Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, that’s twisting it even further than you normally twist things, Andrew. I’ve been consistent in saying all along that we are in a transitional stage and that the adjustments we need to make Brexit a success have hardly even begun.

I was saying to Ian that he was labelling it a failure, as indeed are you and far too many others on here. The bureaucracy businesses are co mplaining of are those the EU is insisting on. The benefits of Brexit will not be discovered in practice until we do something about that

Ian did not say Brexit was a failure. The only person who used that word was you. Perhaps you invoked the term subconsciously?

The import bureaucracy in question concerns that applied by most countries to imports outside their own trading bloc. Since the UK has left the EU, the UK falls into this category. So the way round this, or to use your phrase "to do something about this" is for the UK and EU to get closer eg mutual recognition of veterinary standards for the UK to join the Single Market. Are you on board with this?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

With the best will in the world to ianch99, Mr K, 1andrew1 and myself we’re not the experts in this. We’ve no buy in.

OB on the other hand wants to move the conversation on to discuss what now needs to be done to make it work and, since he referenced it, I’ve invited him to name specific laws and bureaucracy that have to change to make it a success.

If he’s stumped you’ve no chance of us having the answer.

Already given you some clues.

I have reminded Ian of the General Data Protection Regulation, the Working Time Directive and Acquired Rights Directive, but there are tons more. Examples include:

The Health and Safety at Work Framework Directive (requires all businesses to keep written records of all risk assessments, regardless of risk)
The Tobacco Products Directive (which restricts e-cigarettes even though there are health benefits to smokers).
The Chemicals Directive (which requires companies to carry out a huge and unnecessary amount of animal testing costing millions of pounds to the chemicals industry)
The European Food Information for Consumers Regulation (which for example requires shops to attach warnings to their fish products that the product contains fish)
The Clinical Trials Directive (which hampers clinical research and makes more difficult the access patients have to innovative new treatments).
The Genetically Modified Organisms Directive (which prevents genome editing, which is preventing the discovery of effective treatments, for example for malaria).

This gives you just an essence of a flavour of how the EU is frustrating businesses of all types. There are hundreds of these regulations that need to be overhauled or repealed altogether.

Some of these were put in place with good intentions, but they have overegged it all to a ridiculous degree which just makes more work for everyone, often for little benefit.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Ian did not say Brexit was a failure. The only person who used that word was you. Perhaps you invoked the term subconsciously?

The import bureaucracy in question concerns that applied by most countries to imports outside their own trading bloc. Since the UK has left the EU, the UK falls into this category. So the way round this, or to use your phrase "to do something about this" is for the UK and EU to get closer eg mutual recognition of veterinary standards for the UK to join the Single Market. Are you on board with this?

No, failure is clearly what is in the minds of people who with glee post negative stories about Brexit with no attempt whatsoever of how to put these things right.

I most certainly do not think it has failed. What I am saying is we have not yet even begun to start flexing our muscles to make it work, and that’s why I think the coming years will be exciting.

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The floor if yours, OB. Tell us how the erosion of workers rights will raise living standards?

See above

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Already given you some clues.

I have reminded Ian of the General Data Protection Regulation, the Working Time Directive and Acquired Rights Directive, but there is tons more. Examples include:

The Health and Safety at Work Framework Directive (requires all businesses to keep written records of all risk assessments, regardless of risk)
The Tobacco Products Directive (which restricts e-cigarettes even though there are health benefits to smokers).
The Chemicals Directive (which requires companies to carry out a huge and unnecessary amount of animal testing costing millions of pounds to the chemicals industry)
The European Food Information for Consumers Regulation (which for example requires shops to attach warnings to their fish products that the product contains fish)
The Clinical Trials Directive (which hampers clinical research and makes more difficult the access patients have to innovative new treatments).
The Genetically Modified Organisms Directive (which prevents genome editing, which is preventing the discovery of effective treatments, for example for malaria).

This gives you just an essence of a flavour of how the EU is frustrating businesses of all types. There are hundreds of these regulations that need to be overhauled or repealed altogether.

Some of these were put in place with good intentions, but they have overegged it all to a ridiculous degree which just makes more work for everyone, often for little benefit.

You’ve just given a list.

It doesn’t give me a flavour for anything. You’ve not meaningfully quantified the impact they have on businesses or how they are preventing “success”. What would you replace them with? You claim good intentions - so what do you replace them with to keep the benefits without the costs?

See above

Nope. Your hyperbole fails the sniff test.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’ve just given a list.

It doesn’t give me a flavour for anything. You’ve not meaningfully quantified the impact they have on businesses or how they are preventing “success”. What would you replace them with? You claim good intentions - so what do you replace them with to keep the benefits without the costs?



Nope. Your hyperbole fails the sniff test.

I think you need to do the detailed research yourself. I am not the one doubting me, you are, so if you want to verify my post one way or the other, that’s down to you.

I am supremely confident that removal of the unnecessary bureaucracy imposed by a myriad of EU laws will free up all kinds of businesses.

If you want to question that, it’s you who must provide the evidence. I am not your researcher, jfman, and in any case, you wouldn’t accept the obvious if it was about to eat you alive.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you need to do the detailed research yourself. I am not the one doubting me, you are, so if you want to verify my post one way or the other, that’s down to you.

I am supremely confident that removal of the unnecessary bureaucracy imposed by a myriad of EU laws will free up all kinds of businesses.

If you want to question that, it’s you who must provide the evidence. I am not your researcher, jfman, and in any case, you wouldn’t accept the obvious if it was about to eat you alive.

You claim the discussion isn’t moving on, yet when given the opportunity are unable to do so of your own accord.

So extensive is the myriad of rules you cannot quantify the impact of a single one on the economy - to explain how the benefits could be retained through a UK law without the costs imposed by the EU.

The absence of any insight into the subject at hand renders your supreme confidence irrelevant. If proven to correct it will be through chance, much like a toss of a coin but with a lower level of probability.

You’re the expert here, OB. Enlighten us naysayers.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You claim the discussion isn’t moving on, yet when given the opportunity are unable to do so of your own accord.

So extensive is the myriad of rules you cannot quantify the impact of a single one on the economy - to explain how the benefits could be retained through a UK law without the costs imposed by the EU.

The absence of any insight into the subject at hand renders your supreme confidence irrelevant. If proven to correct it will be through chance, much like a toss of a coin but with a lower level of probability.

You’re the expert here, OB. Enlighten us naysayers.

Don’t be silly, jfman. I have given you examples of a small number of EU Directives that are restricting us, and I have also given you a clue against each one by way of a single example of how those Directives are impacting on us.

That, by itself, makes the point. I am not rising to the bait you so carefully set to derail that point. You can search the internet as well as I can, and as I have a life, I do not have the time nor the inclination to dot every i and cross every t just to satisfy you.

There are hundreds of such Directives and you want me to list them all, with a critique! You really are a case.

The actual argument, which is that the abolition or amendment of hundreds of Directives will free up industry from a considerable amount of bureaucracy was my point. If you want to challenge that with a considered argument to the contrary, be my guest. Otherwise, you are simply trying to disrupt the debate and I am not going to assist you with that.

This is not Monty Python’s Department for Arguments. It is a debating forum. So debate.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Don’t be silly, jfman. I have given you examples of a small number of EU Directives that are restricting us, and I have also given you a clue against each one by way of a single example of how those Directives are impacting on us.

In the same sense you could tell me what a 70 mph speed limit is on the motorway is. What’s the alternative? Where’s the benefit? How many jobs?

That, by itself, makes the point. I am not rising to the bait you so carefully set to derail that point. You can search the internet as well as I can, and as I have a life, I do not have the time nor the inclination to dot every i and cross every t just to satisfy you.

Bait carefully set? That’s an interesting way to say you have no answer to the questions as posed.

There are hundreds of such Directives and you want me to list them all, with a critique! You really are a case.

The actual argument, which is that the abolition or amendment of hundreds of Directives will free up industry from a considerable amount of bureaucracy was my point. If you want to challenge that with a considered argument to the contrary, be my guest. Otherwise, you are simply trying to disrupt the debate and I am not going to assist you with that.

This is not Monty Python’s Department for Arguments. It is a debating forum. So debate.

“Considered argument”



Your argument is so hollow you cannot quantify a single one, make an alternative proposal and tell us how businesses would benefit? Wider impact on jobs? The economy?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Already given you some clues.

I have reminded Ian of the General Data Protection Regulation, the Working Time Directive and Acquired Rights Directive, but there are tons more. Examples include:

OK, to try and move the conversation along and so we can all try and get an understanding of how you feel things should change, let's just look at the first paragraph. It would help me understand you if you could answer me three questions:

1. Would you be happy with companies using your personal data for anything they wanted, including selling it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?
2. How many hours a week would you happily work?
3. If your company got taken over, would you like your terms and conditions preserved or be happy for the new owners to be allowed to change them as they saw fit?

And for info, my answers are:

1. I do 37 hours at the moment and that's enough.
2. No I don't want companies holding my data longer than they need and I don't want them to be able to do whatever they want with it.
3. I would like my conditions preserved.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

OK, to try and move the conversation along and so we can all try and get an understanding of how you feel things should change, let's just look at the first paragraph. It would help me understand you if you could answer me three questions:

1. Would you be happy with companies using your personal data for anything they wanted, including selling it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?
2. How many hours a week would you happily work?
3. If your company got taken over, would you like your terms and conditions preserved or be happy for the new owners to be allowed to change them as they saw fit?

And for info, my answers are:

1. I do 37 hours at the moment and that's enough.
2. No I don't want companies holding my data longer than they need and I don't want them to be able to do whatever they want with it.
3. I would like my conditions preserved.

Maybe not personally but OB has already admitted making a career out of steamrollering workers rights advising unscrupulous employers in driving down working conditions to squeeze further profits at their expense. Like parasites.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...9&postcount=19

Whether he’d want those things for himself who knows.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The electorate voted for Brexit. Get over it.

Not quite, they voted to leave the EU. Keep up dear ..

You really do have just a single answer when confronted with the damage this decision has done and that is to gaslight. Decisions need to be owned, if you promise the earth and do not deliver then you will be held to account. Moreover, when the aim is to continue the fantasy when the evidence is all around demonstrating that it is folly, you end up with:

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

OK, to try and move the conversation along and so we can all try and get an understanding of how you feel things should change, let's just look at the first paragraph. It would help me understand you if you could answer me three questions:

1. Would you be happy with companies using your personal data for anything they wanted, including selling it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?
2. How many hours a week would you happily work?
3. If your company got taken over, would you like your terms and conditions preserved or be happy for the new owners to be allowed to change them as they saw fit?

And for info, my answers are:

1. I do 37 hours at the moment and that's enough.
2. No I don't want companies holding my data longer than they need and I don't want them to be able to do whatever they want with it.
3. I would like my conditions preserved.

You see, this is the common response. But we are not talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, 37 hours a week may suit you, but others may want to work longer hours. The legislation does not allow the choice that a lot of people want to achieve the standard of living they want. For some low paid workers, working longer hours could prove the difference between eating or not eating. You also ignore the fact that the Working Time Regulations is rather more extensive in scope than the 48 hour week.

We are all concerned about data protection, but the GDPR is extremely bureaucratic in its application. Are you really happy to have that ridiculous screen come up each time that you have to accept to proceed? It's simply unnecessary.

All the EU laws require review to establish which provisions are necessary, and is the legislation addressing the problem at hand without unnecessary bureaucracy?

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Your hyperbole fails the sniff test.

You need to get a Covid test.

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not quite, they voted to leave the EU. Keep up dear ..

You really do have just a single answer when confronted with the damage this decision has done and that is to gaslight. Decisions need to be owned, if you promise the earth and do not deliver then you will be held to account. Moreover, when the aim is to continue the fantasy when the evidence is all around demonstrating that it is folly, you end up with:

Nonsense, Ian. The benefits of Brexit have yet to be felt, given that Covid has effectively stalled the process.

Brexit - leaving the EU....what do you see as being the difference?

---------- Post added at 18:35 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Maybe not personally but OB has already admitted making a career out of steamrollering workers rights advising unscrupulous employers in driving down working conditions to squeeze further profits at their expense. Like parasites.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...9&postcount=19

Whether he’d want those things for himself who knows.

God, more conflation from this man. He's just interested in trading insults instead of debating.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You see, this is the common response. But we are not talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, 37 hours a week may suit you, but others may want to work longer hours. The legislation does not allow the choice that a lot of people want to achieve the standard of living they want. For some low paid workers, working longer hours could prove the difference between eating or not eating. You also ignore the fact that the Working Time Regulations is rather more extensive in scope than the 48 hour week.

We are all concerned about data protection, but the GDPR is extremely bureaucratic in its application. Are you really happy to have that ridiculous screen come up each time that you have to accept to proceed? It's simply unnecessary.

All the EU laws require review to establish which provisions are necessary, and is the legislation addressing the problem at hand without unnecessary bureaucracy?

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------



You need to get a Covid test.

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------



Nonsense, Ian. The benefits of Brexit have yet to be felt, given that Covid has effectively stalled the process.

Brexit - leaving the EU....what do you see as being the difference?

---------- Post added at 18:35 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ----------



God, more conflation from this man. He's just interested in trading insults instead of debating.

All very nice, but do you want to have a go at answering the questions? They weren't the most complicated questions ever asked.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You see, this is the common response. But we are not talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, 37 hours a week may suit you, but others may want to work longer hours. The legislation does not allow the choice that a lot of people want to achieve the standard of living they want. For some low paid workers, working longer hours could prove the difference between eating or not eating. You also ignore the fact that the Working Time Regulations is rather more extensive in scope than the 48 hour week.

You can work more than 48 hours except for some limited jobs. The employee need to waive those rights and they can’t be forced to do it - https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-wo...and-opting-out . I am starting a new job next week and due to the nature of the job working with people in different time zones, I have signed off those rights

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

All very nice, but do you want to have a go at answering the questions? They weren't the most complicated questions ever asked.

I have answered them, Grim. My point is simply that there is a lot of scope to change the EU laws that are currently in force in Britain, for the benefit of business.

There’s nothing controversial about this, and I am not the only one making this point.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have answered them, Grim. My point is simply that there is a lot of scope to change the EU laws that are currently in force in Britain, for the benefit of business.

There’s nothing controversial about this, and I am not the only one making this point.

Hopefully not to the detriment of the employees, customers, and the environment?

Like…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1...f729e09f78fc79

Truss eyes bonfire of workers’ rights to boost economy

Among reforms due to be examined are changes to the 48-hour working week, part of the EU working time directive implemented in the UK in 1998. It prevents workers from being discriminated against or sacked if they refuse to work over 48 hours a week.

The new government is also understood to want to look at rules on taking breaks and calculating holiday pay that guarantees most people four weeks’ holiday a year plus bank holidays…

… One Conservative source said that Boris Johnson vetoed the plans because they would have gone against his pledge in the Brexit referendum not to strip workers of rights, but that Truss was not bound by such pledges.