On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result of the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no" we'll be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing they'd do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that somehow the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid and/or ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for remaining in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because we've had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

I recommend this video which nicely tears shreds out of the modern day liberal
left by a lefty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

--
Spud

On 10/11/2016 11:06, Roland Perry wrote:


Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.



The majority of EU based H&S law (i.e. employee protection) is based on
the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which was far in advance of any
european based law. Going back to UK law would be unlikely to reduce the
H&S laws.

In fact it may even be an improvement as the EU has diluted the 1974
Act's basis of the employer has to provide a safe place of work but does
not specify how - the legal onus is on the employer to prove that what
he has done is reasonable (ALARP). The EU has, to an extent, moved
backwards towards the old prescriptive regime (such as the Factory Acts)
that existed prior to 1974 and which resulted in many disasters, Aberfan
being one of them.

Colin

In message , at 14:19:29 on Fri, 11 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:

And I honestly don't
know
what the calls for a referendum on the result of the negotiations is
trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no" we'll be exiting
(because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

If it's as simple as that, they have truly lost the plot.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/11/2016 13:39, Roland Perry wrote:

You need a second chamber,

Need or want?

New Zealand got rid of their second chamber in 1951 and don't seem to
have sunk yet. Among the many other unicameral States are Denmark and
Sweden. And of course Scotland passes a fair bit of legislation with
just one chamber.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:17:58 +0000
Robin wrote:
On 11/11/2016 13:39, Roland Perry wrote:

You need a second chamber,

Need or want?

New Zealand got rid of their second chamber in 1951 and don't seem to
have sunk yet. Among the many other unicameral States are Denmark and
Sweden. And of course Scotland passes a fair bit of legislation with
just one chamber.

The scottish "parliament" is just a souped up county council. It doesn't make
any critical decisions that might need to be investigated further.

--
Spud

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:52:47 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 23:19:51 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:47:10 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:42:30 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:52:13 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not
caused
by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the
situation,

The people who have not "accepted the situation" are the Brexiteers
who organised the Leave campaign based greatly on fear and loathing of
foreigners and who promptly buggered off and left others to clear up
the resultant mess when the vote actually went their way.

What nonsense. "Brexit" is not about "fear and loathing of foreigners"

You missed the many people being interviewed on the television who
clearly weren't bothered about much else ?

but about reverting to being self-governing like most other countries in
the world.

So why are Brexiteers banging on about getting stuck into trade deals
which will shackle us to the USA ?

making a trade deal with a country does not "shackle you" to it

Those who have used too short a spoon to sup with the likes of the USA
and China might have a different opinion. You seem to have missed the
recent fuss about TTIP.

What a load of nonsense you spout!

On 11/11/2016 11:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/11/2016 09:07, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:32:11 on Wed, 9 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:
Yes, I know that we can enforce a set of minimum conditions, but
experience is that it is hard for TPTB to enforce them. IMHO
it's oh so much easier to make sure that conditions improve by
taking away the supply of workers willing to work like slaves.

Unless, of course, freeing ourselves from Brussels Red Tape allows
us to have even worse minimum conditions.

which I believe that it wont

come back in 10 years to prove me wrong

Yawn.

well it was your decision to rerun a discussion we have already had

You brought up the minimum conditions (09 Nov 17:37:54)

but you mentioned this ridiculous, unproven plan, that the Tories are
going to do away with all employee protection as soon as we leave

they are not


You've not paid attention to the rantings of the tory right then?


Do not forget that the Tories tried to bring in the Health & Safety Act
etc 1974 in the January which was / is the major workers rights law - in
the end a General Election precluded this and it was finally enacted by
Labour virtually unchanged from the Tory bill.

Colin

In message , at 13:57:20 on Fri, 11 Nov
2016, d remarked:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:39:37 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:25:22 on
Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The House of Lords is a waste of space and should be abolished.

You need a second chamber, and most of the active Lords have been
recruited to provide the specialist expertise to fully challenge
Government legislation "line by line", as the saying goes.

Depends how you define challenge. If its picking over the fine legal minutae
or financial repercussions, then sure, most of them have a legal, political or
business background.

You don't have to be any of those to be in a position to ask questions
like "when the bill says five days, does that mean calendar days or
working days". It's fairly unusual for the Lords to discuss "party
political" issues, but it does happen occasionally.

If its actually debating the potential outcome of say
enviromental or transport legislation then most of them wouldn't have a clue.

"Most" are not expected to (although perversely we do expect MPs and
Ministers to know about almost everything, irrespective of their former
day job). That's why there's 600 to choose from, and most debates
involve only around a dozen who have an affinity to the subject.

We have enough legal rule regurgitators

Clearly not, as bills routinely turn out to have contradictions and
mistakes in them.

and bean counters, we need a far broader base of skills in parliament.

Which is why they ennoble people like Lord Winston (FMedSci FRSA FRCP
FRCOG FREng).
--
Roland Perry

On 11/11/2016 22:09, ColinR wrote:
On 11/11/2016 11:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/11/2016 09:07, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:32:11 on Wed, 9 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:
Yes, I know that we can enforce a set of minimum conditions, but
experience is that it is hard for TPTB to enforce them. IMHO
it's oh so much easier to make sure that conditions improve by
taking away the supply of workers willing to work like slaves.

Unless, of course, freeing ourselves from Brussels Red Tape allows
us to have even worse minimum conditions.

which I believe that it wont

come back in 10 years to prove me wrong

Yawn.

well it was your decision to rerun a discussion we have already had

You brought up the minimum conditions (09 Nov 17:37:54)

but you mentioned this ridiculous, unproven plan, that the Tories are
going to do away with all employee protection as soon as we leave

they are not


You've not paid attention to the rantings of the tory right then?


Do not forget that the Tories tried to bring in the Health & Safety Act
etc 1974 in the January which was / is the major workers rights law - in
the end a General Election precluded this and it was finally enacted by
Labour virtually unchanged from the Tory bill.


The tory party has gone a long way to the right since 1974. You may
recall a leader called Thatcher and her espousal of "Victorian Values".
The Victorians beleived in the workers working long hours for even less
pay than Sports Direct and sending small children up chimneys as they
were cheaper than brushes.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 08:25:47 on
Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:06:12 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:38:40 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

I'll pick out a few of the worst howlers:

Legislation to remove EU competence (i.e. power) over UK affairs but
adopting current EU laws into
UK law so we can change, repeal or leave unchanged as required AFTER
we leave.

(1) Is that for EU Laws brought into force up to the day of exit, or
some other milestone. This isn't hypothetical, there's a huge Data
Protection shake-up due to be in force by May 2018. Which is just after
current predictions of Brexit. Assuming we do exit my April 2018, what
will the Data Protection law in the UK be in June 2018, given that if
it's the old law we won't be a "safe harbour" and many EU companies will
be in difficulty working through UK datacentres. Further to that, if we
brought the new law into force by March 2018 [there's no prohibition on
being early] what if there's a European Court ruling in 2020
'clarifying' what the law means, as has happened recently with the old
law and the so-called "Domestic Exemption"? Will we adopt the revised
law.

(2) What of the laws which provide for regulatory decisions to be made
by the EU equivalent of OFCOM[1], whatever the Monopolies Commission is
called this week, and so on? What if the laws have other pan-European
aspects, like the ones on Copyright and Patents.

[1] eg Will UK mobile phone companies have to abide by EU decisions on
roaming costs.

The government is putting this into the so-called Great Repeal Bill
being prepared by David Davis's department so I'm sure they will be
able to answer your questions.

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Inform the EU we are leaving on a particular date and say we intend
to carry on trading with the EU
tariff-free as long as the other countries reciprocate.

You can inform until you are blue in the teeth. They can ignore us.

OK, so WTO/MFN trading then. German car workers who will lose their
jobs as a result won't be pleased.

The Brexit deal will not be crafted around the desires of thousands of
special interest groups within the 27 member states.

But if it were, you might find German car workers get more jobs building
cars for sale in Europe when Jaguar and Land Rover get priced out of the
market; or perhaps Jaguar and Land Rover will move their factories to
the mainland, again bringing more jobs.

EU governments are unlikely to refuse as adopting WTO/MFN rules would
damage their businesses far more than ours

That strategy's not working so well with UK & India.

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

(German businesses in particular are lobbying to maintain tariff-free
access to their
biggest market). We will no longer obliged to pay into the EU
budget, so that will save us about
£10 billion a year net,

Chicken feed compared to the financial benefits of the single market.

We will still be able to trade with EU as they will wish to carry on
trading with us. So the details will be negotiated, with WTO/MFN as
the fallback.

No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

and FTAs with non-EU countries will give us access to cheaper imports.

After a decade of negotiations.

Rubbish, many countries want deals with us. Some have abandoned
attempts to get agreements with EU and are turning to UK instead.

Most of those are wishful thinking talked up by Brexiters. And the
timescale is considerable.

I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".
--
Roland Perry