EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Dave1987]

On the Beeb news they have reported that May's cabinet have decided that they are able to demand financial services are included in any trade deal because the EU needs a trade deal with the UK as much as the UK needs one with the EU. Way way back just after the referendum the remaining EU countries agreed that the integrity of the single market was more important than a trade deal with the UK and they clearly said the UK cannot enjoy the perks of the single market without obeying the rules of it. May and her cabinet were insisting for weeks and months they would not pay the divorce bill until crunch time came and May blinked because she had to. What on earth makes her and her cabinet believe the EU will comply with their ridiculous demands now. We are leaving the club therefore we don't get the perks of the club. The consequences of that are things the Government are just going to have to swallow and then go and plead with the US for some kind of deal no doubt selling off the NHS to the US healthcare firms in the process.

 

[AM9]

... What on earth makes her and her cabinet believe the EU will comply with their ridiculous demands now. ...

I don't think she does believe it. Remember, she was (and probably still is) a remainer and despite her having to step back from her strong position uttered on the steps of No 10 when she was crowned, she has managed to head towards a soft exit in several steps and despite grumbling from the extremists, they haven't challenged her position because they are too frightened of a Conservative party meltdown followed by a GE.

 

[nlogax]

What on earth makes her and her cabinet believe the EU will comply with their ridiculous demands now. We are leaving the club therefore we don't get the perks of the club.

I don't think she personally buys it but most of her cabinet seems to display the usual Brexiteer mixture of hubris, arrogance and utter refusal to see what's in front of their noses.

 

[trash80]

It doesn't really matter what the UK government wants out of Brexit (though they should have had a meeting to decide on this days after the referendum not this week FFS), they have no control over the situation, it was given up as soon as A50 was invoked. They, we, will get whatever the EU decide.

 

[Dave1987]

It doesn't really matter what the UK government wants out of Brexit (though they should have had a meeting to decide on this days after the referendum not this week FFS), they have no control over the situation, it was given up as soon as A50 was invoked. They, we, will get whatever the EU decide.

Very much so. Whatever the EU lose from lost trade with the UK they will more than make up from business relocating to within the single market. The UK needs a trade deal with the EU end of. The EU simply held their stance on stage one and after much political posturing May delivered exactly what they wanted. It’s definitely a case of ‘heads the EU wins, tails May’s Government loses’.

 

[AM9]

... It’s definitely a case of ‘heads the EU wins, tails May’s Government loses’.

I think it's simply a matter of the single market rules being there for all to see since 1993. Every UK politician knows that and I suspect most thinking voters for remaining in the EU did as well. As far as the extremist leaver MPs were concerned, they chose to spin the lie that we could negotiate a deal that broke those rules - in our favour of course! That claim was justified on the basis of the EU and 27 countries needing our presence more than we needed them. Even that has been debunked as the percentage of UK trade with the EU is 43% of the total, whereas the EU's trade with the UK is only 18% (or less) of the total. So the loss of much of this trade owing to tariffs will hur the UK much more than the EU as a whole. The gain of financial services within the EU will more than compensate, - it will add to the UK's losses.
Those who voted leave presumably swallowed the line completely and still can't see through the lies even when it is all falling apart in front of their eyes. Those who should have know better will probably go into hiding when the hard exit argument becomes totally unsustainable. Inevitably, it is the poor and those uneducated in the ways of political machinations that will end up paying and eventually realise that their views have been manipulated through their votes by others to pursue a purely political anti-EU ideology.

 

[trash80]

IDS now admits that Brexit will make trading conditions harder for business, i'm sure SME owners will appreciate his honesty at last.

 

[Senex]

Interesting report of a Birmingham Universityh study in this morning's Guardian: "The UK regions that voted to leave the EU are more economically exposed to the effects of Brexit than anywhere else in Europe, research suggests." See:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...vote-exposure-trade-effects-report-uk-regions

 

[AM9]

Interesting report of a Birmingham Universityh study in this morning's Guardian: "The UK regions that voted to leave the EU are more economically exposed to the effects of Brexit than anywhere else in Europe, research suggests." See:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...vote-exposure-trade-effects-report-uk-regions

Just like the voters, the most confirmed leaver areas will be the first to lose their livelihood. Turkeys voting for Christmas. But we still won't believe the experts. It's beginning to sound like the Monty Python Pirana brothers sketch:

 

[EM2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...39497ce4b0fc99878f2058?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

The EU has warned Britain is heading for a ‘Hard Brexit’ – with a “killer graphic” claiming a bare-bones trade deal will be the automatic result of Theresa May’s plans.

The slide lays bare what Brussels thinks is the logic of the Prime Minister’s “red line” demands to be free of European courts, trade rules, migration and payments.

The graphic was presented by EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier to all 27 EU leaders at last week’s summit – the day after May headed back to Britain and just hours before both sides claimed a ‘breakthrough’ in talks.

The image, published online by the European Commission and tweeted by the Guardian on Tuesday morning, set out what the EU thinks is the consequence of each of May’s demands.

Starting with full EU membership on the left, it goes through each of the non-EU countries that it thinks the UK could possibly use as a template for a future relationship.

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (all European Economic Area members) are ruled out because of ‘red lines’ ruling out the European Court of Justice, free movement of migrants, ongoing cash payments and EU trade rules.

The next country ruled out is Switzerland, (a member of Efta, the European free trade association), the next is Ukraine (which has an ‘association agreement’ with the EU), and finally Turkey (which has a form of customs union but no migration deal).

The final flags are for South Korea and Canada, both of which have signed free-trade deals with the EU in recent years.

 

[HSTEd]

From a left-wing point of view I am willing to tolerate Hard Brexit if it means the end of the Electricity Directive and the various Rail integration directives.... but that is just me

 

[pemma]

It's really no surprise the Tory Brexiteers want to scrap the EU working directive - the likes of Gove and Johnson saw it was EU red tape.

Reports of a Tory plot to pull the UK out of the EU Working Time Directive could see 7 million workers in the UK lose rights to paid holidays, GMB has warned today.

Brexit hardliners are today expected to demand Theresa May ditches safeguards post-Brexit which were designed by the EU to protect employees from working excessive hours.

Michael Gove is among the staunch Brexiters wanting Britain to scrap the working time directive which stops staff in most jobs from working more than 48 hours a week on average.

One unnamed minister said scrapping the working time directive “is what taking back control is all about”.

GMB, which represents more than 600,000 workers in the public and private sectors, has today urged the Prime Minister to follow through on Lancaster House and Manifesto promises as Ministers plot fresh attack on rights at work.

In her speech at Lancaster House in January 2017, the Prime Minister said workers’ rights would be “fully protected and maintained” as EU law is translated into domestic rules.

The 2017 Conservative manifesto also promised to ‘enhance workers’ rights.

Losing the protections of the directive could mean 7 million workers could lose rights to paid holidays – 4.7 million of them women, and many on zero-hours or part-time contracts

It could also lead to more workers being forced by bosses to work weeks longer than 48 hours and workers could lose the right to lunch and rest breaks.

Tim Roache, GMB General Secretary said: “Theresa May pledged to protect rights at work after Brexit. Now she needs to follow through.

“What plotting Tory MPs and Ministers really want is to give more control to bosses and less to workers.

“They want an excuse to scrap laws that limit the number of hours people can work, next up will be trying to remove rights to paid holidays and breaks. I don’t remember Vote Leave putting that on the side of a bus.

“Tory true believers will dress the need for an even more ‘flexible’ labour market as allowing people to earn a few extra quid on overtime, but you know what would help workers earn enough to live on? A proper living wage on secure hours, not having to graft for 60 or 70 hours a week just to pay the bills.

“Brexit cannot and must not be used as a Trojan horse to make work even more insecure – that’s not what people voted for.

“If that is what the Government is planning, the public will not forgive them at the ballot box for breaking their promises.”

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...m-uk-workers-lose-rights-paid-holidays/18/12/

Did any who voted for Brexit on here want to get rid of their right to not have to work more than 48 hours in 7 days, their right to have a minimum of 2 x 24 hour periods in every 14 days when they are not working, their right to breaks if their shifts are at least 6 hours or their right to a minimum of 28 days off (including Bank Holidays) for full time workers?

 

[HSTEd]

Did any who voted for Brexit on here want to get rid of their right to not have to work more than 48 hours in 7 days

That right de facto does not exist - very large numbers of non-salaried employees are now required to sign it away in return for getting a job.
And yes I know it's illegal - but it still happens.

their right to have a minimum of 2 x 24 hour periods in every 14 days when they are not working, their right to breaks if their shifts are at least 6 hours or their right to a minimum of 28 days off (including Bank Holidays) for full time workers?

Agencies and hourly labour is already trending towards unpaid breaks, and with ZHCs its highly unlikely you will get 13 days work in 14, so its a bit of a meaningless protection.

 

[AM9]

From a left-wing point of view I am willing to tolerate Hard Brexit if it means the end of the Electricity Directive and the various Rail integration directives.... but that is just me

I don't think many will want to go backwards on safety, even if it does fulfil your desire for more new 3rd rail electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think many will want to go backwards on safety, even if it does fulfil your desire for more new 3rd rail electrification.

That had nothing to do with safety, the electricity directive refers to the operation and organisation of the electricity supply industry.

It requires supply unbundling, wholesale and retail electricity 'markets' and all sorts of other bureaucracy that prohibits the use of state funding to provide cheap to operate generating plant - thus providing the state using its unique advantages to provide it's people with very cheap energy, through a simple and easy to understand charging structure.

And the rail package refers to the similar required unbundling of infrastructure and the like that prevents a properly integrated railway in the name of freight 'interoperation' that has proven to be an extremely damp squib

 

[EM2]

Agencies and hourly labour is already trending towards unpaid breaks, and with ZHCs its highly unlikely you will get 13 days work in 14, so its a bit of a meaningless protection.

So we should just dump it for everyone then? Talk about a race to the bottom...

 

[pemma]

Agencies and hourly labour is already trending towards unpaid breaks, and with ZHCs its highly unlikely you will get 13 days work in 14, so its a bit of a meaningless protection.

You misunderstand the problem. You don't have to be paid for breaks - the majority of UK workers don't get paid for their lunch breaks - but breaks have to be given if you're working for 6 hours or more. Scrapping the directive could mean you could be asked to work 11am to 6pm without being given a proper break - something that's currently illegal.

Not everyone is on ZHCs. Currently if your employer could require you to work Mon-Fri + Sat and your colleague to work Mon-Fri + Sun but if your colleague is away for 2 weeks they can't make you cover their Sunday shift as well (unless you volunteer to do it as overtime) but if the directive is scrapped they can make you cover their Sunday shift while they are away.

 

[HSTEd]

So we should just dump it for everyone then? Talk about a race to the bottom...

I never said that, simply stated that de facto these protections are of little use in the modern workplace.

You misunderstand the problem. You don't have to be paid for breaks - the majority of UK workers don't get paid for their lunch breaks - but breaks have to be given. Scrapping the directive could mean you could be asked to work 11am to 6pm without being given a proper break - something that's currently illegal.

Breaks are often of little use anyway - for example one of the food procesesing plants I had the misfortune to work in gave the statutory minimum break, but the break was timed from the moment you left your place on the production line to the moment you came back.
By the time you got out of the food production area it was essentially time to come back.

 

[EM2]

I never said that, simply stated that de facto these protections are of little use in the modern workplace.

An argument for keeping it in place then, surely?

 

[HSTEd]

An argument for keeping it in place then, surely?

Increasingly meaningless protections are meaningless - whether they are kept in place or not is of little consequence I'm afraid.

 

[pemma]

Breaks are often of little use anyway - for example one of the food procesesing plants I had the misfortune to work in gave the statutory minimum break, but the break was timed from the moment you left your place on the production line to the moment you came back.
By the time you got out of the food production area it was essentially time to come back.

So by that argument we need to go above what's in the EU directive (which the EU never prevented us doing anyway.)

Stopping working for a short period of time is good for your health and concentration even if you don't have time to do anything useful in that time.

 

[HSTEd]

So by that argument we need to go above what's in the EU directive (which the EU never prevented us doing anyway.)

But employers will always find a way to abuse these things - its one of the things they are extremely good at.
With no functional trade unions remaining in the non-state-backed private sector trying to legislate these things is hopeless.

 

[AM9]

That had nothing to do with safety, the electricity directive refers to the operation and organisation of the electricity supply industry.

It requires supply unbundling, wholesale and retail electricity 'markets' and all sorts of other bureaucracy that prohibits the use of state funding to provide cheap to operate generating plant - thus providing the state using its unique advantages to provide it's people with very cheap energy, through a simple and easy to understand charging structure.

And the rail package refers to the similar required unbundling of infrastructure and the like that prevents a properly integrated railway in the name of freight 'interoperation' that has proven to be an extremely damp squib

As you say "from a left wing point of view", - but don't hold your (left wing) breath for the Conservatives to do anything that helps users of electricity even if they don't get away with the Henry VIII powers fiddle. What worries me more is safety including the LV directive, the EMC directive and ATEX directive, and a host of other things that have made life here safer. So for me nothing is worth trading safety for.

 

[trash80]

Increasingly meaningless protections are meaningless - whether they are kept in place or not is of little consequence I'm afraid.

The vast majority do have those protections actually.

 

[HSTEd]

As you say "from a left wing point of view", - but don't hold your (left wing) breath for the Conservatives to do anything that helps users of electricity even if they don't get away with the Henry VIII powers fiddle.

The Conservative Government will not be in power forever.

But there is absolutely no chance that the EU single market will ever move backwards in any way.

What worries me more is safety including the LV directive, the EMC directive and ATEX directive, and a host of other things that have made life here safer. So for me nothing is worth trading safety for.

I am not entirely sure why the government would want to replace the LV or ATEX directives (not sure what the EMC one is?).

How does abolishing either of those really help anyone, ATEX particularily is a rather niche thing.

 

[EM2]

With no functional trade unions remaining in the non-state-backed private sector trying to legislate these things is hopeless.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/unions

 

[pemma]

But employers will always find a way to abuse these things - its one of the things they are extremely good at.
With no functional trade unions remaining in the non-state-backed private sector trying to legislate these things is hopeless.

You shouldn't have a pay a union subscription to ensure your employer acts legally. HMRC do crack down on companies who fail to pay the minimum wage by 'miscalculation', making minimum wage employees work longer than their contracted hours without paying them extra etc. However, some employers do get away with breaking other laws and everyone should be protected against that. Paying a union subscription should give you extra support e.g. pay/contract renegotiations, redundancy support etc.

 

[najaB]

Increasingly meaningless protections are meaningless - whether they are kept in place or not is of little consequence I'm afraid.

I can't agree with that. At least with the protection in place there's a *chance* of enforcement, and many employers do more than lip service to them.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't agree with that. At least with the protection in place there's a *chance* of enforcement, and many employers do more than lip service to them.

And those employers are eventually broken by those who only pay said lip service.

That's the thing about a capitalist society - it always selects for the people with the fewest scruples who can get away with it.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/unions

They don't function in that they cannot use the primary sanction a union has against an employer.
Which is ultimately to go on strike - the workplaces just aren't heavily unionised enough

 

[EM2]

They don't function in that they cannot use the primary sanction a union has against an employer.
Which is ultimately to go on strike - the workplaces just aren't heavily unionised enough

Really? What about McDonalds? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41143869
Or BA? https://www.gilestravel.com/uk-threatened-industrial-action-february-2017/
Or Fujitsu? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/06/fresh_strike_action_ballot_planned_at_fujitsu/
Or DHL? http://motortransport.co.uk/blog/20...ustrial-action-carlsberg-contract-conditions/
Or Picturehouse cinemas? https://www.bectu.org.uk/news/2746
Or Interserve? http://www.fm-world.co.uk/news/fm-industry-news/strike-vote-for-interserve-workers-at-bbc/
Or the Ritzy in Brixton? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...r-strike-over-london-living-wage-9232335.html