***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 7 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Sep 14 at 01:32
|
|
Betfair have already paid out some clients who bet on NO - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29232538
|
|
There may be a problem when the EU (USE) changes its name to the Fourth Reich.
|
>> There may be a problem when the EU (USE) changes its name to the Fourth
>> Reich.
No problem, several on here will be queueing up for the black uniform with the lightening flashes
|
>> Betfair have already paid out some clients who bet on NO - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29232538
>>
I never knew they did that. What happens if it turns out Yes - do they ask for their money back?
Do bookies do that with other events? Pay out half way through a race as the favourite romps into the lead?
Couldn't it perhaps be interpreted as bribery, an attempt to influence voters in return for money?
|
>>
>>
>> Do bookies do that with other events?
I think they have done in the past, can't remember for what off the top of my head though.
|
|
Presumably the betting is non-nationalistic, thus open to English and Welsh to recoup some of the tax lost on this farce!
|
>>
>> Continuing debate
i.e. stopped debate.
|
To Zero and Bromptonaut,
I do not have the time or the inclination to sit on the internet trawling through EU laws to paste on here.
However, it is my wish that any laws enacted in this country solely originate from this country.
I think the EU is exceptionally wasteful, full of paper shuffling bureaucrats and I am not comfortable with people of other countries deciding on what happens here, because of cultural, local and traditional differences.
You are entitled to your view as I am mine.
Furthermore, if anyone out there feels this view is xenophobic, they'd be wrong actually, I like going to different places, meeting different people and have no feelings of negativity whatsoever on the actual people.. however I also think the above and cannot imagine why anyone abroad would want to be ruled by us either... presumably this is why we no longer have an Empire.
In any referendum/vote, I would vote accordingly... as would many others.
|
That's fair enough WP though fact that you'd need to 'trawl' EU laws seems to bear out my point that, for all the hoo-hah, it's difficult to exemplify the egregious ones affecting joe public.
|
>> it's difficult to exemplify the egregious
>> ones affecting joe public.
>>
I don't think it's specific laws that are the public's concern, it's simply that a lot of ordinary people are getting the feeling that they are being pushed around and regulated by "them", and the EU lurking the background is not going to be a force that mitigates this, rather the opposite.
It's the revolt of the small man who is getting fed up. The fact that there is also a respectable body of academic and business support for the case for withdrawal simply adds some justification to the feeling.
Right or wrong, that's how a lot of people feel. Politicians can either engage with the feeling and address it, or ignore it and face the consequences.
But the Scottish referendum, whatever the outcome, ought to have sent them a warning that people are liable to vote with their hearts as well as their heads.
|
>> It's the revolt of the small man who is getting fed up. The fact that
>> there is also a respectable body of academic and business support for the case for
>> withdrawal simply adds some justification to the feeling.
The fact that there isn't a "respectable body of academic and business support" that supports withdrawal form the EU convinces me we need to stay in.
|
>> The fact that there isn't a "respectable body of academic and business support" that supports
>> withdrawal form the EU convinces me we need to stay in.
Real business will, come EU renegotiation/referendum, take similar line to that adopted over Scottish independence. UK potentially outside EU will be seen as risky for future investment = scarper.
The businesses against seem to be (a) those run by folks like the Barclay brothers or Murdoch - expat billionaires (b) those who want out so as to remove EU protections for workers allowing them to screw their employees further than is case already.
|
>> Real business will, come EU renegotiation/referendum, take similar line to that adopted over Scottish independence.
>> UK potentially outside EU will be seen as risky for future investment = scarper.
There seemed to be a reasonable spread of businesses that were in the YES camp.
>>
>> The businesses against seem to be (a) those run by folks like the Barclay brothers
>> or Murdoch - expat billionaires (b) those who want out so as to remove EU
>> protections for workers allowing them to screw their employees further than is case already.
>>
Perhaps some like that but not all. Should the day come, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see a similar spread to that of Scotland.
|
>> >> Real business will, come EU renegotiation/referendum, take similar line to that adopted over Scottish
>> independence.
>> >> UK potentially outside EU will be seen as risky for future investment = scarper.
>>
>> There seemed to be a reasonable spread of businesses that were in the YES camp.
There was one bloke who ran a coach company, probably hoping to pick up extra trade on those escaping to England.
|
>>
>> The fact that there isn't a "respectable body of academic and business support" that supports
>> withdrawal form the EU convinces me we need to stay in.
>>
Of course there is. It may not be as big or so well argued or as correct as the other side, but it is nonsense to just dismiss it.
Pulling out of the EU is a perfectly valid position to hold, it just needs debating and weighing up.
The same as Scottish independence. There are good arguments on both sides. And some bad ones.
Obviously when one has taken up a position, all the pro arguments are good ones and all the opposition's rubbish. :)
|
>> It may not be as big or so well argued or
>> as correct as the other side,
As I said, not respectable.
|
>>
>> As I said, not respectable.
>>
We are meaning different things by the word. I didn't mean necessarily academically rigorous, simply within the mainstream of acceptable terms of discussion.
|
>> That's fair enough WP though fact that you'd need to 'trawl' EU laws seems to
>> bear out my point that, for all the hoo-hah, it's difficult to exemplify the egregious
>> ones affecting joe public.
That is part of the problem. I don't know what laws are what. I want to know that the laws enacted here are solely from here.
If we swapped this argument around, so we were talking about the UK and the US (e.g. the rather one sided extradition treaty we currently have), would you be saying 'it doesn't matter, the US is making laws we'd have to make anyway, so let's go with that'.
I suspect not.
|
>> To Zero and Bromptonaut,
>>
>> I do not have the time or the inclination to sit on the internet trawling
>> through EU laws to paste on here.
Ok, fair enough. I'll take that to mean that the EU has not dumped any law on you that actually negatively impacts you in anyway.
>> However, it is my wish that any laws enacted in this country solely originate from
>> this country.
And I'll take that as a "Even tho I can't find any of these nasty laws that have been inflicted upon me, I maintain my right to moan about them"
As is your right.
|
>> >> However, it is my wish that any laws enacted in this country solely originate
>> from
>> >> this country.
>>
>> And I'll take that as a "Even tho I can't find any of these nasty
>> laws that have been inflicted upon me, I maintain my right to moan about them"
>> Because they know they wont be ruled by Brussels, the same as we are not
>> ruled by Brussels.
@Zero, in response to his in the last thread:
No, we are not ruled by the EU, and you know I didn't say that, but you do understand that that objective is its purpose, don't you?
This is not conspiracy theory, just fact.
What do you think the Maastricht treaty was for?
For the (n+1)th time, this is a fundamental premise of the whole debate. If we don't buy into it. we should think in terms of not being in the EU 20 years from now.
If there was a referendum on the EU now, I'd expect widespread support for that. If there was one on whether UK should be a state of the USE, the answer would almost certainly be very different.
I could live with it. What I find difficult to accept is the implicit belief that the Euro can survive without substantial further ceding of sovereignty by its members. Even the EU doesn't pretend otherwise.
ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/multimedia/articles/towards-p
olitical-union_en.htm
|
mega snip quote for the lazy person
>> This is not conspiracy theory, just fact.
Thats not fact
>> What do you think the Maastricht treaty was for?
Don't see that saying "we in Brussels are out to rule you the English
>> I could live with it. What I find difficult to accept is the implicit belief
>> that the Euro can survive without substantial further ceding of sovereignty by its members. Even
>> the EU doesn't pretend otherwise.
We don't have the euro, we never need to have the euro, you are merely pontificating not producing "Facts"
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
>> >> > you are merely
>> pontificating not producing "Facts"
>>
There aren't any facts, only argued opinions.
My point is that elections are swayed by feelings, rarely by "facts". Don't recent events in Scotland demonstrate that? Even that emotionless hunk of wood, Gordon Brown, has at last realised that.
|
|
Just remembered that's Nietzsche
|
The purpose of the Maastricht treaty was to prepare for political union.
I suspect that long term we would have to join the Euro, though the banking crisis has probably pushed that back another 10 years from whenever it would have been anyway. But it doesn't really matter whether we do or not. The Euro makes substantial cession of sovereignty a necessity for countries that are in it. There are plenty of references in material from the EU that says the problems seen already are down to the lack of political union.
This is where the "renegotiation" comes in, so that UK can be excluded from fiscal and political union and keep the pound. The EU is implacably opposed, as it wouldn't stop with the UK and it would just push the EU backwards. That all seems to have gone a bit quiet, unsurprisingly. It will never happen, as Douglas Carswell has figured out.
The choice comes down to the USE, or out. That might not be clear to the majority of the UK's politics-resistant electorate, but that is what the EU is for.
|
>> The choice comes down to the USE, or out. That might not be clear to
>> the majority of the UK's politics-resistant electorate, but that is what the EU is for.
Thats what you think its for.
|
>>
>> >> The choice comes down to the USE, or out. That might not be clear
>> to
>> >> the majority of the UK's politics-resistant electorate, but that is what the EU is
>> for.
>>
>> Thats what you think its for.
>>
That's what plenty of powerful people within the EU think it's for.
|
>> That's what plenty of powerful people within the EU think it's for.
Its suits your agenda to invent bogey men.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
|
In your opinion what is the purpose of the EU now?
|
>> In your opinion what is the purpose of the EU now?
The current purpose of the EU is to provide a united global fiscal, commercial and policy front to the rest of the world in the face of threats (commercial, fiscal, policy and security) from other interests (arab world, china, russia, usa)
|
>
>> The current purpose of the EU is to provide a united global fiscal, commercial and
>> policy front to the rest of the world in the face of threats (commercial, fiscal,
>> policy and security) from other interests (arab world, china, russia, usa)
>>
Fair enough, thanks for replying.
|
>>
>> And I'll take that as a "Even tho I can't find any of these nasty
>> laws that have been inflicted upon me, I maintain my right to moan about them"
>>
>> As is your right.
>>
Are you willing to answer this bit:
"If we swapped this argument around, so we were talking about the UK and the US (e.g. the rather one sided extradition treaty we currently have), would you be saying 'it doesn't matter, the US is making laws we'd have to make anyway, so let's go with that' ".
|
and again!!!
>> "If we swapped this argument around, so we were talking about the UK and the
>> US (e.g. the rather one sided extradition treaty we currently have), would you be saying
>> 'it doesn't matter, the US is making laws we'd have to make anyway, so let's
>> go with that' ".
There are many rules, the extradition treaty being one of them, that we have to abide by to do business with the US. So yes we do actuality do that even tho we are not in any union with them. You propose we cut out throats and don't have anything to do with those as well?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
>> There are many rules, the extradition treaty being one of them, that we have to
>> abide by to do business with the US. So yes we do actuality do that
>> even tho we are not in any union with them. You propose we cut out
>> throats and don't have anything to do with those as well?
That's mischievous argument of course because we choose to comply with the US, we aren't compelled to. But it raises a valid point, which is that even if we left the EU, in order to trade with it we could have to comply with at least some requirements set by it.
But you are being mischievous Z. You are clearly brighter than most of us, but unless you have had your head up your own fundament for the last 40 years the trajectory and aim of the EU can't have escaped you.
There's no bogey man about it, and I don't necessarily have a problem with it. It just is.
You pooh poohed my view of Maastricht. Here it is:
europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_maastricht_en.htm
Bear in mind that the wording here is also probably designed not to frighten the horses too much, but it's pretty clear where common foreign and security policy, and economic and monetary policy, are going.
In fact, more recently after the ECB found itself short of dosh for bailouts, the question of central fiscal (i.e. taxing and spending) control has come up.
www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/art1_mb201205en_pp79-94en.pdf
The pro Europe lobby loves to talk about the EU as if it is the Common Market that we had a referendum on in 1975 - "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?"
Ironically, I think a lot of people voted yes then because they wanted to see more political union - both world wars were well within living memory and the EEC was seen as making a repeat conflict less likely.
It's the right way to go in the long term, I have no doubt, as long as it's done properly. Allowing people to believe that independence and EU membership are compatible is not the right way.
What strikes me as mildly amusing is that Scotland was the least enthusiastic region of the UK in the 1975 referendum.
|
>
>>
>> That's mischievous argument of course because we choose to comply with the US, we aren't
>> compelled to.
We are, if we want to trade with them, or travel there,
But it raises a valid point, which is that even if we left
>> the EU, in order to trade with it we could have to comply with at
>> least some requirements set by it.
Indeed,
>> Bear in mind that the wording here is also probably designed not to frighten the
>> horses too much, but it's pretty clear where common foreign and security policy
Sounds like Nato.
>> and economic
>> and monetary policy, are going.
>>
>> In fact, more recently after the ECB found itself short of dosh for bailouts, the
>> question of central fiscal (i.e. taxing and spending) control has come up.
Other states wont agree, so it wont happen
>> What strikes me as mildly amusing is that Scotland was the least enthusiastic region of
>> the UK in the 1975 referendum.
I dont understand that part. One wonders if Salmond had said they would leave the EU he would get more votes, but then he would have no (sorry I mean even less of) an economic plan.
|
>> Are you willing to answer this bit:
>>
>> "If we swapped this argument around, so we were talking about the UK and the
>> US (e.g. the rather one sided extradition treaty we currently have), would you be saying
>> 'it doesn't matter, the US is making laws we'd have to make anyway, so let's
>> go with that' ".
We are not a state of the US. We are a state of the EU.
That means we have influence via Commissioners, European Parliament etc. We have no influence whatever in US.
We also have, as Z has pointed out, a record of being carp at transposing EU directives into domestic legislation in a pragmatic and workable fashion.
Issues with US, a single nation for purposes of treaties, seem completely one sided. And that's before Congress purports to pass legislation with reach outside US borders.
And why are the press*, UKIP and indeed the major parties not talking about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? Seems to me to be a far greater threat to our sovereignty than the EU.
*The press bit might have something to do with the bulk of it being owned by four billionaire tax exiles/non UK citizens with a Neo Con agenda.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 20:10
|
@ Bromp, in response to his in the last thread:
>>So let's have some examples
The premise of your approach here is that the EU will only issue directives that have little material impact on the legislation that UK would enact anyway?
That being the case, we shouldn't worry about it?
11 countries (with a lot less to lose than the UK) are in favour of a Tobin tax. I suppose that will be OK with you when we are forced to develop the statute, and devastate the only big industry we have left?
Then Al (where is he?) can get rid of the monarchy and we won't even be a decent theme park:)
|
|
Anyone eligable been out to vote yet?
|
|
We voted a couple of weeks ago by post. Mrs ON has just driven past our local polling station (the church) it appeared deserted other than three cars in the car park, (probably polling staff).
|
Fact: We pay much more into the EU budget than we receive back in grants/subsidies.
|
Let's see:
Working Time Directive - affects all workers incl doctors
Euro 1-6 for diesel engine emissions.
Biodiesel in fuel (an especially stupid one)
1600 watt vacuums
Just off the top of my head...
No pollen in honey tinyurl.com/ke39hut
So stupid it had to be clarified.
Not seriously tried to find more..
|
>> Let's see:
>> Working Time Directive - affects all workers incl doctors
>> Euro 1-6 for diesel engine emissions.
>> Biodiesel in fuel (an especially stupid one)
>> 1600 watt vacuums
>>
>> Just off the top of my head...
All of them very worthy.
|
>>All of them very worthy.
Possibly. But what about the kettles and hairdryers which are soon to be restricted to ?1500W as well. That will make no difference at all!
And the millions we spend on Spanish roads and derelict churches?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 14:15
|
>> All of them very worthy.
>>
>>
>>
If applied logically. For us vocational drivers, it's a bit more complicated where the WTD is concerned because were now bound not only by that but by the normal EU driving hours rules as well which can lead to somewhat farcical situations.
I had one a few weeks ago. Adequate driving hours to get back to my yard but if I did so I would fall foul of the WTD regulation which dictates that I should have a 15 minute break for every six hours of work. So I end up sitting in a lay-by for fifteen minutes twiddling my thumbs, within walking distance of the yard, then carrying on for three minutes more driving and parking the lorry up for the night. In effect, I got home about 20 minutes later than I would have done, so effectively I had 20 minutes less "proper" rest with my feet up at home since I still had to start at the same time next morning regardless. This is far from an uncommon scenario.
Since our company operates a zero tolerance policy on infringements, even the WTD ones which nobody, as far as I'm aware, has ever been prosecuted for, I could reasonably blame the management's inflexible attitude. Instead I blame the EU for its own inflexible attitude in insisting that road transport observe legislation far better suited to a manufacturing environment, when it already has a perfectly good and manageable system of its own.
It has got to the point that drivers waiting for long periods when unloading (and thus still effectively on duty) now have to set their tachographs to "period of availability" which in EU jargon effectively means you're at work but neither working nor having a break. The original idea was to reduce over-long working weeks but clearly in this case it's unfeasible so effectively the haulage industry has to resort to subterfuge. Utterly farcical.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 17:04
|
and another megasnip!
> Since our company operates a zero tolerance policy on infringements, even the WTD ones which
>> nobody, as far as I'm aware, has ever been prosecuted for, I could reasonably blame
>> the management's inflexible attitude. Instead I blame the EU for its own inflexible attitude in
>> insisting that road transport observe legislation far better suited to a manufacturing environment, when it
>> already has a perfectly good and manageable system of its own.
The WTD directive is flexible, You DONT have to have a 15 minute break EVERY six hours AT the 6 hours point.
But that is how you, and your transport manager decided to implement it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:33
|
>>The WTD directive is flexible, You DONT have to have a 15 minute break EVERY six hours AT the 6 hours point<<
Careful Z, we are under the RTWTD which is slightly different and we have to have a minimum of 15 minutes BEFORE a 6 hour period is reached......however tacho breaks count for both.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 17:10
|
>> have a minimum of 15 minutes BEFORE a 6 hour period is reached......however tacho breaks
>> count for both.
>>
>> Pat
Exactly - so how do you end up with enough tacho driving hours, but not enough WTD hours?
|
>> Exactly - so how do you end up with enough tacho driving hours, but not
>> enough WTD hours?
>>
My job involves multi-drop deliveries to farms, so it follows that I can on occasion use up the WTD portion before the driving portion as I spend more time unloading than say a supermarket "trolley dolly" who simply drives from A to B.
In that particular example, I'd probably finished my previous break at about 13.30. This gave me 4 1/2 hours of driving and 6 hours of duty before I needed another break. if I'd done, say, five or six drops and four hours driving that would have left me with driving time to spare but no duty time. So I would be legal to drive but not to work, and since driving is also working I'm stuffed and have to take the break.
It is not the end of the world I admit; but if office workers were subject to the same scrutiny (I assume for this that you do work in an office) would you be pleased to sit at your desk doing nothing for fifteen minutes, then type one last e-mail before going home? Of course you wouldn't.
|
>> It is not the end of the world I admit; but if office workers were
>> subject to the same scrutiny (I assume for this that you do work in an
>> office) would you be pleased to sit at your desk doing nothing for fifteen minutes,
>> then type one last e-mail before going home? Of course you wouldn't.
They can opt out of the WTD.
|
>> They can opt out of the WTD.
>>
Yes, farcical isn't it? They can sit at their desks for god knows how many hours, then fall asleep at the wheel on the way home; but of course they're not at work then so it doesn't matter.
|
>> It is not the end of the world I admit; but if office workers were
>> subject to the same scrutiny (I assume for this that you do work in an
>> office) would you be pleased to sit at your desk doing nothing for fifteen minutes,
>> then type one last e-mail before going home? Of course you wouldn't.
They can opt out of the WTD.
But am I wrong in saying that the normal WTD does not apply to anyone working under driving hours regulations because they are the working hours regulations in force?
|
>> But am I wrong in saying that the normal WTD does not apply to anyone
>> working under driving hours regulations because they are the working hours regulations in force?
>>
Pat is far better qualified than I am to answer that, but this may help, copied from a government website;
"Employers must not allow the following staff to opt out:
workers on ships or boats
airline staff
workers in the road transport industry, eg delivery drivers (except for drivers of vehicles under 3.5 tonnes using GB Domestic drivers’ hours rules)
other staff who travel in and operate vehicles covered by EU rules on drivers’ hours, eg bus conductors
security guards on a vehicle carrying high-value goods"
You might like to know that the existing rules can still be "bent" to allow a 22-hour spread-over when double-manning is applied.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 17:55
|
>> So I end up sitting in a lay-by for fifteen minutes twiddling my thumbs, within walking distance of the yard, then carrying on for three minutes more driving and parking the lorry up for the night. In effect, I got home about 20 minutes later than I would have done, so effectively I had 20 minutes less "proper" rest with my feet up at home since I still had to start at the same time next morning regardless. This is far from an uncommon scenario.
God what a pain Harleyman. Jobsworth city, in spades.
On a more cheerful note, a huge modern very flash Harley-Davidson parked next to the jalopy in the supermarket car park today. Yours is a little old sidevalve one, or am I wrong?
|
>> God what a pain Harleyman. Jobsworth city, in spades.
>>
>> On a more cheerful note, a huge modern very flash Harley-Davidson parked next to the
>> jalopy in the supermarket car park today. Yours is a little old sidevalve one, or
>> am I wrong?
>>
>>
One of them is, but at the moment it's in the doghouse because it landed me in hospital. Moving it round the workshop about a month ago, the sidestand caught on something and I ended up in a heap with the bike sitting on my left calf. Managed to drag my leg out,thought it was only slightly bruised but last Wednesday night it got sore, Thursday morning it swelled up and I ended up in A&E with an infected haematoma which had to be cut out; now have a four inch hole in my leg which looks unpleasantly like wimmins bits. Five nights in hospital and potentially up to eight weeks off both work and beer.
I've been a motorcyclist for nearly forty years, and this is the first time i've ever been hospitalised by one, and I wasn't even riding the damn thing. >:(
|
>> infected haematoma which had to be cut out; now have a four inch hole in my leg which looks unpleasantly like wimmins bits. Five nights in hospital and potentially up to eight weeks off both work and beer.
Wow, knock-on effects, how ghastly. Looking on the bright side, I suppose if you'd dropped a big one with hot exhausts on your leg it could be even worse.
|
>> Wow, knock-on effects, how ghastly. Looking on the bright side, I suppose if you'd dropped
>> a big one with hot exhausts on your leg it could be even worse.
>>
>>
Indeed; and according to the hospital, had I waited much longer before coming in I might have chanced more radical surgery.
Incidentally, 'tis a small world down here. The surgeon who operated on me commented that his father had a couple of very rare Indians; he mentioned which ones and I immediately named the chap, he runs a very nice caravan and holiday site near Newport on the Cardigan coast where I've spent several pleasant weekends as a guest of the Indian Riders Club.
|
>> Let's see:
>> Working Time Directive - affects all workers incl doctors
The scandal is that it took Europe to stop hospital Doctors working 80+ hours a week. Most of us still have an opt out; the sort of concession to out culture etc that the antis deny exists.
>> Euro 1-6 for diesel engine emissions.
An example of the sort of thing we'd have to do anyway. Science about particulates is universally accepted and practical politics/influence of health etc lobby make it almost inconceivable we'd adopt less stringent rules. Even if we did it's doubtful mfrs would continue to produce engines that are obsolescent in rest of Europe.
>> Biodiesel in fuel (an especially stupid one)
I agree though possibly for different reason. My concern is because it swallows land better left uncultivated and/or is a non food crop grown while humans starve. The move to bio fuel is a worldwide issue though, not just EU.
>> 1600 watt vacuums
See thread on this. I'm inclined to agree legislative effort could be better directed elsewhere but 2kw on a vac is not necessary - no Dyson gets near that figure. It's just out of lazy design by marketing!!
>> Just off the top of my head...
>>
>>
>> No pollen in honey tinyurl.com/ke39hut
>> So stupid it had to be clarified.
I was a Civil Servant for 35 yrs. Westminster is equally and probably more capable of producing unworkable legislation. Sometimes it's CS/drafting ignorance but other examples are down to bone headed politicos.
>>
>> Not seriously tried to find more..
>>
|
"I was a Civil Servant for 35 yrs."
Did you get a knighthood?
|
>> "I was a Civil Servant for 35 yrs."
>>
>> Did you get a knighthood?
>>
I'd rather have the pension. :)
|
>> >> Let's see:
>> >> Working Time Directive - affects all workers incl doctors
>>
>> The scandal is that it took Europe to stop hospital Doctors working 80+ hours a week. Most of us still have an opt out; the sort of concession to out culture etc that the antis deny exists.
I have read about this time directive.
My daughter certainly works much longer hours that are logged.
When I query that I thought all hours had to be logged..........
A busy day and it is not possible to walk away from a patient at " normal " end of shift.
Oh and then there is the paperwork to complete.
The difference between theory/time sheets and reality. :-(
|
Directive
2003/59/EC1,
There's another
Commonly called the DCPC.
On going training for lorry and bus drivers which in itself should happen.
In reality it was imposed on us by the EU and no thought given as to how it would/should work or what effect it would have.
This training should be provided and paid for by employers and given as part of a drivers working day/week.
In effect a lot of firms are either:
A) Leaving the driver to pay for it and expecting them to take time off for it or do it at the weekend.
or:
B) Paying for the training but refusing to pay drivers for the time they are doing it leaving them having no option but to do it at the weekend.
It doesn't have to be 'relevant' to the job they are doing and there is no pass or fail, just attendance only.
Needless to say, there is no wage increase on completion either.
We have just completed the deadline for the first 5 year block on September 9th and so many older drivers have given up sooner than pay for it themselves. So many who only drove at weekends have not bothered and consequently there is a driver shortage but still no wage increase in the offing.
Ask a lorry driver if he wants out of Europe and he will soon tell you yes.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 15:54
|
>> Directive
>> 2003/59/EC1,
>>
>> There's another
>>
>> Commonly called the DCPC.
>>
>> On going training for lorry and bus drivers which in itself should happen.
So you are saying that its good that it was made compulsory by the EU
>> Ask a lorry driver if he wants out of Europe and he will soon tell
>> you yes.
>>
>> Pat
But that is the fault of the UK for the way it was implemented.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:34
|
>>So you are saying that its good that it was made compulsory by the EU<<
No, I'm saying it should have been implemented years ago by our very own government, who could have looked at the finer detail and the implications facing Great Britain.
Exactly WP's argument, and one I support fully.
Pat
|
>> >>So you are saying that its good that it was made compulsory by the EU<<
>>
>> No, I'm saying it should have been implemented years ago by our very own government,
>> who could have looked at the finer detail and the implications facing Great Britain.
But they didn't did they.
And who is to say they ever would have
Until the EU came along. Its the UK governments fault isn't it.
|
>>Until the EU came along. Its the UK governments fault isn't it<<
No, if the EU can make such a pigs ear of something so simple, what hope have we got of them handling bigger issues?
Pat
|
>> >>Until the EU came along. Its the UK governments fault isn't it<<
>>
>> No, if the EU can make such a pigs ear of something so simple, what
>> hope have we got of them handling bigger issues?
>>
>> Pat
You stated that its a good idea, that the UK gov should have done it some time ago but didn't till the EU told them to.
But Pat, the EU didn't tell the UK gov how to implement it. The UK gov with consultation with your employers did that.
And its still the EU's fault?
Of course it is, you have decided they are the bogeymen to blame.
|
|
I wonder if there are any bad laws/directives from the EU at all?
|
>> I wonder if there are any bad laws/directives from the EU at all?
Why would an elected body pass bad laws?
|
>> >> I wonder if there are any bad laws/directives from the EU at all?
>>
>> Why would an elected body pass bad laws?
>>
Is that a no?
|
>> >> >> I wonder if there are any bad laws/directives from the EU at all?
>> >>
>> >> Why would an elected body pass bad laws?
>> >>
>>
>> Is that a no?
There are no BAD laws, there may be some you don't like, but they can come from local government, national government or the EU, does not make them BAD tho.
|
>> Is that a no?
Neither Westminster nor Brussels/Strasbourg has a monopoly on (a) sensible and practical or (b) barking and unworkable legislation.
|
>> >> Is that a no?
>>
>> Neither Westminster nor Brussels/Strasbourg has a monopoly on (a) sensible and practical or (b) barking
>> and unworkable legislation.
>>
I'm not being awkward, I'm just interested which laws from the EU are unworkable or unduely interfere with people. So far we seem to have had none.
|
>> Fact: We pay much more into the EU budget than we receive back in grants/subsidies.
>>
>>
You don't hear the states of California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and Texas complaining about paying more in to the Union than they get out?
Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Wisconsin are keen recipients of the Union.
It is for the greater good and leads to stronger nations and less risk of war, disaster and economic collapse that has the potential to impact us all.
All countries and systems have silly rules in place.
|
>> It is for the greater good and leads to stronger nations and less risk of
>> war, disaster and economic collapse that has the potential to impact us all.
>>
That's kind of the point. That is why Europe is already halfway to being the USE, and will need to go the whole way because states in the Euro cannot manage their own money supply.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 21:34
|
|
With the diversity of states, economically, culturally and in degrees of the rule of law, the EU as presently formed is probably not candidate material for USE. However, a smaller, fitter grouping might make a USE achievable. If UK rejects the EU, then I suppose it will become part of another grouping. 51st state of the Greater American Empire, on which the sun never sets?
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 13:56
|
>>You don't hear the states of California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and Texas
>>complaining about paying more in to the Union than they get out?
You don't hear Londoners complaining about subsidising Yorkshire or Wales or Scotland. Actually, there is a little complaint about Scotland, thanks to the idiotic behaviour of Salmond recently.
|
>> You don't hear Londoners complaining about subsidising Yorkshire or Wales or Scotland. Actually, there is
>> a little complaint about Scotland, thanks to the idiotic behaviour of Salmond recently.
On the contrary, London's position as a net donor to rest of UK is a recurrent theme in the Evening Standard.
|
>>On the contrary, London's position as a net donor to rest of UK is a recurrent theme in the Evening Standard.
Really? Can you show me some articles?
|
>> Really? Can you show me some articles?
Perhaps I should have said was a recurrent theme. I've not read ES regularly since I finished work in London last Nov.
I have a recollection of the theme recurring in editorials and features. Maybe changed since it passed from Assoc Press to the Lebedev family.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 15:31
|
>> It is for the greater good and leads to stronger nations and less risk of
>> war, disaster and economic collapse that has the potential to impact us all.
Yes... which is why the Euro has made Greece a haven for fascists. Why the Euro is returning Spain to the 1970s. Allowing the mafia more power in Italy. etc. etc.
|
The trouble with the EU is that economic policy is run by Germans who are fighting the 1929 Depression again - when the Germans printed so many marks the currency was carried around in wheelbarrows.
Meanwhile their policy is driving another Depression..tinyurl.com/nhuhczv
|
>> The trouble with the EU is that economic policy is run by Germans who are
>> fighting the 1929 Depression again - when the Germans printed so many marks the currency
>> was carried around in wheelbarrows.
>>
>> Meanwhile their policy is driving another Depression..tinyurl.com/nhuhczv
>
You still on that kick? good lord I could write a book on your gloomy predictions. I seem to recall one on here where there was a complete imminent breakdown of the economy, the pound and society.
|
tinyurl.com/n4qjn8j
Warning Daily Mail!
:-)
|
>>Anyone eligable been out to vote yet?
Yip, was there at 8.15 am standing in a small queue waiting my turn!
|
|
Masterly front page on today's comic, led with a Robert Burns quatrain featuring the words 'Britain' and 'united'. Good Matt cartoon inside.
|
>> 'Good Matt cartoon inside.
Yes, nearly posted earlier:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11103326&cc=11069143
More in the 'Previous' link.
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 16:56
|
It's the ghostly remains of political hack I suppose, but I am positively sprinting on the spot waiting for the goddam Jock decision to start taking shape. I had assumed straw-poll updates would be available from somewhere all day, but no such luck. They are winding us up, the carphounds.
Votecount started an hour ago, but not a dicky bird yet. Must I wait until tomorrow to learn my fate? I'm certainly going to crash before 5am.
|
|
Go to bed at a sensible time and then get up early. That's what I am going to do.
|
Exactly. Its not like a proper election with a steady stream of constituency results to keep one amused through the night.
I assume Nicky Campbell will inform me as required when my radio comes on at 6.30 tomorrow morning.
|
|
Thought I read somewhere yesterday that there would be results coming out from about 10 pm, can't rememeber the detail now.
|
>> Thought I read somewhere yesterday that there would be results coming out from about 10
>> pm, can't rememeber the detail now.
that would be a good trick, the polls at 10:pm.
|
When is the result expected?
Chief counting officer for the referendum Mary Pitcaithly says she will announce the result at "breakfast time" on Friday 19 September. The result is most likely to be between 06:30 BST and 07:30 BST, according to Elections Scotland. That's because the final Scottish declarations in the 2010 UK parliamentary elections and the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections declaration were made at those times respectively.
However, running totals - which are expected to start trickling in from about 01:00 BST and pour in between 03:00 BST and 06:00 BST - may indicate a result earlier in the morning.
Extract from
Scottish independence: Guide to Scotland referendum night
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29176884
|
>> results coming out from about 10 pm
9 on Sky, we are promised.
Yeee-hah! Go for it Jocks!
|
>> Thought I read somewhere yesterday that there would be results coming out from about 10
>> pm, can't rememeber the detail now.
According to BBC news results are counted and announced by area (presumably each unitary council). First results exected in small hours.
They will then be composited with overall result at 'breakfast time'. The Head of Count wasn't saying what time she might have her breakfast!!
|
>> Exactly. Its not like a proper election with a steady stream of constituency results to
>> keep one amused through the night.
>>
>> I assume Nicky Campbell will inform me as required when my radio comes on at
>> 6.30 tomorrow morning.
Will he learnt to read over night?
|
>> Exactly. Its not like a proper election with a steady stream of constituency results to
>> keep one amused through the night.
And no "swingometer"
|
The queen 'pleaded', did she? She wouldn't lower herself.
Can't believe a word in the Grauniad.
|
HM apparently commented that voters should think very carefully - and left it at that. Comment and impartial.
|
yougov today: No 54%, Yes 46%
About my guesstimate.
The 'shy tory vote' factor may favour the No in this case also so I think the bookies will be safe.
|
|
Probably about right. It's a bit like all those people at work who are going to leave the terrible firm they work for but never have quite do.
|
Whichever way this goes there will be fallout.
Resentment in Scotland from the losers in the vote.
If it's NO, resentment in England at the panic-stricken bribes offered by the Westminster cabal, to try and dissuade the Scots from a YES vote.
Mutterings from the rank and file MPs at the cack-handed way the whole question has been handled, right from the word go.
Inevitable pressure from the only part of these islands - England- which does not have a regional legislature of any sort.
More resentment - well stirred - about the West Lothian question.
A big question will be asked - why is it OK for the Scots to have a referendum about leaving the UK and it is not OK for GB as a whole to have a referendum about leaving a far newer union - the European one?
|
>> A big question will be asked - why is it OK for the Scots to have a referendum about leaving the UK
Because a majority party in the devolved Scottish parliament, elected on a manifesto promise of the same put it to Westminster that democracy demanded such a referendum to be held.
>> it is not OK for GB as a whole to have a referendum about leaving a far newer union - the European one?
See my answer above.
>> panic-stricken bribes offered by the Westminster cabal
Answers your question above re a referendum following a Tory govt in 2015.
|
Independence Vote - Vol 6 - wokingham
