have the best of both worlds.

Hardly a 'botch up'.

You’re out on a limb there. You’ve ignored my point that we should have gone in hard.nnMay is an appeaser and leaving on WTO terms will be presented as a cliff edge failure rather than something we had planned for at the start.

You’ve also ignored my assertion that May has treated the negotiations as a 4% matter rather than a democratic mandate to leave the EU institutions.

I’m surprised by your stance here.

[pip08456]

Yes Seph, we should have gone in hard in the beginning but thanks to the likes of Gina Miller and remain MP's wanting our objectives out in the open before negotiations had even started (good negotiating strategy) the Government was effectively hogtied.

I can't comment on the white paper as Ihaven't had the time to read it (willhave tomorrow) but as I understand it Parliament will have a say on any deal finally reached (if any). I have no problem with that.

What happens in the case of no deal?

Extending the period of negotiation must be by a unanimous decision but the acceptance of to do so by the EU is by a qualified majority. People seem to confuse the two but the EU rules are quite specific.

Worthy of note

Abstentions by Members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption by the Council of acts which require unanimity.

Seems ambiguous.

Qualified majority.

(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained;

(b) By way of derogation from point (a), when the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

Source Article 50(2) http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html and Article 238 (3) a) and b) http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

[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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You’re out on a limb there. You’ve ignored my point that we should have gone in hard.nnMay is an appeaser and leaving on WTO terms will be presented as a cliff edge failure rather than something we had planned for at the start.

You’ve also ignored my assertion that May has treated the negotiations as a 4% matter rather than a democratic mandate to leave the EU institutions.

I’m surprised by your stance here.

I have not ignored your points at all. I simply don't agree that we should have 'gone in hard' with the EU, because it would have been counter-productive.

We are asking the EU for a trade deal, which would be in our mutual interests. There is no point in getting their backs up, they are difficult enough at the best of times.

There are different ways you can handle a negotiation. A pretty good way I have found is to go for more than I want, stay reasonable and give a few early concessions, and maybe offer up one or two things that you have come up with the other side haven't thought about. At the same time, flag up a worst case scenario if a deal cannot be reached.

But every negotiator has a different way of doing things. But if you go in hard, don't expect any favours from the other side. They will hate you!

You can say what you like about Theresa May's tactics and the deal she has proposed, but if she comes up with a proposal that satisfies the essential red lines and allows us to trade effectively with other countries, what is there to criticise? It's the end result that she should be judged on.

[Sephiroth]

Her current proposals do not satisfy the essential red lines. For example, when she says we take control of our fisheries, that merely means we decide what to give away. The entire "we take control" part of the proposal means just that.

If the EU agrees to her proposal just like that, then I'm proved right because they wouldn't agree unless their ECJ has supremacy.

She has given so much away that the end result from here is easy to predict unless there is no deal.