Post Brexit: the reality

[Golden Princess]

Well said Merv, have people forgot how the UK prospered before joining the EU ? or are the negatives coming from people born post entry to the EU.[/quote]

But I dont want to go back to the 60's and 70's and I dont remember the UK prospered then ??? Not thought this comment through, but I seem to remember no central heating, Cold War, Cod War, Cuba, miners strikes, 3 day week, power cuts, sick man of Europe, Alf Garnett, On the Buses, lack of employment rights for employees (holiday pay, maternity/parental leave, equal pay, discrimination, safety, sickness etc.) lack of disability help, low wages, safety standards - food labelling,environmental standards. What happens to these when things get rewritten?

[Silver_Shiney]

As I recall, the Cold War was to do with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. This country was, at the time, still wealthy enough to field a viable military deterrent. Cuba - that was a plan to secret Soviet missiles within striking distance of the USA. Neither of these had anything to do with our membership of the EU. Miners' strikes, 3-day weeks, power cuts were down to militant unions flexing their muscles and trying to bully the country into their outrageous demands. Sick man of Europe - well, that's what you get with a Labour government. Employment rights have been evolving over decades, again nothing to do with the EU per se. I can't see where Alf Garnett and On the Buses fit into the scheme of things.

[Golden Princess]

I didnt mean any/all were specific to the EU at all. Just questioning the UK being prosperous before the EU as all the things I recall (my recollections) about this time is cold, dark and damp. The UK and the world todayare totally different.

[Quizzical Bob]

As I recall, the Cold War was to do with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. This country was, at the time, still wealthy enough to field a viable military deterrent. Cuba - that was a plan to secret Soviet missiles within striking distance of the USA. Neither of these had anything to do with our membership of the EU. Miners' strikes, 3-day weeks, power cuts were down to militant unions flexing their muscles and trying to bully the country into their outrageous demands. Sick man of Europe - well, that's what you get with a Labour government. Employment rights have been evolving over decades, again nothing to do with the EU per se. I can't see where Alf Garnett and On the Buses fit into the scheme of things.

I am trying to keep quiet but some statements are so egregious that they have to be refuted:

Laws derived from the EU

The following laws are in place in the UK because the EU obliges us to have them:

The Working Time Regulations 1998, in relation to maximum weekly working hours, daily and weekly rest breaks and holiday entitlement: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. The UK negotiated an Opt-Out to the 48 hour working week in 1993 which is still in place, although whether a future Government outside of the EU may/can choose to scrap the maximum working hours completely is an open question. The UK Government, however, has ‘gold-plated’ the holiday part of the Regulations. The minimum paid holiday entitlement required by the EU is 20 days – the UK currently gives 28 days. Some countries give much less, but Spain, for example, gives 30 days. It would be unlikely that a future UK Government outside of Europe would look to reduce the holiday entitlement. It is possible, though, that recent ECJ decisions to allow holiday entitlement to accrue during sickness absence and be carried over into the following year – as well as that holiday pay calculations should include entitlement to overtime, bonuses and commission – may ‘disappear’ in time if the UK voted to leave the EU.

The Equality Act 2010, covering discrimination based on sex, race, caste, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. This largely consolidated various pieces of UK legislation, for example the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A future UK Government outside the EU may choose to cap compensation payments for discrimination but is unlikely to repeal the laws.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 – covering equal treatment of agency workers with ‘comparable’ permanent workers: This affects employees and workers in terms of pay, working hours and annual leave. A future UK Government outside of the EU may look to repeal these laws.

The Part Time Employees (Prevention of less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

Rights for pregnant workers and maternity leave rights (including discrimination rights for pregnancy and maternity under the Equality Act 2010): EU regulations require that a minimum of 14 weeks maternity pay is paid. The UK Government have increased this to 39 paid weeks, which would be difficult to change.

Parental Leave Rights: The UK Government has chosen to increase this right so parents can claim this leave up until the child is aged 18. The EU minimum requires parents to claim this up until the child is 8 years old.

Equal Pay rights under The Equality Act 2010, although the UK introduced the concept of Equal Pay in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act.

Data Protection

Collective Redundancy Consultation in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.

TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations 2006 – covering employees rights when their employer changes as a result of a sale or take-over: The UK Government’s interpretation of these laws are stricter than many other countries in the EU.

Health and Safety: this affects employees, workers and freelancers / contractors

Human Rights Act 1998, covering the right to a fair and public hearing; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; respect for private and family life.

The UK joined the European Union in 1973 and so agreed that all EU Treaties would take legal effect in the UK (as in all Member States). The aim is to harmonise as much European Law as possible across all the EU Member States. The UK traditionally was a country that was opposed to some European Employment Rights and tried to alter them or block them, and has often implemented them only at the latest possible date. But on the other hand the UK has ‘gold-plated’ other EU Regulations. The future attitude a UK Government may take is, clearly, difficult to predict.

https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/small-bus ... ut-europe/

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Market was even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

[Quizzical Bob]

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Market was even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

That is not true. All the items in that list post-date 1973.

[Silver_Shiney]

The following laws are in place in the UK because the EU obliges usto have them:

I seem to recall a Remainer on this very forum vigorously stating that the EU did NOT set our laws.

The Working Time Regulations 1998, in relation to maximum weekly working hours, daily and weekly rest breaks and holiday entitlement: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. The UK negotiated an Opt-Out to the 48 hour working week in 1993 which is still in place, although whether a future Government outside of the EU may/can choose to scrap the maximum working hours completely is an open question. The UK Government, however, has ‘gold-plated’ the holiday part of the Regulations. The minimum paid holiday entitlement required by the EU is 20 days – the UK currently gives 28 days. Some countries give much less, but Spain, for example, gives 30 days. It would be unlikely that a future UK Government outside of Europe would look to reduce the holiday entitlement. It is possible, though, that recent ECJ decisions to allow holiday entitlement to accrue during sickness absence and be carried over into the following year – as well as that holiday pay calculations should include entitlement to overtime, bonuses and commission – may ‘disappear’ in time if the UK voted to leave the EU.

So we give more than the EU demands. What's your point? Who's to say we wouldn't have done that anyway?

The Equality Act 2010, covering discrimination based on sex, race, caste, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. This largely consolidated various pieces of UK legislation, for example the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A future UK Government outside the EU may choose to cap compensation payments for discrimination but is unlikely to repeal the laws.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 – covering equal treatment of agency workers with ‘comparable’ permanent workers: This affects employees and workers in terms of pay, working hours and annual leave. A future UK Government outside of the EU may look to repeal these laws.

The Part Time Employees (Prevention of less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

Rights for pregnant workers and maternity leave rights (including discrimination rights for pregnancy and maternity under the Equality Act 2010): EU regulations require that a minimum of 14 weeks maternity pay is paid. The UK Government have increased this to 39 paid weeks, which would be difficult to change.

Parental Leave Rights: The UK Government has chosen to increase this right so parents can claim this leave up until the child is aged 18. The EU minimum requires parents to claim this up until the child is 8 years old.

We also used to have slaves in this country, but that was abolished. As I said, employment laws have evolved over decades without interference from foreign bureaucrats. Again, in some cases we're doing more than the EU "requires"

Equal Pay rights under The Equality Act 2010, although the UK introduced the concept of Equal Pay in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act.

So, really, sod all to do with the EU. They've followed our lead.

Data Protection

Collective Redundancy Consultation in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.

TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations 2006 – covering employees rights when their employer changes as a result of a sale or take-over: The UK Government’s interpretation of these laws are stricter than many other countries in the EU.

Health and Safety: this affects employees, workers and freelancers / contractors

Human Rights Act 1998, covering the right to a fair and public hearing; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; respect for private and family life.

The UK joined the European Union in 1973 and so agreed that all EU Treaties would take legal effect in the UK (as in all Member States). The aim is to harmonise as much European Law as possible across all the EU Member States. The UK traditionally was a country that was opposed to some European Employment Rights and tried to alter them or block them, and has often implemented them only at the latest possible date. But on the other hand the UK has ‘gold-plated’ other EU Regulations. The future attitude a UK Government may take is, clearly, difficult to predict.

https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/small-bus ... ut-europe/

I cannot say if we would have developed employment and other laws along similar lines had we not joined the EU. One thing is for sure though. You can't say we wouldn't have.

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Market was even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

That is not true. All the items in that list post-date 1973.

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Marketwas even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

Do read what I actually said, dear chap, and not what you thought I said.

[Quizzical Bob]

Just one more go, you're obviously fixed in your mindset and will ignore all the facts in favour of the mythes.

The following laws are in place in the UK because the EU obliges usto have them:

I seem to recall a Remainer on this very forum vigorously stating that the EU did NOT set our laws.

It doesn't, we do. We choose to what degree and often go well beyond the basic requirements. All our laws are UK laws and will not be repealed just by leaving the EU.

The Working Time Regulations 1998, in relation to maximum weekly working hours, daily and weekly rest breaks and holiday entitlement: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. The UK negotiated an Opt-Out to the 48 hour working week in 1993 which is still in place, although whether a future Government outside of the EU may/can choose to scrap the maximum working hours completely is an open question. The UK Government, however, has ‘gold-plated’ the holiday part of the Regulations. The minimum paid holiday entitlement required by the EU is 20 days – the UK currently gives 28 days. Some countries give much less, but Spain, for example, gives 30 days. It would be unlikely that a future UK Government outside of Europe would look to reduce the holiday entitlement. It is possible, though, that recent ECJ decisions to allow holiday entitlement to accrue during sickness absence and be carried over into the following year – as well as that holiday pay calculations should include entitlement to overtime, bonuses and commission – may ‘disappear’ in time if the UK voted to leave the EU.

So we give more than the EU demands. What's your point? Who's to say we wouldn't have done that anyway? Now you're just being silly

The Equality Act 2010, covering discrimination based on sex, race, caste, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships: This affects employers, workers and some freelancers. This largely consolidated various pieces of UK legislation, for example the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A future UK Government outside the EU may choose to cap compensation payments for discrimination but is unlikely to repeal the laws.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 – covering equal treatment of agency workers with ‘comparable’ permanent workers: This affects employees and workers in terms of pay, working hours and annual leave. A future UK Government outside of the EU may look to repeal these laws.

The Part Time Employees (Prevention of less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

Rights for pregnant workers and maternity leave rights (including discrimination rights for pregnancy and maternity under the Equality Act 2010): EU regulations require that a minimum of 14 weeks maternity pay is paid. The UK Government have increased this to 39 paid weeks, which would be difficult to change.

Parental Leave Rights: The UK Government has chosen to increase this right so parents can claim this leave up until the child is aged 18. The EU minimum requires parents to claim this up until the child is 8 years old.

We also used to have slaves in this country, but that was abolished. As I said, employment laws have evolved over decades without interference from foreign bureaucrats. Again, in some cases we're doing more than the EU "requires" This is another meaningless statement, either the EU has improved our working environment or its hasn't. According to you, if the EU has made things better then it's meddling in our affairs or else we would have done the same anyway. Do you know how feeble that argument is?

Equal Pay rights under The Equality Act 2010, although the UK introduced the concept of Equal Pay in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act.

So, really, sod all to do with the EU. They've followed our lead.

You have (deliberately?) ommitted:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Race Relations Act 1976
Disability Discrimination Act 1975

Data Protection

Collective Redundancy Consultation in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.

TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations 2006 – covering employees rights when their employer changes as a result of a sale or take-over: The UK Government’s interpretation of these laws are stricter than many other countries in the EU.

Health and Safety: this affects employees, workers and freelancers / contractors

Human Rights Act 1998, covering the right to a fair and public hearing; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; respect for private and family life.

The UK joined the European Union in 1973 and so agreed that all EU Treaties would take legal effect in the UK (as in all Member States). The aim is to harmonise as much European Law as possible across all the EU Member States. The UK traditionally was a country that was opposed to some European Employment Rights and tried to alter them or block them, and has often implemented them only at the latest possible date. But on the other hand the UK has ‘gold-plated’ other EU Regulations. The future attitude a UK Government may take is, clearly, difficult to predict.

https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/small-bus ... ut-europe/

I cannot say if we would have developed employment and other laws along similar lines had we not joined the EU. One thing is for sure though. You can't say we wouldn't have.
I can only hope that you can see the falacy in that argument.

You (and others) are clearly so firmly set in your beliefs no matter how misguided nor how much evidence is produced to the contrary that any debating is pointless. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

I must go now to try and find some business somewhere. No doubt some bright spark will say that it's due to bad management or lack of planning or something, anything to ignore the obvious.

[Quizzical Bob]

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Market was even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

That is not true. All the items in that list post-date 1973.

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Marketwas even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

Do read what I actually said, dear chap, and not what you thought I said.

'nothing to do with the EU, per se' was the relevant part, surely?

Old bean

[towny44]

I am no longer sure which side of the fence Qbob is sitting, his long (some would say overlong) list of workers rights seems to indicate that the UK is often more generous than the EU minimum, and presumably as an employer (or senior manager) he must be a bit grateful for some of the opt outs the UK negotiated which benefit both employer and employee eg min 48hr week.
What I do know is that comparing living standards of the 60's and very early 70's with those of today is somewhat meaningless, every country in Europe has seen living standards and working conditions improve over this period. About the only thing the EU have done is to provide harmonised minimum standards for countries to apply, mainly to ensure that the more advanced and industrialised Northern EU states were not disadvantaged by the Southern countries, in much the same way that the Euro has prevented weaker economies from devaluing their currency and remaining viable, so they are all mainly basket cases with Italy, Spain and Portugal vying to follow Greece into meltdown.
The ultimate winner in all this was Germany and I never understood why QBob was so happy to keep this status quo.

[barney]

I think that it's safe to say that everything about the EU is not bad. Equally everything is not good either.

We have had some gains and some losses since becoming members.

One of the best things about this referendum was that it actually opened my eyes to the whole thing.
Before that the EU was just something that was there and tolerated.
On doing proper research, I realised what being a member of the EU actually meant and it certainly wasn't what Joe Average thought he was signing up to.

One of my main gripes was the notion of a 'free market'
Well, my research showed me that it cost us approx. £9 billion a year for access to this 'free market'
If we revert to basic WTO trade tariffs it wouldn't cost anywhere near that.
So, in a nutshell, the British taxpayer was being asked to subsidise about 20 of the poorer performing European economies.
Now, I can't remember that being on the table originally.
Many of the newer countries have benefitted enormously by being members of the EU, particularly Poland.
Well, good luck to them but I can't remember anyone asking us if we were happy to subsidise other economies.
I can't remember Cameron or others saying vote Tory so we can prop up Lithuania!

Tax revenue from the UK should be spent in the UK, not Malta or Slovakia.

Now, the chickens are coming home to roost and many of these newer countries are wondering where the money will come from when the UK pulls out.
Italy, I doubt it!
Spain, nope they are skint!
France, we all know the French look after the French.
So, that just leaves Germany, who have plenty of trouble of their own.

In my opinion, the EU was a social project that seemed ok in it's day, but the world and time has moved on.
If some want to cling to what was, in the misguided belief that we cannot hack it as an independent country I say simply, that the EU is not the world. The EU is contracting and very badly. The real opportunities are out there. It will be like plucking apples from a tree.
Those of us who are still around in ten years time will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Our government should invoke article 50 as soon as possible and get on with the work of getting us out.

No long negotiations
No secret halfway deals
Just out!

Imagine the conversation

EU - if you want access to the single market, you MUST accept free movement of people
UK - bye!

EU - err! ok, ok - let's talk. Let's see what trade arrangement we can come up with.
UK - we'll see when we can fit you in. We're busy talking to the world!

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Market was even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

That is not true. All the items in that list post-date 1973.

I don't dispute what you say, QBob, but many changes in employment law were enacted before the Common Marketwas even mentioned, let alone the EU, so I stand by my statement.

Do read what I actually said, dear chap, and not what you thought I said.

'nothing to do with the EU, per se' was the relevant part, surely?

Old bean

Bait and switch. If that was the bit you objected to, you should have cited it, not something else. I still stand by my statement.

[Silver_Shiney]

[edited to save space]

I suggest it is you, QBob, who is so set in his beliefs, and it is pointless trying to discuss these issues with you.

You say you must try and find some business somewhere (inferring that you haven't got any) and that someone will say it's to due to [your] bad management or lack of planning. I'm sure no-one here would be that immature. However, you did miss out the obvious possibility - perhaps you're offering something that no-one at the moment wants?

Barney - very well explained.

[Raybosailor]

Interesting comment from a Remainer...:

First the comments from Ronald Olden: "the purpose of a business is to make money for its shareholders, not to provide routine ... services for people". Is this really where we have got to, the belief that a business is there just for the sake of its shareholders? I then read on to learn that Lloyds was "was slashing 3,000 jobs thanks to the post-Brexit uncertainty". Lloyds is slashing jobs because the role of internet banking has meant there is no longer much requirement for branch banking. It is also partly due to lack of profitability caused by the low-interest rates, which in turn are a result of the 2008 crash that was exacerbated by the greed of bankers. And also because Lloyds Bank is most appallingly badly managed. I know - I worked there. I voted strongly (a bold X) to Remain. But we now have to live for and support the future, blaming everything on Brexit does not help anyone."

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm surprised QBob is still here. I'm sure he said he'd relocate his business to France if we voted out.

[Silver_Shiney]

I see an "upmarket" estate agent is claiming that its big drop in profits is due to the uncertainty over Brexit, in particular since the vote to leave.

I find this hard to understand. Surely, with the drop in value of sterling against most other currencies, foreign money would find London properties cheaper to purchase.

I suspect the real reason is more to do with the fact that London properties are valued, and priced, far too high. A correction in house prices has been long overdue, even before talk of a referendum started.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Every company which performs badly will blame Brexit. It's probably what caused the collapse of Woolworths and MFI.

[towny44]

Every company which performs badly will blame Brexit. It's probably what caused the collapse of Woolworths and MFI.

..........and might even get Sir Philip Green off the hook, if he's actually bright enough to use it as an excuse.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Of course, it was obviously Brexit's fault. Lucky it didn't affect luxury yachts.

[anniec]

I'm surprised QBob is still here. I'm sure he said he'd relocate his business to France if we voted out.

And wasn't that sanctimonious twerp Jamie Oliver going to emigrate as well?

[Mervyn and Trish]

If half the people who said they would leave do we'll solve the net migration thing overnight.

[oldbluefox]

And wasn't that sanctimonious twerp Jamie Oliver going to emigrate as well?

Could we not do a BOGOF and include the revolting Bob Geldof as well?

[towny44]

Satisfying as it might be to export some of the obnoxious left leaning celebrity Bremainers there is a downside, they are all very wealthy and consequently do contribute a disproportionately higher amount of taxes to the inland revenue; and I've never really been one to cut off my nose etc.........

[anniec]

I'm surprised QBob is still here. I'm sure he said he'd relocate his business to France if we voted out.

Would that be the same France as the one whose economy has ground to a halt?