View Poll Results: How will you vote in the EU referendum?
Voters: 255. You may not vote on this poll
EU Referendum
28 April 2016, 10:14 PM
#661
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have to bail out every Tom, Dick and Harry in the UK, can I have my money back?
There are plenty of short-term arguments against the EU, but the longer term is what people should focus on. A bigger more prosperous EU would be beneficial to all, it's a long road we're on here.
29 April 2016, 09:48 AM
#662
Fallacious argument: there's not enough work to go round the whole of Europe, as witnessed by the astronomical unemployment rates in Greece, Spain, Italy etc.
And as for us giving ex-Eastern European states money to build new hitech factories in order to strip jobs from the UK: LUNACY!
Still, no doubt it doesn't affect you, or yours, directly, Martin, so feel free to take the moral high ground, won't you?
And as for us giving ex-Eastern European states money to build new hitech factories in order to strip jobs from the UK: LUNACY!
Still, no doubt it doesn't affect you, or yours, directly, Martin, so feel free to take the moral high ground, won't you?
29 April 2016, 01:55 PM
#663
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fallacious argument: there's not enough work to go round the whole of Europe, as witnessed by the astronomical unemployment rates in Greece, Spain, Italy etc.
And as for us giving ex-Eastern European states money to build new hitech factories in order to strip jobs from the UK: LUNACY!
Still, no doubt it doesn't affect you, or yours, directly, Martin, so feel free to take the moral high ground, won't you?
And as for us giving ex-Eastern European states money to build new hitech factories in order to strip jobs from the UK: LUNACY!
Still, no doubt it doesn't affect you, or yours, directly, Martin, so feel free to take the moral high ground, won't you?
I'm sure that your narrow and short-term view on things is popular, and could well see us leave the EU....
Then what?
29 April 2016, 04:56 PM
#664
As I've said, ad infinitum:
My narrow and short-term view is popular because the poorer parts of society are hurting from the EU. It's very easy to take the moral high ground when you have a job, a good safe income and your family is safe and economically well. NOT so easy if any, or all those are missing.
And ad infinitum: I don't KNOW what then, but it's just as likely to be better than what we have than worse, and will be a whole LOT cheaper.
My narrow and short-term view is popular because the poorer parts of society are hurting from the EU. It's very easy to take the moral high ground when you have a job, a good safe income and your family is safe and economically well. NOT so easy if any, or all those are missing.
And ad infinitum: I don't KNOW what then, but it's just as likely to be better than what we have than worse, and will be a whole LOT cheaper.
29 April 2016, 04:59 PM
#665
Scooby Regular
I suspect the people holding the sh1tty end of the stick will still be holding it when we leave
imo they will probably be asked to hold the stick with both hands
imo they will probably be asked to hold the stick with both hands
29 April 2016, 10:34 PM
#667
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 April 2016, 09:38 AM
#668
Nonsense.
And I'm not trying to represent anyone. What I'm attempting to show is champagne socialism.
It's dead easy to say "give a few £££" when you HAVE more than a few £££, but NOT so easy if you have no job.
Just as it's easy to say, "let in all the poor from poorer countries, give them work, or benefits..." if you have no worries about work yourself.
Back to IAJFEE, I'm afraid.
And I'm not trying to represent anyone. What I'm attempting to show is champagne socialism.
It's dead easy to say "give a few £££" when you HAVE more than a few £££, but NOT so easy if you have no job.
Just as it's easy to say, "let in all the poor from poorer countries, give them work, or benefits..." if you have no worries about work yourself.
Back to IAJFEE, I'm afraid.
30 April 2016, 01:34 PM
#669
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 April 2016, 02:07 PM
#670
Scooby Regular
Just another nail in the coffin for the EU.
And now with Belgium introduced a new commercial vehicle road toll just a few weeks back,its now costing us average £35.00 per day to drive truck through Belgium.
EU sneaky *******...
The European Commission is threatening legal action ainst the British government over a road charge designed to help British hauliers compete with cheap foreign rivals.
David Cameron faces a humiliating row in Brussels ahead of the referendum, as it emerged that the government could be hauled before the European Court of Justice - and ultimately fined - in a dispute over the right to give British firms preferential treatment.
A leaked letter from Jean-Claude Juncker’s powerful chief of staff reveals plans to launch infringement procedings against the government over a new HGV levy which is claimed to breach EU laws around equal treatment.
It will provide ammunition to Brexit campaigners, who argue that European law is tying the hands of ministers on a range of policy areas.
The European Commission is determined to prevent any hostile news coverage ahead of the vote, and on Friday still refused to confirm or deny it was planning the infringement action after a it was reported by a German magazine.
The HGV levy was unveiled in 2014, and described by Patrick McLoughlin as a "massive boost" to British hauliers under pressure from foreign rivals.
It was designed to compensate for levies and tolls that British lorries pay when travelling overseas that do not exist in Britain. That, the government argued, makes it harder for British firms to do business on the continent than it is for their rivals to do business in the UK.
Under the policy, all HGVs, British and foreign, pay up to £10 a day to use the roads. But this is then discounted from vehicle excise duty, meaning that in effect British-registered drivers are no worse off while foreign truckers are hit.
The Department for Transport says the charge "ensures British hauliers are better able to compete with their foreign counterparts." It raised £44 million in its first year.
“It will create a level playing field across Europe, giving UK firms a much better opportunity to win business,” Mr McLoughlin said at the launch.
Germany is considering a similar toll scheme for private cars. But in a letter of April 13, Dr Martin Selmayr revealed that Britain was being hit with infringement action after it failed to demonstate the scheme was compliant with EU law.
In the course of the last year, the Commission has notified the UK that it has not provided sufficient proof to allay these concerns,” Dr Selmayr wrote to Alexander Dobrint, the German transport minister. “Therefore the EU Commission is preparing an infringement procedure in this case, following the failure of exchanges with the UK authorities in recent weeks to produce a result.”
If Britain does not change its policy, it could be hauled before the European Court of Justice. It has the power to impose fines of millions of pounds if rulings are not complied with.
Asked whether Der Spiegel’s account of the letter was accurate, an EU spokesman said: “The Commission does not comment on rumours in the press. “
David Campbell-Bannerman, a Conservative MEP, said the leaked letter was “further evidence” of how the Commission is attempting to suppress bad news until after the vote.
“The charge allows us to recover some of the costs of foreign lorries using UK roads for free. It is time foreign lorries – and the whole EU – paid their own way," he said. “It is yet another example of our nation’s total loss of control."
A government spokesperson said: “We believe our levy is justified and consistent with the free movement of goods. The UK has not been infracted on the HGV levy and we won’t comment further on speculation.”
And now with Belgium introduced a new commercial vehicle road toll just a few weeks back,its now costing us average £35.00 per day to drive truck through Belgium.
EU sneaky *******...
The European Commission is threatening legal action ainst the British government over a road charge designed to help British hauliers compete with cheap foreign rivals.
David Cameron faces a humiliating row in Brussels ahead of the referendum, as it emerged that the government could be hauled before the European Court of Justice - and ultimately fined - in a dispute over the right to give British firms preferential treatment.
A leaked letter from Jean-Claude Juncker’s powerful chief of staff reveals plans to launch infringement procedings against the government over a new HGV levy which is claimed to breach EU laws around equal treatment.
It will provide ammunition to Brexit campaigners, who argue that European law is tying the hands of ministers on a range of policy areas.
The European Commission is determined to prevent any hostile news coverage ahead of the vote, and on Friday still refused to confirm or deny it was planning the infringement action after a it was reported by a German magazine.
The HGV levy was unveiled in 2014, and described by Patrick McLoughlin as a "massive boost" to British hauliers under pressure from foreign rivals.
It was designed to compensate for levies and tolls that British lorries pay when travelling overseas that do not exist in Britain. That, the government argued, makes it harder for British firms to do business on the continent than it is for their rivals to do business in the UK.
Under the policy, all HGVs, British and foreign, pay up to £10 a day to use the roads. But this is then discounted from vehicle excise duty, meaning that in effect British-registered drivers are no worse off while foreign truckers are hit.
The Department for Transport says the charge "ensures British hauliers are better able to compete with their foreign counterparts." It raised £44 million in its first year.
“It will create a level playing field across Europe, giving UK firms a much better opportunity to win business,” Mr McLoughlin said at the launch.
Germany is considering a similar toll scheme for private cars. But in a letter of April 13, Dr Martin Selmayr revealed that Britain was being hit with infringement action after it failed to demonstate the scheme was compliant with EU law.
In the course of the last year, the Commission has notified the UK that it has not provided sufficient proof to allay these concerns,” Dr Selmayr wrote to Alexander Dobrint, the German transport minister. “Therefore the EU Commission is preparing an infringement procedure in this case, following the failure of exchanges with the UK authorities in recent weeks to produce a result.”
If Britain does not change its policy, it could be hauled before the European Court of Justice. It has the power to impose fines of millions of pounds if rulings are not complied with.
Asked whether Der Spiegel’s account of the letter was accurate, an EU spokesman said: “The Commission does not comment on rumours in the press. “
David Campbell-Bannerman, a Conservative MEP, said the leaked letter was “further evidence” of how the Commission is attempting to suppress bad news until after the vote.
“The charge allows us to recover some of the costs of foreign lorries using UK roads for free. It is time foreign lorries – and the whole EU – paid their own way," he said. “It is yet another example of our nation’s total loss of control."
A government spokesperson said: “We believe our levy is justified and consistent with the free movement of goods. The UK has not been infracted on the HGV levy and we won’t comment further on speculation.”
30 April 2016, 02:46 PM
#671
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonsense.
And I'm not trying to represent anyone. What I'm attempting to show is champagne socialism.
It's dead easy to say "give a few £££" when you HAVE more than a few £££, but NOT so easy if you have no job.
Just as it's easy to say, "let in all the poor from poorer countries, give them work, or benefits..." if you have no worries about work yourself.
Back to IAJFEE, I'm afraid.
And I'm not trying to represent anyone. What I'm attempting to show is champagne socialism.
It's dead easy to say "give a few £££" when you HAVE more than a few £££, but NOT so easy if you have no job.
Just as it's easy to say, "let in all the poor from poorer countries, give them work, or benefits..." if you have no worries about work yourself.
Back to IAJFEE, I'm afraid.
It really is a very simplistic and naive view.
01 May 2016, 10:38 AM
#673
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what about those that will suffer if we leave? Your doing exactly the same thing you accuse the rest of us of, just from a different perspective.
01 May 2016, 06:04 PM
#675
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's the €8.8bn that goes towards scientific research (note we're actually a net taker from the EU research budget).
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...ship-of-eu.pdf
The Welsh government also seem to think Wales does quite well out of the EU.
http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en
There's alsorts of other projects funded by the EU but that's about as much digging as I'm going to do for now.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...ship-of-eu.pdf
The Welsh government also seem to think Wales does quite well out of the EU.
http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en
There's alsorts of other projects funded by the EU but that's about as much digging as I'm going to do for now.
01 May 2016, 07:01 PM
#676
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's the €8.8bn that goes towards scientific research (note we're actually a net taker from the EU research budget).
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...ship-of-eu.pdf
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/pol...ship-of-eu.pdf
This argument also presumes that when we stop paying the EU, we will stop paying research organisations that currently receive EU money. This is either ignorance or a straw man. Take your pick
Last edited by warrenm2; 01 May 2016 at 07:02 PM.
01 May 2016, 09:02 PM
#677
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably you are referring to Fig4 (p12). That will be the figure that shows (in the period 07-13), the UK paid in £77.7bn and the EU gave us £47.5bn of our own money back. Meaning the EU kept £30.2 billion quid of our money. So we are not a net taker. Focusing on one pot of money (research) to the exclusion of others does not make your case very well.
You're assuming that the money saved by leaving is used to cover the shortfall in areas that actually benefitted from EU funding. That money could go anywhere. Then there's the likelihood that any financial rearrangement won't be instantaneous, so short to medium term these sorts of organisations may well face a funding cut.
01 May 2016, 09:52 PM
#678
Scooby Regular
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6921126.html
Imagine a country in which there is:
– No statutory right to paid holiday
– No legal limit on the number of hours employees can be required to work
– No right to a daily rest period
– No laws to prevent employers discriminating against workers who are disabled or who have particular religious beliefs
– No right for employees to take time off work to look after a sick child.
This was the UK before the New Labour government was elected in 1997. Since then a substantial number of employment rights have been introduced – most of which have their roots in EU legislation.
Thanks to the EU, employers cannot treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time workers, working parents have a right to take leave to look after their children, and temporary agency workers and workers with fixed-term contracts are entitled to the same basic conditions as comparable workers with permanent contracts.
Employees also have rights to paid holiday and rest periods, as well as the right to be informed and consulted about matters that directly concern them at work. Meanwhile, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. There’s strong reason to believe that many of these rights would be lost should Britain leave the EU.
For many in the Out campaign, the EU’s influence on UK employment rights amounts to intolerable meddling. Consecutive Conservative Party general election manifestos, for example, have promised to “repatriate” powers over employment rights from Brussels to the UK. Until recently, the current government had implied that it would not support a continuation of the UK’s EU membership without an opt-out from EU legislation covering employment rights.
In the run up to David Cameron’s EU membership negotiations, it was widely reported that he would demand a full opt-out for the UK from the EU’s working-time directive and the agency workers' directive.
In the end these demands were never made. They would have required substantial treaty changes that would never have been countenanced by the other 27 members of the EU.
The case against being bound by EU employment rights legislation is that it is damaging to the UK economy, imposing substantial costs on employers. But the UK labour market remains one of the most lightly regulated in the EU, despite the influence of EU legislation.
EU employment laws have generally been introduced in a minimalist way. UK workers are “free” to opt-out of the 48 hours-per-week limit set by the working-time directive. Rights to information and consultation do not apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees. Plus, many agency workers are not entitled to the same pay as directly employed workers doing the same job.
Employment protection legislation, which regulates dismissals, is weaker in the UK than in most other developed economies, as measured by the OECD’s index of employment protection. The EU has some influence in this area, for example by requiring employee consultation where collective redundancies are planned. But matters such as notice and probation periods are not regulated by the EU. And, when the 2010-15 coalition government extended the minimum amount of time someone had to work for a company before being able to claim unfair dismissal (from one year to two), it had no difficulty in doing so.
Going its own way
Members of staff listen as UKIP Leader Nigel Farage addresses an invited audience during a visit to a Manchester metal works on March 23, 2015
If the UK leaves the EU, it not clear that there will be a bonfire of employment legislation. Much would depend on the UK’s subsequent relationship with the EU, which would need to be negotiated. If the UK became part of the European Economic Area, it might continue to be bound by EU Directives covering employment and social issues.
Even if Brexit left the UK free to dismantle employment rights, a Conservative government wishing to be re-elected might see little political advantage in removing rights to parental leave or allowing employers to discriminate against people because of their religion or sexual orientation. It is highly likely, however, that the EU’s working-time regulations, which is a particular bug-bear for the Conservative Party, and the regulations for agency workers would be amended or repealed.
It is also conceivable that rights relating to transferred staff and the right to information and consultation when changes are made to your job would be weakened. Were the Conservative Party to remain in power and shift further to the right, however, there would be little to prevent a far more substantial attack on employment rights.
Workers have gained much from the UK’s membership of the EU and there are clear benefits to society from limiting working time, outlawing discrimination and providing entitlements to parental leave. Many of those who wish to end EU influence over UK employment legislation have one aim in mind – to take employment rights away from workers. If the UK leaves the EU, they are likely to have their way.
like I said earlier, maybe true maybe not - in many ways I don't give a Fvck because non of the above effect me
And as I posted right at beginning of this thread - people who work, who are employed need to understand what employments rights they have are guaranteed by our membership of the EU
What they could lose
if you think nothing - go fo it
as someone once famously said
"do you feel lucky punk"
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 01 May 2016 at 10:13 PM.
02 May 2016, 02:27 AM
#680
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 May 2016, 02:34 AM
#681
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next this is a figure of spending over 6 years, so averaging roughly £1.5bn/year.
Finally its our OWN MONEY, of which the EU keeps some. Therefore we lose out. It costs us. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, its still a loss. That lost money will be available to spend in the UK.
Yes what we do with the £10bn pa net we give to the EU is open for debate. But to suggest we would suffer by having more money to spend is nonsense
02 May 2016, 11:49 AM
#683
Scooby Regular
Did we live in a country like that BEFORE the EU? - I'm not an expert on employment law etc
but I would have thought at least some of the employment right we have are as a result of the EU and the social chapter
02 May 2016, 12:16 PM
#684
Scooby Regular
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6889226.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6921126.html
Imagine a country in which there is:
– No statutory right to paid holiday
– No legal limit on the number of hours employees can be required to work
– No right to a daily rest period
– No laws to prevent employers discriminating against workers who are disabled or who have particular religious beliefs
– No right for employees to take time off work to look after a sick child.
This was the UK before the New Labour government was elected in 1997. Since then a substantial number of employment rights have been introduced – most of which have their roots in EU legislation.
Thanks to the EU, employers cannot treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time workers, working parents have a right to take leave to look after their children, and temporary agency workers and workers with fixed-term contracts are entitled to the same basic conditions as comparable workers with permanent contracts.
Employees also have rights to paid holiday and rest periods, as well as the right to be informed and consulted about matters that directly concern them at work. Meanwhile, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. There’s strong reason to believe that many of these rights would be lost should Britain leave the EU.
For many in the Out campaign, the EU’s influence on UK employment rights amounts to intolerable meddling. Consecutive Conservative Party general election manifestos, for example, have promised to “repatriate” powers over employment rights from Brussels to the UK. Until recently, the current government had implied that it would not support a continuation of the UK’s EU membership without an opt-out from EU legislation covering employment rights.
In the run up to David Cameron’s EU membership negotiations, it was widely reported that he would demand a full opt-out for the UK from the EU’s working-time directive and the agency workers' directive.
In the end these demands were never made. They would have required substantial treaty changes that would never have been countenanced by the other 27 members of the EU.
The case against being bound by EU employment rights legislation is that it is damaging to the UK economy, imposing substantial costs on employers. But the UK labour market remains one of the most lightly regulated in the EU, despite the influence of EU legislation.
EU employment laws have generally been introduced in a minimalist way. UK workers are “free” to opt-out of the 48 hours-per-week limit set by the working-time directive. Rights to information and consultation do not apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees. Plus, many agency workers are not entitled to the same pay as directly employed workers doing the same job.
Employment protection legislation, which regulates dismissals, is weaker in the UK than in most other developed economies, as measured by the OECD’s index of employment protection. The EU has some influence in this area, for example by requiring employee consultation where collective redundancies are planned. But matters such as notice and probation periods are not regulated by the EU. And, when the 2010-15 coalition government extended the minimum amount of time someone had to work for a company before being able to claim unfair dismissal (from one year to two), it had no difficulty in doing so.
Going its own way
Members of staff listen as UKIP Leader Nigel Farage addresses an invited audience during a visit to a Manchester metal works on March 23, 2015
If the UK leaves the EU, it not clear that there will be a bonfire of employment legislation. Much would depend on the UK’s subsequent relationship with the EU, which would need to be negotiated. If the UK became part of the European Economic Area, it might continue to be bound by EU Directives covering employment and social issues.
Even if Brexit left the UK free to dismantle employment rights, a Conservative government wishing to be re-elected might see little political advantage in removing rights to parental leave or allowing employers to discriminate against people because of their religion or sexual orientation. It is highly likely, however, that the EU’s working-time regulations, which is a particular bug-bear for the Conservative Party, and the regulations for agency workers would be amended or repealed.
It is also conceivable that rights relating to transferred staff and the right to information and consultation when changes are made to your job would be weakened. Were the Conservative Party to remain in power and shift further to the right, however, there would be little to prevent a far more substantial attack on employment rights.
Workers have gained much from the UK’s membership of the EU and there are clear benefits to society from limiting working time, outlawing discrimination and providing entitlements to parental leave. Many of those who wish to end EU influence over UK employment legislation have one aim in mind – to take employment rights away from workers. If the UK leaves the EU, they are likely to have their way.
like I said earlier, maybe true maybe not - in many ways I don't give a Fvck because non of the above effect me
And as I posted right at beginning of this thread - people who work, who are employed need to understand what employments rights they have are guaranteed by our membership of the EU
What they could lose
if you think nothing - go fo it
as someone once famously said
"do you feel lucky punk"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6921126.html
Imagine a country in which there is:
– No statutory right to paid holiday
– No legal limit on the number of hours employees can be required to work
– No right to a daily rest period
– No laws to prevent employers discriminating against workers who are disabled or who have particular religious beliefs
– No right for employees to take time off work to look after a sick child.
This was the UK before the New Labour government was elected in 1997. Since then a substantial number of employment rights have been introduced – most of which have their roots in EU legislation.
Thanks to the EU, employers cannot treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time workers, working parents have a right to take leave to look after their children, and temporary agency workers and workers with fixed-term contracts are entitled to the same basic conditions as comparable workers with permanent contracts.
Employees also have rights to paid holiday and rest periods, as well as the right to be informed and consulted about matters that directly concern them at work. Meanwhile, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. There’s strong reason to believe that many of these rights would be lost should Britain leave the EU.
For many in the Out campaign, the EU’s influence on UK employment rights amounts to intolerable meddling. Consecutive Conservative Party general election manifestos, for example, have promised to “repatriate” powers over employment rights from Brussels to the UK. Until recently, the current government had implied that it would not support a continuation of the UK’s EU membership without an opt-out from EU legislation covering employment rights.
In the run up to David Cameron’s EU membership negotiations, it was widely reported that he would demand a full opt-out for the UK from the EU’s working-time directive and the agency workers' directive.
In the end these demands were never made. They would have required substantial treaty changes that would never have been countenanced by the other 27 members of the EU.
The case against being bound by EU employment rights legislation is that it is damaging to the UK economy, imposing substantial costs on employers. But the UK labour market remains one of the most lightly regulated in the EU, despite the influence of EU legislation.
EU employment laws have generally been introduced in a minimalist way. UK workers are “free” to opt-out of the 48 hours-per-week limit set by the working-time directive. Rights to information and consultation do not apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees. Plus, many agency workers are not entitled to the same pay as directly employed workers doing the same job.
Employment protection legislation, which regulates dismissals, is weaker in the UK than in most other developed economies, as measured by the OECD’s index of employment protection. The EU has some influence in this area, for example by requiring employee consultation where collective redundancies are planned. But matters such as notice and probation periods are not regulated by the EU. And, when the 2010-15 coalition government extended the minimum amount of time someone had to work for a company before being able to claim unfair dismissal (from one year to two), it had no difficulty in doing so.
Going its own way
Members of staff listen as UKIP Leader Nigel Farage addresses an invited audience during a visit to a Manchester metal works on March 23, 2015
If the UK leaves the EU, it not clear that there will be a bonfire of employment legislation. Much would depend on the UK’s subsequent relationship with the EU, which would need to be negotiated. If the UK became part of the European Economic Area, it might continue to be bound by EU Directives covering employment and social issues.
Even if Brexit left the UK free to dismantle employment rights, a Conservative government wishing to be re-elected might see little political advantage in removing rights to parental leave or allowing employers to discriminate against people because of their religion or sexual orientation. It is highly likely, however, that the EU’s working-time regulations, which is a particular bug-bear for the Conservative Party, and the regulations for agency workers would be amended or repealed.
It is also conceivable that rights relating to transferred staff and the right to information and consultation when changes are made to your job would be weakened. Were the Conservative Party to remain in power and shift further to the right, however, there would be little to prevent a far more substantial attack on employment rights.
Workers have gained much from the UK’s membership of the EU and there are clear benefits to society from limiting working time, outlawing discrimination and providing entitlements to parental leave. Many of those who wish to end EU influence over UK employment legislation have one aim in mind – to take employment rights away from workers. If the UK leaves the EU, they are likely to have their way.
like I said earlier, maybe true maybe not - in many ways I don't give a Fvck because non of the above effect me
And as I posted right at beginning of this thread - people who work, who are employed need to understand what employments rights they have are guaranteed by our membership of the EU
What they could lose
if you think nothing - go fo it
as someone once famously said
"do you feel lucky punk"
Last edited by DYK; 02 May 2016 at 12:21 PM.
02 May 2016, 12:50 PM
#686
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
We'd better set aside a good proportion that 'saved' money on building processing centres for asylum seekers if we pull out
goodness knows whatll happen to the backlog the home office all ready has
goodness knows whatll happen to the backlog the home office all ready has
Last edited by dpb; 02 May 2016 at 12:51 PM.
02 May 2016, 01:46 PM
#687
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, anything other than IAJFFE is anathema to you.
02 May 2016, 02:02 PM
#688
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously some, all, a number of these will or will no happen, but a more realistic view of the economic issues of Brexit
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8b5907c4-0...#axzz47VE7mVXA
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8b5907c4-0...#axzz47VE7mVXA
02 May 2016, 03:01 PM
#689
Scooby Regular
Yes an interesting article
Especially this bit
Britain could choose to set up a separate regulatory regime but that would add expense and paperwork for companies that do business with the EU.
The EU would also not give up the right to impose penalties if it believed British firms were undercutting European competitors because of government subsidies or lower regulatory standards.
In practice, this would mean that if Britain gave state aid to an industry that exported to Europe it would face punitive tariffs.
Especially this bit
Britain could choose to set up a separate regulatory regime but that would add expense and paperwork for companies that do business with the EU.
The EU would also not give up the right to impose penalties if it believed British firms were undercutting European competitors because of government subsidies or lower regulatory standards.
In practice, this would mean that if Britain gave state aid to an industry that exported to Europe it would face punitive tariffs.