Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

I know Scara's already dealt with this, but allowing flexibility does not automatically equate to "something awful that forces people to work extremely long hours". I was employed before the WTD existed, I don't recall being forced to do 100 hour weeks (though it was a while ago now, so I can't guarantee the absolute accuracy of my memory!).

Did you write the Project Fear handbook, or are you just heavily influenced by it?

'Project fear' is worying about the EU when all it does is things like ensure people are not working in sweat shops. Just because you weren't asked to work over 48 hours a week does not mean it could not happen. Most employers wouldn't dream of working people that hard without their consent. I am aghast that you think we should. I am more shocked that you think 'progress' is moving to world where we allow people to be forced into working more than 48 hours a week without their agreement. Listen to yourself.

With respect, you are so wedded to the ideal of exiting the EU, that you'll even back selling out people right to have a say in how long they work. That is the tail wagging the dog.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Ok I knew that would get this response which was not my intention because I am not debating this part anymore. If as a remain voter you without bias can say that your faith in the MPs on either side is as strong as it was before this then I would question your judgement personally.

Without bias I can say that MPs have not changed over night. They have not become some UK-hating villans. The issue is Brexit itself which is undelerable without harming the UK. That you can not name what you think they "should come together and delver" shows that it is not simple to deliver. If you can not outline what it is you think should be done, then can you, head held high, criticise others for not delivering it?

I ask you again, what is it MPs should be coming together to deliver?

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if you wanted to go through all of the EU legislation you'd find plenty there that a Conservative government would rescind.

I don't want to force my staff to work over 48 hours every week, in fact, I don't want to force anyone to do overtime.

The logical extension of your assertion that they require unrestricted access is that without moving to the EU they will have restricted access. You'll need to show that there will be restrictions and that they couldn't be balanced with something as simple as tax cuts for your case to hold water.

That's a somewhat naive point of view if you don't mind me pointing that out. All countries are constantly bribing and cajoling businesses to settle within their borders. The EU works hard at trying to stop that - in the next few years Ireland and Luxembourg are likely to suffer heavily from such work.

But don't think for a second that we didn't have to convince businesses to choose us in the past, because we did.

3 days to reply, but it's "just off the top my head" and resembles the anti-EU Tory handbook. But all your answer shows is the futility of Brexit. After 3 days, all we 'get' from leaving the EU is a possible change to a law that allows a few people to work others to the bone. To possibly change a law that allow harmful solvents back into our air. Why would we want this, and why would MPs vote for it? To me both represent a step backward away from a focus on quality of life for people.

"I don't want to force my staff to work over 48 hours every week, in fact, I don't want to force anyone to do overtime." You can not have it both ways. You either don't want to force people to work more than 48 hours a week, or you do. Make up your mind. To me having such a thing in place - which allows people to work upto 9.6 hours a day 5 days a week without giving consent (many would say that's a lot in itself), and beyond that they have a choice - is not a bad thing, it is a fair thing. For you, there will be ways to get more staff, innovative training programmes etc. that don't rely on forcing people to work more than 48 hours a week without their consent.

Re. Sony I will not have to "show" anything. We are not talking theoreticals. Sony have moved from London to Amsterdam. It makes no difference what the arguements are. Sony have made the judgment call, and they cited it was related to Brexit. London has been an access point for companies who are from outside the EU, who want a presence in the EU. Like Sony. Part of the reason France are not completely against a hard UK exit is they think they would pick up a fair share of the financial companies who would leave London.

So in summary, Brexit might deliver a change to the working time directive and an ability to cut tax for specific industries. But this in itself is highly questionable (becaue it would need a hard brexit and MPs and the electorate may not back things like scaping workers rights). Are these 'gains' worth the loss of free trade with a continent, 70 odd other free trade agreements with the likes of Japan and Canada, the loss of things like mobile phone roaming when traveling, free medical cover when traveling to the EU, quick movement crossing boarders, our currency being 15% stronger with imports or holidays the same amount cheaper, the UK being part of things like a new satterlite system, having a presence to shape things on the world stage, when up against the US and China, to work with neighbours on things like pollution laws, to provide study exchange programmes or allow our kids freedom to travel and work accross a whole continent?

 

[a spur from swansea]

Fellow Spurs fan Littlejohn,pointing out quite correctly on how MP's have one rule for them and another for us plebs....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ciding-vote-latest-Stop-Brexit-manoeuvre.html

 

[DTA]

Fellow Spurs fan Littlejohn,pointing out quite correctly on how MP's have one rule for them and another for us plebs....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ciding-vote-latest-Stop-Brexit-manoeuvre.html

Wasn't there a Tory voting for the other side (of that vote) that got done on expenses? And another with sexual abuse scandal (I might be remembering that wrong)?

 

[Baleforce]

I think it’s 3 sex abuse scandals

 

[glasgowspur]

It is a more than a bit hypocritical to moan about a very narrow result considering how close the ref result was.
Then to moan about the dodginess of some of those voting when your side has already all but admitted to dodgy votes in winning the original ref just smacks of downright hypocrisy.

 

[parklane1]

They are all bent as nine bob notes ( allegedly]

 

[wiziwig]

No.

Just one. With law-abiding campaigns. No stealing data to target lies. No illegal overspending. No Arron Banks overseas money. Based in fact. With a defined outcome. With a plan.

I think if you look into it you will find that in recent general elections, the Lib/Lab/Con parties have all been fined for overspending. It's actually a common occurrence but unlike in parliamentary or local elections, overspending does not invalidate a referendum result under any circumstances. The courts cannot order a rerun.....

If we look at the total spend without bias, of both Remain and Leave, we will have to acknowledge that all the financial advantages were with Remain...

Leave £13m...
Remain £19...

The £6m advantage for the Remain cause was due to the extra funding ploughed into the main political parties by one donor, Lord Sainsbury. He gave the Lib/Lab/Con Remain fund more than £6m...These Remain politicians were then aided in their campaigning by civil servants, who incidentally were barred from helping Leave politicians in their campaigning.

Also there's the £9.3m (tax payers money) of the government leafleting to every household in the UK the Remainers never wish to acknowledge.

The total spent is then:
Leave £13m
Remain £28m

Even if all that is alleged against Vote Leave is true, it is clear that this did not create an unfair playing field. Both sides in the Referendum exploited loopholes to maximise how much they could spend. The Remain side had the advantage of having the government machine – and £9.3 million of public funds on clear campaign literature on its side. If the referendum was unbalanced, the advantage was with Remain – and yet it still lost.

 

[Parklaner81]

'Project fear' is worying about the EU when all it does is things like ensure people are not working in sweat shops. Just because you weren't asked to work over 48 hours a week does not mean it could not happen. Most employers wouldn't dream of working people that hard without their consent. I am aghast that you think we should. I am more shocked that you think 'progress' is moving to world where we allow people to be forced into working more than 48 hours a week without their agreement. Listen to yourself.

With respect, you are so wedded to the ideal of exiting the EU, that you'll even back selling out people right to have a say in how long they work. That is the tail wagging the dog.

Oh dear, where to start with this...?

Let's go with me 'listening to myself', shall we? Ok. I'll do that, if you can show me quotes of me saying any of the things that you have just claimed that 'I think'. You know, the way I directly quoted your words in my previous post.

You might struggle with that. The chief reason being, I haven't said any such things. Nor do I, in fact, 'think' them.

My entry into this discussion over the WTD was actually to suggest to Scara that the existing, absolute limits on the hours people can work after signing the waiver were not in fact onerous to employers. The actual word I used was 'gentle'. The obvious extension of this being that I do not agree that employers should be allowed to make excessive or unreasonable demands on their employees.

Here's the bit where I think you're getting confused - it's perfectly possible to agree with reasonable limits to working hours, while also acknowledging that the WTD as it stands could conceivably give rise to situations that are disadvantageous to employers and by extension, reduce their competitive abilities. Scara has repeatedly illustrated such situations to you. It's possible to acknowledge these examples as valid without automatically believing in absolute free-reign for unscrupulous employers to abuse their workforces. That's my position on the WTD - I can acknowledge both it's benefits and it's drawbacks. You seem able to only acknowledge one side of the debate. Perhaps this stems from your apparent view that the EU is sacrosant?

So which of the two of us seems more wedded to ideals?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Oh dear, where to start with this...?

Let's go with me 'listening to myself', shall we? Ok. I'll do that, if you can show me quotes of myself saying any of the things you have just claimed that 'I think'. You know, the way I directly quoted your words in my previous post.

You might struggle with that. The chief reason being, I haven't said any such things. Nor do I, in fact, 'think' them.

My entry into this discussion over the WTD was actually to suggest to Scara that the existing, absolute limits on the hours people can work after signing the waiver were not in fact onerous to employers. The actual word I used was 'gentle'. The obvious extension of this being that I do not agree that employers should be allowed to make excessive or unreasonable demands on their employers.

Here's the bit where I think you're getting confused - it's perfectly possible to agree with reasonable limits to working hours, while also acknowledging that the WTD as it stands could conceivably give rise to situations that are disadvantageous to employers and by extension, reduce their competitive abilities. Scara has repeatedly illustrated such situations to you. It's possible to acknowledge these examples as valid without automatically believing in absolute free-reign for unscrupulous employers to abuse their workforces. That's my position on the WTD - I can acknowledge both it's benefits and it's drawbacks. You seem able to only acknowledge one side of the debate. Perhaps this stems from your apparent view that the EU is sacrosant?

So which of the two of us seems more wedded to ideals?

Look I understand your conundrum. You want to (and have) backed leave. It’s important to you. You see that the WTD is not actually unreasonable. If people had just read the Sun or just listened to the Tory eurosceptics then you would conclude (fairly) that the WTD was evil imposed on the UK from Europe. This kind of miss selling to our people is the crux of why a third of the country are feeling let down now. And if Brexit happens the let down would continue.

The UK got special dispensation from Europe with the WTD. Which was if workers wanted to opt out, they could. I can’t bold that on my phone. But maybe read it again: the UK negotiated that UK workers CAN opt out if they wish to. France has a 35 hour working week. A whole 8 hours less than the UK. Scara’s original point that the EU WTD makes us uncompetitive vs France, is fair then?

When newspapers - driven by their mogul owners - tell us things like the WTD makes the UK uncompetitive, is it true? And when the people, people like Danish or Greys get upset that Brexit is not being delivered, who should be blamed? Those who are taking time to try and address the real issues for the benefit of the UK, or those like newspaper owners who instigated false promises and manipulated people for their own personal goals?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Parklaner81]

Look I understand your conundrum. You want to (and have) backed leave. It’s important to you. You see that the WTD is not actually unreasonable. If people had just read the Sun or just listened to the Tory eurosceptics then you would conclude (fairly) that the WTD was evil imposed on the UK from Europe. This kind of miss selling to our people is the crux of why a third of the country are feeling let down now. And if Brexit happens the let down would continue.

The UK got special dispensation from Europe with the WTD. Which was if workers wanted to opt out, they could. I can’t bold that on my phone. But maybe read it again: the UK negotiated that UK workers CAN opt out if they wish to. France has a 35 hour working week. A whole 8 hours less than the UK. Scara’s original point that the EU WTD makes us uncompetitive vs France, is fair then?

When newspapers - driven by their mogul owners - tell us things like the WTD makes the UK uncompetitive, is it true? And when the people, people like Danish or Greys get upset that Brexit is not being delivered, who should be blamed? Those who are taking time to try and address the real issues for the benefit of the UK, or those like newspaper owners who instigated false promises and manipulated people for their own personal goals?

You don't need to bold it, I'm fully aware of it. And I agree that it's a welcome feature and, in many cases, will be sufficient to dampen any opposition. I find it slightly puzzling however that you continue to place such emphasis on it in this post, when scara has clearly illustrated scenarios in which it would prove irrelevant.

And so to answer your question, yes, it is true that the WTD could serve to make the UK uncompetitive - in certain, specific and (I would guess) fairly limited circumstances.

Like most things, the true answer lies somewhere between the two extremes, which is a point that I'm actually quite surprised you appear to be resisting.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You don't need to bold it, I'm fully aware of it. And I agree that it's a welcome feature and, in many cases, will be sufficient to dampen any opposition. I find it slightly puzzling however that you continue to place such emphasis on it in this post, when scara has clearly illustrated scenarios in which it would prove irrelevant.

And so to answer your question, yes, it is true that the WTD could serve to make the UK uncompetitive in certain, specific and (I would guess) fairly limited circumstances.

Like most things, the true answer lies somewhere between the two extremes, which is a point that I'm actually quite surprised you appear to be resisting.

You are trying to bridge two conflicting arguements. Scara was sugesting we were uncompetitive vs France becuase of the WTD. We are not. That is false. Agreed?

Are we uncompetitive against China where they don't protect workers rights? Yes we probably are. But there are larger issues like cheaper wages which trump working time.

The "true answer" is, if you voted for Brexit becuase of things like the WTD, you were probably sold a pup. It should be clear that Brexit offers the UK very little (few can even outline what the positives are), but it loses the UK some significant things (people are clear about what would be lost: trade, jobs etc. Just look at the forcasts by our Government and BoE that show every form of Brexit being costly to the nation).

If Brexit does not deliver on the promises made, who should be blamed? Can go down the conspiracy theory route - MPs are all coniving fuks who are working to stop Brexit - or you can look at the false promises that were made. Your choice.

What were the false promises? So far we have the following proven not to be true;

• Brexit will be easy.
• We hold the cards negotiating with the EU, and it will be easy
• Brexit will not cost a single job.
• No companies will move out the UK because of Brexit.

These are the things that events have proven to be incorrect. There is much more that is clearly untrue. The quetion is, do we trust the people who told us the above, who are now saying the other dangers of Brexit are false (economic impact etc) or we trust those who predicted the above would not occur?

 

[Parklaner81]

Ok. I'm going to bow out at this point, as I don't think you're actually even reading or trying to understand my posts. If you had read my last post, for example, you wouldn't be asking me this;

You are trying to bridge two conflicting arguements. Scara was sugesting we were uncompetitive vs France becuase of the WTD. We are not. That is false. Agreed?

Another thing that I'd hope should be apparent from my posts is that the WTD accounted for around 0.0% of my considerations when I decided to vote leave. So at least I'm ok here...

The "true answer" is, if you voted for Brexit becuase of things like the WTD, you were probably sold a pup.

I'll just add that I also never for one minute suspected brexit would be easy, so that's one more pup I never bought - as I suggested in a post on here last night, I foresaw quite accurately the tireless efforts to undermine and eventually reverse it. Sadly I now fear that those who have been on a near 3-year crusade to do so are nearly there...

 

[SpurMeUp]

Ok. I'm going to bow out at this point, as I don't think you're actually even reading or trying to understand my posts. If you had read my last post, for example, you wouldn't be asking me this;



Another thing that I'd hope should be apparent from my posts is that the WTD accounted for around 0.0% of my considerations when I decided to vote leave. So at least I'm ok here...



I'll just add that I also never for one minute suspected brexit would be easy, so that's one more pup I never bought - as I suggested in a post on here last night, I foresaw quite accurately the tireless efforts to undermine and eventually reverse it. Sadly I now fear that those who have been on a near 3-year crusade to do so are nearly there...

Cheers. I appreciate you posts and read all of them. Quoting parts of them. Hopefully you spare me the same dignity.

Listen if Brexit was a great success or if someone could outline why it might be, I'd hold my hands up, and say I got it wrong. And I'd be happy to be wrong. Sadly people can't seem to outline the postives of Brexit really can they. And it does not look like it will address things like immigration plus it will probably damage the economy, which means you have to ask, what is the point? Does it have any substance at all. And have we been miss sold and miss represented here?

MPs are not trying to screw up the UK, they are trying to protect it. Try not to feel like its some conspiricy, because Brexit is highly complex and is neigh on impposible to deliver, that is the truth. Had May's deal been passed, it was just the beggining of the exit process. Not an end at all. I know it goes against your world view but the people who made assertions about Brexit that are turning out to be not true, are not worth trusting. If they said yesterday that negotiating with the EU would be easy, and it wasn't, why would you trust when they say 'Brexit won't hurt the economy''? I wish you a nice weekend and roll on Tuesday, appropraitely a European game played with another UK side

 

[Baleforce]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1114196473036574721

 

[StephenH]

Great shame but no real surprise!

 

[Baleforce]

May evidently spent two days attempting a compromise for which she wasn't prepared to change anything.

Simply an exercise in time wasting.

 

[scaramanga]

3 days to reply, but it's "just off the top my head" and resembles the anti-EU Tory handbook. But all your answer shows is the futility of Brexit. After 3 days, all we 'get' from leaving the EU is a possible change to a law that allows a few people to work others to the bone. To possibly change a law that allow harmful solvents back into our air. Why would we want this, and why would MPs vote for it? To me both represent a step backward away from a focus on quality of life for people.

"I don't want to force my staff to work over 48 hours every week, in fact, I don't want to force anyone to do overtime." You can not have it both ways. You either don't want to force people to work more than 48 hours a week, or you do. Make up your mind. To me having such a thing in place - which allows people to work upto 9.6 hours a day 5 days a week without giving consent (many would say that's a lot in itself), and beyond that they have a choice - is not a bad thing, it is a fair thing. For you, there will be ways to get more staff, innovative training programmes etc. that don't rely on forcing people to work more than 48 hours a week without their consent.

Re. Sony I will not have to "show" anything. We are not talking theoreticals. Sony have moved from London to Amsterdam. It makes no difference what the arguements are. Sony have made the judgment call, and they cited it was related to Brexit. London has been an access point for companies who are from outside the EU, who want a presence in the EU. Like Sony. Part of the reason France are not completely against a hard UK exit is they think they would pick up a fair share of the financial companies who would leave London.

So in summary, Brexit might deliver a change to the working time directive and an ability to cut tax for specific industries. But this in itself is highly questionable (becaue it would need a hard brexit and MPs and the electorate may not back things like scaping workers rights). Are these 'gains' worth the loss of free trade with a continent, 70 odd other free trade agreements with the likes of Japan and Canada, the loss of things like mobile phone roaming when traveling, free medical cover when traveling to the EU, quick movement crossing boarders, our currency being 15% stronger with imports or holidays the same amount cheaper, the UK being part of things like a new satterlite system, having a presence to shape things on the world stage, when up against the US and China, to work with neighbours on things like pollution laws, to provide study exchange programmes or allow our kids freedom to travel and work accross a whole continent?

You see this is why I get frustrated trying to discuss these things with you, it's like trying to play chess with a pigeon.

I'll try one last time.

I don't want to force anyone to work overtime. I don't think that's a complex statement to understand. Please let me know if that phrasing isn't simplified enough.

I have plenty of unskilled labour that don't want to work overtime and that's not an issue at all. All I want is to only train and promote those that will work overtime. Those who won't can continue working as unskilled labour. Otherwise, when demand fluctuates, I end up paying skilled staff to do the work of unskilled staff for 90+% of their time.

I really don't think that's a hard concept to grasp - I even laid it out for you with some really simple numbers. Surely the owner of a £4m turnover business can understand simple economics and labour controls?

 

[scaramanga]

May evidently spent two days attempting a compromise for which she wasn't prepared to change anything.

Simply an exercise in time wasting.

May can't change her deal because it's not her deal and the EU won't change it. Anyone going into those talks expecting otherwise is naive, a halfwit or both.

My money's on both