EU In or out

[Bad Monkey]

To back Grahams lengthy explanation up have a look at this;

 

 

http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-speech-on-brexit-at-the-institute-of-chartered-engineers/

 

 

David Davis telling it like it is.

 

 

Great posts by TIGHTCHOKE and grrclark

 

I find it interesting that not a single Europhile (and not just in this thread) has yet presented me with any hard facts as to why I should vote to stay in the United Soviet State of Europe!

[Psyxologos]

In anther post you mentioned Gove and Hunt, to me they are two remarkably honest politicians of conviction. They are not popular, thats true, but they tell it how it is and what they say is accurate. I admire their integrity.

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion. When it comes to hunt, I have not forgotten the BskyB scandal, I am dealing with his attempt to kill of the NHS and sell it off (have you heard of what is happening in Kent? It has already started) and that is enough for me to know a crook when I see one.

 

As for gove's integrity, well. I have not forgotten the £110k limousine bill for him to drive 400 yards to parliament, or when he spent £7,000 on furnishing his London home before “flipping” his Commons allowance to a new property in his Surrey constituency, and claiming £13,000 in moving costs.

 

These men might be examples of integrity to you, to me they are crooks. I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

 

[sitsinhedges]

Some folk take great pride in doing their very best to denigrate everything they can about this country and the people who built it. Moaning negative ****. Why not just **** off to Brussels and wallow in your own personal utopia instead of polluting this forum with your endless negative ****.

[UKPoacher]

Interesting article from the financial times on sovereignty, legislative powers etc:

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/26b6a12c-daf2-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz41Ckd8Cvn

 

So while the UK Government can simply repeal the 1972 European Communities Act to avoid having to implement EU laws where does that leave them? By repealing the ECA the UK is effectively resigning from the EU. The only way to stay in the EU is to loyally obey Brussels.

 

I really think that you have undermined your case in this instance.

[UKPoacher]

 

Welcome to reality....

 

Check the working hours of a birtish and a Spanish person (as well as the rest of the EU).

 

And once again you give a selected example that does not paint the fuller picture. For example in France a man or woman can retire on full state pension after completing 30 years of employment. In Greece many civil servants can retire on full government pensions after 25 years.

[Psyxologos]

You might think that these are fair laws. Many business leaders would disagree with you and from my own lowly perspective in the police service I saw the maternity leave and family friendly shifts exploited beyond belief. Back to back maternity leave followed by an unstoppable demand for light duties whilst still on full pay for ten years or more. My wife's former employer has a staff of around 40 females so has to continually arrange maternity cover sometimes to the very last day when he subsequently receives a resignation letter. Who pays for all these fair laws? The public of course.

 

 

What business leaders think as fair is not necessarily fair for their workforce though, I am sure you will agree. Maternity and paternity leave are important because they ensure that children have at least one parent with them when they need them the most. Yes, maternity and/or paternity leave might be an inconvenience to an employer, but this is not concerning me at the slightest. I am more interested in a society that is supportive of its working members, and does not punish them (indirectly, but it is still punishment) when they decide to have a family. If maternity and paternity leave were not around, people would be faced with a dilemma work Vs family, depriving society of either a competent and willing member to contribute through their work (with some flexibility, granted) or the population from maintaining itself. For me there is no real issue here. Maternity and paternity leave are important. If we did not have them, women would definitely be discriminated against as they would bear the grunt of bringing their children up at the expense of their professional development, and this would be a huge blow to science, entrepreneurship etc. Disadvantaging (at least) half of your workforce is a dumb move, I am sure you will agree.

 

 

 

 

 

And to labour my point yet again; the EU should not have the right to meddle in UK employment legislation. That is for elected members of Parliament to arrange. Full stop!

 

Of course they should, if uk government is treating its workforce unfairly.

 

And once again you give a selected example that does not paint the fuller picture. For example in France a man or woman can retire on full state pension after completing 30 years of employment. In Greece many civil servants can retire on full government pensions after 25 years.

 

I am looking forward to seeing the evidence of this please. Thanks.

[grrclark]

 

Agreed. It is like making a jig-saw with a huge piece missing.

 

If a numpty like me can see this then we must assume that the EU economists can too. Given your experiences in manufacturing with low levels of pay being inextricably linked to low standards of quality control in places like Romania then the principle of shifting manufacturing plants to Eastern Europe compared to places like China and Malaysia doesn't make sense. Although Germany would love to add Turkey to their outsourcing portfolio.

 

Then you have Greece that even before the refugee crisis that has crippled any chances of tourism couldn't trade their way out of debt by devaluing their local currency to make holidays cheaper.

 

Makes you wonder why national politicians who would rather sell their children into slavery before cede the slightest amount of power and influence will allow Brussels to overrule them?

There are some great benefits to be had by relocating manufacturing, but it has to be appropriate to the environment that it has gone into.

 

We do hear politicians talking about "screwdriver jobs" as being of greater value, i.e. making something has inherently greater value then storing it, moving it, selling it, etc

 

Sadly in terms of high volume manufacture that really is not the case, the process is dumbed down to the point that there are multiples of low skilled workers doing discrete simple steps in the process, either relying on automation to do much of the clever work or large numbers of bodies to do lots of smaller and simpler steps. In the case of the latter then cheaper geographies will win out. There is also a cost to quality and in a commodity market place you can factor in an acceptable quality level and give that a monetary weighting to decide on whether cheap as chips workforce is appropriate or not.

 

So in electronic consumer goods the typical acceptable failure rate is around 5% with a product value cycle of around 1 year, i.e. you need a new product every year to maintain a level of value in the business. If the value cycle was 3 years then there would be a lower acceptable failure rate. The eastern european or far eastern economies can deliver on this, hence so much is made in these geographies.

 

In medical equipment, pharmaceutical development, advanced technology industries the acceptable rate of failure must be much lower so there tends to be a much higher skills base employed and these type of things are not manufactured so much in the lower cost geographies. There is much less economy of scale.

 

That is why much of our heavy manufacturing industry moved overseas, we could not compete in an industry that largely relies on the volume of manpower rather than an inherent high skill level, but we still have phenomenally successful defence, high tech and pharma' industries. The frustration is that those industries may start to become compromised by EU competition laws, will we be able to intervene successfully as a country to maintain our position of leadership?

 

As an aside it is also why I believe our creative industries are inherently better value then the traditional heavy industry we get so misty eyed about, you cannot de-skill creativity, you cannot commoditise creative talent and imagination and replicate that on a mass scale. Great Britain has always been at the forefront of innovation, ingenuity, invention, creativity, etc it is in our DNA, we are absolutely outstanding in those fields.

 

Turkey is already a massive outsourcing centre for the UK and Germany which tends to make statements about "having to be in the EU to achieve effective trade" sound like the nonsense they are. Something daft like 60% - 70% of generic white goods sold in Europe are manufactured in Turkey, they have some really massive outfits.

 

The arguments about retaining a special status for the London financial market recognise that sometimes we as a country need to do things to make it easier for our centres of business excellence to thrive, yet the EU family wants to dilute that in favour of harmonisation; they want Romania to be able to compete in that financial market space should they wish to, yet we cannot compete in the Romanian low cost space as our cost of living is inherently higher. That skews the game too much for me, if other economies benefit by dint of a natural lower cost environment then good luck to them, but they can't also stack the deck so it falls in their favour regarding regulation of markets or competition strategy.

 

To respond to your last statement, my gut feelings is that so many people that go into politics are idealists and dreamers, they have a very noble cause and motivation, but they are terribly misguided in their belief of their ability to make change.

 

Well wishers have tried to establish peace in our corner of the globe ever since we could pick our nose and I don't think we have ever made it more than 10 years in the wider European landmass without having a right good dust up somewhere or other. It's really is about time that we learned there will always be fights in the playground, no matter who is playing or what the game is.

[Psyxologos]

 

So while the UK Government can simply repeal the 1972 European Communities Act to avoid having to implement EU laws where does that leave them? By repealing the ECA the UK is effectively resigning from the EU. The only way to stay in the EU is to loyally obey Brussels.

 

I really think that you have undermined your case in this instance.

 

This is not the way I understand it. I guess this is why we have a difference of opinion on this.

[Psyxologos]

 

And once again you give a selected example that does not paint the fuller picture. For example in France a man or woman can retire on full state pension after completing 30 years of employment. In Greece many civil servants can retire on full government pensions after 25 years.

 

 

Here, here , here, here, here and here. I have done it for you. Enjoy....

Edited February 25, 2016 by Psyxologos

[UKPoacher]

 

What business leaders think as fair is not necessarily fair for their workforce though, I am sure you will agree. Maternity and paternity leave are important because they ensure that children have at least one parent with them when they need them the most. Yes, maternity and/or paternity leave might be an inconvenience to an employer, but this is not concerning me at the slightest. I am more interested in a society that is supportive of its working members, and does not punish them (indirectly, but it is still punishment) when they decide to have a family. If maternity and paternity leave were not around, people would be faced with a dilemma work Vs family, depriving society of either a competent and willing member to contribute through their work (with some flexibility, granted) or the population from maintaining itself. For me there is no real issue here. Maternity and paternity leave are important. If we did not have them, women would definitely be discriminated against as they would bear the grunt of bringing their children up at the expense of their professional development, and this would be a huge blow to science, entrepreneurship etc. Disadvantaging (at least) half of your workforce is a dumb move, I am sure you will agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course they should, if uk government is treating its workforce unfairly.

 

I am looking forward to seeing the evidence of this please. Thanks.

 

Women are being discriminated against because of this law. Employers avoid taking on women of a child bearing age in many cases.

 

Men are discriminated against because of this law. In my old profession; the police, men are having to stay in the uniformed sections because so many female officers are going off on maternity leave. The men do not get chance to move onto specialist units as quickly as before, have to take the brunt of night and weekend shifts and the public order duties due to the increasing number of female officers going off on maternity leave.

 

It is the job of the UK government to look after its people and is accountable to them. The EU have no right or accountability to interfere in UK laws.

Edited February 25, 2016 by UKPoacher

[UKPoacher]

 

 

Here, I have done it for you. Enjoy....

 

That is the general retirement age. For those who don't qualify by reasons of length of employment.

 

 

In the table of comparison below, the first age mentioned is the occupational retirement age, after which the national pension age is mentioned, providing they are not the same. In many Member States, there are various early retirement pathways before the legal retirement age. In some Member States, pension can be granted without a reduction based on a long insurance period

[Psyxologos]

 

Women are being discriminated against because of this law. Employers avoid taking on women of a child bearing age in many cases.

 

This, unfortunately is true. I would not say it is because of this law though, I would say that employers will use any lawful means to maximize profit. This is just one of the ways to do it.

 

That is the general retirement age. For those who don't qualify by reasons of length of employment.

 

I have added a few more links. Some of them are a bit more specific. But you are right, there are exceptions in every country, including the uk. That does not say much about the European Worktime Directive though, does it?

[grrclark]

 

Of course they should, if uk government is treating its workforce unfairly.

Who defines fair or unfair, who is the arbiter and what measurements must they follow to reach a decision? Who decides that one person's idea of fair is more fair then someone else?

 

What things must we consider for the fairness quotient? Is it simply monetary fairness, i.e. wealth equality, is it fairness in personal time, is it fairness in capability, is it fairness in opportunity?

 

What about fairness in sporting prowess or fairness in hours of sunshine, fairness in looks and appearance, fairness in access to the beach?

 

Fairness is relative to a whole multitude of things, but fundamentally it is not something that can be equal in every environment as it differs from every perspective.

 

Fairness is a totally artificial construct that is talked about very grandly and very nobly, but it is a makey up measure, it isn't quantifiable. We talk about fairness as some sort of universal measure and use it to compare the incomparable. It is idealistic fantasy.

Edited February 25, 2016 by grrclark

[UKPoacher]

 

This is not the way I understand it. I guess this is why we have a difference of opinion on this.

Read down the letters and you will see what i mean. This is a quote from one of them......

 

 

"in order for EU law to be effective, the member states have voluntarily placed limits on the exercise of their own sovereignty in the specific fields where EU law applies."

 

Whilever we are in the EU we have to obey their rules. Yes, the UK can tear up the Treaty. But it cannot tear up the treaty AND remain in the EU.

[UKPoacher]

 

This, unfortunately is true. I would not say it is because of this law though, I would say that employers will use any lawful means to maximize profit. This is just one of the ways to do it.

I have added a few more links. Some of them are a bit more specific. But you are right, there are exceptions in every country, including the uk. That does not say much about the European Worktime Directive though, does it?

What it says is that the playing fields aren't level. The EU meddles in all sorts of things but leave wide open gaps in the policy. Minimum wages, locally agreed retirement criteria. Failure to implement policies without thinking through the implications. Imposing those policies on governments without accountability.

 

Doesn't say much for the EU does it?

[Danger-Mouse]

 

So while the UK Government can simply repeal the 1972 European Communities Act to avoid having to implement EU laws where does that leave them? By repealing the ECA the UK is effectively resigning from the EU. The only way to stay in the EU is to loyally obey Brussels.

 

I really think that you have undermined your case in this instance.

 

 

 

This is not the way I understand it. I guess this is why we have a difference of opinion on this.

 

What UKPoacher has said is 100% correct.

 

I posted this earlier, perhaps you missed it?

 

The legal basis for the enactment of regulations is Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 249 TEC).

Article 288

To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

Regulations are in some sense equivalent to "Acts of Parliament", in the sense that what they say is law and they do not need to be mediated into national law by means of implementing measures. As such, regulations constitute one of the most powerful forms of European Union law and a great deal of care is required in their drafting and formulation.

When a regulation comes into force, it overrides all national laws dealing with the same subject matter and subsequent national legislation must be consistent with and made in the light of the regulation.

 

The sections in bold show what power the bureacrats in Brussels hold over us. If they make a regulation then we must adhere to it. This is what we agreed to do when we became a part of the EU.

 

If we chose to ignore or try to change the legislation put forward in an EU regulation there would be repercussions, most likely in the form of fines.

 

The article you posted at the top of the page about sovereignty talks about this. When we join treaties we are bound by the rules of those treaties.

 

What our sovereign right allows us to do is cancel our membership of any treaty. So we can leave NATO if we wish. We can leave the EU if we wish to. Irrespective of any rules set down in that treaty we can simply repeal the Act of Parliament that joined us to it and there is nothing any nation can do about it. That is our sovereign right.

 

What our sovereignty doesn`t do is allow us to ignore bits of treaties we don`t like.

[Dr D]

Failing to adhere to EU directives and regulations is directly enforceable in our domestic courts and at EU court of justice. The latter has the power to impose sanctions against member states including suspension from the european council.

 

In the event of brexit the court of justice would continue to have authority up until the point of exit. Which would probably take the full two years.

 

Rights vested through the tranpostion of EU law would remain in force, but after an exit future UK parliaments could choose to repeal them.

 

The Vienna convention which sets out the laws of treaties internationally is absolutely clear on this latter point.

 

The only real question is how much would the UK still have to maintain compliance with EU laws in order to trade? Despite what we are being told about regaining our sovereignty the issue is not that simple.

 

This is the situation Norway has found itself. In the event of brexit we would be like Norway only in reverse.

 

I still haven't made my mind up.

 

Even the sovereignty question is as clear a mud.

[UKPoacher]

 

 

Here, here , here, here, here and here. I have done it for you. Enjoy....

 

Thanks for the additions. Here are the highlights...........

 

 

• In 2012, 35.1 % of persons aged 50-69 in the EU-28 received a pension. Of these, 87.4 % received an old-age pension, i.e. a pension resulting from earning entitlements during working life. Other, less common types of pensions also exist.

 

 

That foot of yours must be full of bullet holes by now

[UKPoacher]

grrclark - Thanks for your invaluable input. Nice to hear it from the business side who has been involved in the bear pit.

[grrclark]

This is the situation Norway has found itself. In the event of brexit we would be like Norway only in reverse.

 

I still haven't made my mind up.

 

Even the sovereignty question is as clear a mud.

Understand where you're coming from, but we're not Norway.

 

We are the fifth largest economy globally, we arguably have the greatest soft power influence in the world, we are a genuine global super power in our finance industries.

 

There is no real comparison to Norway in any meaningful sense so why should we believe that our negotiating power or expectation of outcome with the rest of the EU should be comparable to Norway?

 

I don't know why Norway is such a popular analogue for the UK, during the Scottish indy ref' Norway was the nationalists go to comparison too.

[Psyxologos]

 

 

 

That foot of yours must be full of bullet holes by now

 

I am glad you enjoy the debate. I do not understand how this should be something you can 'use' against my argument. The figures you quote include the uk, I suspect (please correct me if I am wrong). So what is the point you are trying to make?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Psyxologos

[Psyxologos]

Who defines fair or unfair, who is the arbiter and what measurements must they follow to reach a decision? Who decides that one person's idea of fair is more fair then someone else?

 

What things must we consider for the fairness quotient? Is it simply monetary fairness, i.e. wealth equality, is it fairness in personal time, is it fairness in capability, is it fairness in opportunity?

 

What about fairness in sporting prowess or fairness in hours of sunshine, fairness in looks and appearance, fairness in access to the beach?

 

Fairness is relative to a whole multitude of things, but fundamentally it is not something that can be equal in every environment as it differs from every perspective.

 

Fairness is a totally artificial construct that is talked about very grandly and very nobly, but it is a makey up measure, it isn't quantifiable. We talk about fairness as some sort of universal measure and use it to compare the incomparable. It is idealistic fantasy.

 

That is a valid point. I guess I would go with an interpretation that puts the interests of citizens, workers, people before big employers' drive for profit and the clever ways their lawyers bend the law to achieve it.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Psyxologos

[Sundodger]

OUT THE SOONER THE BETTER FOR ME

[Grandalf]

 

To respond to your last statement, my gut feelings is that so many people that go into politics are idealists and dreamers, they have a very noble cause and motivation, but they are terribly misguided in their belief of their ability to make change.

 

 

Modern European politicians summed up in one sentence. Well done Sir.

[UKPoacher]

Failing to adhere to EU directives and regulations is directly enforceable in our domestic courts and at EU court of justice. The latter has the power to impose sanctions against member states including suspension from the european council.

 

In the event of brexit the court of justice would continue to have authority up until the point of exit. Which would probably take the full two years.

 

Rights vested through the tranpostion of EU law would remain in force, but after an exit future UK parliaments could choose to repeal them.

 

The Vienna convention which sets out the laws of treaties internationally is absolutely clear on this latter point.

 

The only real question is how much would the UK still have to maintain compliance with EU laws in order to trade? Despite what we are being told about regaining our sovereignty the issue is not that simple.

 

This is the situation Norway has found itself. In the event of brexit we would be like Norway only in reverse.

 

I still haven't made my mind up.

 

Even the sovereignty question is as clear a mud.

 

Norway doesn't buy as many VW / Audi, Mercedes, BMW vehicles as the UK does. Norway doesn't buy as much French or Italian wines as the UK does. Norway's trade with the EU is a surplus. The UK's trade with the EU is a deficit.

 

Norway needed to continue trading with the EU. The EU needs to continue trading with the UK.