Cheltenham 2.55 - 2 Fatalities
Sport1 min ago
Brexit Is About To Get Much, Much Worse For Uk Citizens
If you thought the continuing loss of billions of pounds in tax to the exchequer (and even more to the UK economy as a whole) as a direct result of Brexit is bad; you ain’t seen nothing yet.
The ‘EU law revocation and reform bill’ which has already passed two votes on the House of Commons (and despite not having passed into law yet), is due to take effect at the end of next year.
The bill proposes the loss of a host of rights, freedoms and protections of ordinary people; amongst them the right to annual paid leave, the right of women to equal pay for doing the same work as men and many, many more rights UK citizens have enjoyed for years as a result of being members of the EU.
I don’t recall the loss of these rights being plastered on the side of a red bus during the referendum debate – but that’s what you fools voted for.
The ‘EU law revocation and reform bill’ which has already passed two votes on the House of Commons (and despite not having passed into law yet), is due to take effect at the end of next year.
The bill proposes the loss of a host of rights, freedoms and protections of ordinary people; amongst them the right to annual paid leave, the right of women to equal pay for doing the same work as men and many, many more rights UK citizens have enjoyed for years as a result of being members of the EU.
I don’t recall the loss of these rights being plastered on the side of a red bus during the referendum debate – but that’s what you fools voted for.
Answers
i am quite grateful to hymie for continuing to point out the substantial costs of brexit... too often people simply ignore them or pretend they don't exist and they have been doing so since the referendum in 2016... unfortunatel
10:17 Sat 31st Dec 2022
In my work I deal with requirements that fall under certain EU Directives.
In relation to the Bill currently going through parliament proposing to revoke all EU derived/retained legislation; the requirements of the EU Directives I deal with, the UK law has recently been updated so there would be no revocation in relation to these.
But let’s consider what would happen if those Directives had not had relevant UK laws updated/enacted, and come the end of next year those laws fell within the large number that are to be revoked.
As stated, the primary purpose of many EU Directives is the protection of EU citizens – companies and individuals within the UK are prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirements of EU Directives (applicable UK law). So some smartarse lawyer would point out that the prosecution was invalid (as there is now no UK law being broken). As the laws (related to the EU Directives I deal with) relate to the safety of persons, parliament would most likely pass required legislation as soon as possible to correct this.
Now let’s suppose the law relating to payment of annual holiday was revoked by the above Bill; what would happen is that someone would bring a case (before an industrial tribunal) for not being paid annual holiday leave, the employer would win the case pointing out there is no requirement in UK law to make such payments. Whether the government would then decide that employers have a legal obligation to pay annual holiday leave I don’t know, but I certainly would not bank on it.
Apparently there are thousands of UK laws (that are EU derived/retained legislation) that will be revoked by this Bill if it passes as is. I don’t know (and neither do you) what is contained within those thousands of laws; but clearly once rights have been lost as a result of their revocation – it will be within the gift of the government whether we get them back.
You appear to think that these revoked laws will be magically replaced by something else, ensuring that ordinary people’s rights are not lost – but that is not the case, there is no requirement in the Bill to ensure the revoked legislation is replaced by something else.
Despite me copying and pasting directly from the Bill, many Abers incorrectly believe that each of these laws (that is to be revoked) is to be reviewed, but that is not the case.
You may think the above are ramblings of someone suffering from paranoia, but let’s wait and see what is in store, come New Years Eve 2023.
In relation to the Bill currently going through parliament proposing to revoke all EU derived/retained legislation; the requirements of the EU Directives I deal with, the UK law has recently been updated so there would be no revocation in relation to these.
But let’s consider what would happen if those Directives had not had relevant UK laws updated/enacted, and come the end of next year those laws fell within the large number that are to be revoked.
As stated, the primary purpose of many EU Directives is the protection of EU citizens – companies and individuals within the UK are prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirements of EU Directives (applicable UK law). So some smartarse lawyer would point out that the prosecution was invalid (as there is now no UK law being broken). As the laws (related to the EU Directives I deal with) relate to the safety of persons, parliament would most likely pass required legislation as soon as possible to correct this.
Now let’s suppose the law relating to payment of annual holiday was revoked by the above Bill; what would happen is that someone would bring a case (before an industrial tribunal) for not being paid annual holiday leave, the employer would win the case pointing out there is no requirement in UK law to make such payments. Whether the government would then decide that employers have a legal obligation to pay annual holiday leave I don’t know, but I certainly would not bank on it.
Apparently there are thousands of UK laws (that are EU derived/retained legislation) that will be revoked by this Bill if it passes as is. I don’t know (and neither do you) what is contained within those thousands of laws; but clearly once rights have been lost as a result of their revocation – it will be within the gift of the government whether we get them back.
You appear to think that these revoked laws will be magically replaced by something else, ensuring that ordinary people’s rights are not lost – but that is not the case, there is no requirement in the Bill to ensure the revoked legislation is replaced by something else.
Despite me copying and pasting directly from the Bill, many Abers incorrectly believe that each of these laws (that is to be revoked) is to be reviewed, but that is not the case.
You may think the above are ramblings of someone suffering from paranoia, but let’s wait and see what is in store, come New Years Eve 2023.
//As stated, the primary purpose of many EU Directives is the protection of EU citizens…//
You mean as you stated, but not necessarily fact.
//So some smartarse lawyer would point out that the prosecution was invalid (as there is now no UK law being broken).//
A lawyer in such circumstances would not be “smartarse”. He would be pointing out that a prosecution was unlawful. Are you suggesting that without a “smartarse layer” a conviction might be secured for an activity that was not illegal?
// As the laws (related to the EU Directives I deal with) relate to the safety of persons, parliament would most likely pass required legislation as soon as possible to correct this.//
Do you have any reason to believe they would not?
//…what would happen is that someone would bring a case (before an industrial tribunal) for not being paid annual holiday leave, the employer would win the case pointing out there is no requirement in UK law to make such payments. Whether the government would then decide that employers have a legal obligation to pay annual holiday leave I don’t know, but I certainly would not bank on it.//
Once again, what leads you to believe (or even suspect) that the UK government would not put in place replacement legislation? Is it that you basically do not trust the UK government to provide these basic protections?
Here’s some news – the UK’s membership of the EU has come to an end. What the UK government does about the outrageous amount of EU legislation that has slipped into UK law is entirely a matter for the UK government.
A while back I suggested that you concentrated far too much on the economy when looking at the effects of Brexit. Once again, incredible as it may seem to you, one of the (many) reasons people voted to leave was precisely because they believed that UK legislation should be under the control of the UK Parliament and not determined by a small number of unelected foreign bureaucrats. The circumstances you have now moved on to fretting about demonstrate perfectly the enormous amount of UK legislation that stems from EU edicts. The revocation bill you mention also demonstrates the measures the UK government is taking to address that issue – an issue that was one of the main reasons people voted to leave the EU. So the EU legislation will (quite rightly) be ditched and we shall all have to rely on the UK government to look after out best interests.
You mean as you stated, but not necessarily fact.
//So some smartarse lawyer would point out that the prosecution was invalid (as there is now no UK law being broken).//
A lawyer in such circumstances would not be “smartarse”. He would be pointing out that a prosecution was unlawful. Are you suggesting that without a “smartarse layer” a conviction might be secured for an activity that was not illegal?
// As the laws (related to the EU Directives I deal with) relate to the safety of persons, parliament would most likely pass required legislation as soon as possible to correct this.//
Do you have any reason to believe they would not?
//…what would happen is that someone would bring a case (before an industrial tribunal) for not being paid annual holiday leave, the employer would win the case pointing out there is no requirement in UK law to make such payments. Whether the government would then decide that employers have a legal obligation to pay annual holiday leave I don’t know, but I certainly would not bank on it.//
Once again, what leads you to believe (or even suspect) that the UK government would not put in place replacement legislation? Is it that you basically do not trust the UK government to provide these basic protections?
Here’s some news – the UK’s membership of the EU has come to an end. What the UK government does about the outrageous amount of EU legislation that has slipped into UK law is entirely a matter for the UK government.
A while back I suggested that you concentrated far too much on the economy when looking at the effects of Brexit. Once again, incredible as it may seem to you, one of the (many) reasons people voted to leave was precisely because they believed that UK legislation should be under the control of the UK Parliament and not determined by a small number of unelected foreign bureaucrats. The circumstances you have now moved on to fretting about demonstrate perfectly the enormous amount of UK legislation that stems from EU edicts. The revocation bill you mention also demonstrates the measures the UK government is taking to address that issue – an issue that was one of the main reasons people voted to leave the EU. So the EU legislation will (quite rightly) be ditched and we shall all have to rely on the UK government to look after out best interests.
The only vital part of work that I do in relation to EU Directives is the part which gets me paid a salary. My employer does not receive any payment from the EU for work done by myself or colleagues.
Without giving too much away – for the most part, the work involves assisting companies in their compliance with the EU Directives; consultancy and verification of compliance.
It is surprising how many companies are completely unaware of their legal obligations in relation to UK laws, which have been enacted through EU Directives. There is a general lack of regulatory enforcement, but when something goes wrong these companies end up in court facing fines and sanctions.
A note to NJ – if you were to read the titles of the EU Directives I deal with, you would not think that they had anything to do with the protection of EU citizens – but that is their primary objective.
Without giving too much away – for the most part, the work involves assisting companies in their compliance with the EU Directives; consultancy and verification of compliance.
It is surprising how many companies are completely unaware of their legal obligations in relation to UK laws, which have been enacted through EU Directives. There is a general lack of regulatory enforcement, but when something goes wrong these companies end up in court facing fines and sanctions.
A note to NJ – if you were to read the titles of the EU Directives I deal with, you would not think that they had anything to do with the protection of EU citizens – but that is their primary objective.
TTT – No I won’t, if you read the above thread, you will see that the UK laws relating to the EU Directives I deal with have been recently updated – so as far as the UK is concerned, compliance is now against Statutory Instruments, where as for Europe the Directives are still in force – but the requirements of the two are essentially the same.
//Without giving too much away – for the most part, the work involves assisting companies in their compliance with the EU Directives; consultancy and verification of compliance.//
Then I can understand your concern because you will be effectively out of a job. That does not mean, of course, that Brexit is necessarily a bad thing - even as far as you are concerned - because I'm sure you can pick up a job assisting companies to comply with any UK laws with which the UK government sees fit to replace them - if companies need your help, that is.
//...if you were to read the titles of the EU Directives I deal with, you would not think that they had anything to do with the protection of EU citizens – but that is their primary objective.//
It may be your belief that all EU directives have the protection of EU citizens as their primary objective. However, I take a fundamentally different view. The EU is a highly protectionist organisation. By that, I mean it protects its members from what it terms "unfair competition" from each other. To that end, it enacts laws which effectively prevent one country from undercutting, out performing or stealing a march on the others. The Working Time Directive is one such example. It effectively prevents people in one country working longer hours (and possibly being more productive) than those in the others. You may believe its principle aim is to prevent employers exploiting their staff but I prefer to believe that is merely a side-effect. Almost all of the EU's directives aim to homogenise the continent into one single entity to prevent "unfair competition".
Another directive where you may have difficulty explaining how it relates to the protection of EU citizens' rights is that (or those) governing VAT. The imposition of VAT is an EU requirement, as are the minimum rates at which it must be imposed. How the imposition of any tax can have, as its principle aim, the protection of the rights of citizens is a little hard to fathom (unless you believe that levying taxes is fundamentally in everybody's interest). But once again, the principle aim is to prevent one country ditching VAT as a requirement. I don't think you have any worries on that score because I don't see the UK ditching VAT anytime soon. More than that, it imposes the tax at a higher rate than the minimum required and most of the rest of the world sees fit to impose this most ridiculous of all taxes.
The EU has specific legislation that prevents State Aid to industries without their consent. Can you explain to me the benefit that UK citizens would gain if the government was prevented from aiding a business if it saw fit but the EU prevented? There can be only one aim in controlling state aid, and that is back to the EU's protectionist principles.
It is far too simplistic to assume that EU Directives have the welfare of its citizens at their heart. But it doesn't matter because the UK is no longer bound by them and quite soon the enormous number that have been subsumed into UK law will be ditched. I see that as a huge Brexit benefit because I believe the EU has no right to impose laws on its member nations and UK governments should never had allowed such a situation where it could do so to develop (hence my vow, made in 1992, to vote to leave). You obviously think the only people capable of looking after citizens' rights are EU bureaucrats but fortunately your view did not prevail in the referendum.
Then I can understand your concern because you will be effectively out of a job. That does not mean, of course, that Brexit is necessarily a bad thing - even as far as you are concerned - because I'm sure you can pick up a job assisting companies to comply with any UK laws with which the UK government sees fit to replace them - if companies need your help, that is.
//...if you were to read the titles of the EU Directives I deal with, you would not think that they had anything to do with the protection of EU citizens – but that is their primary objective.//
It may be your belief that all EU directives have the protection of EU citizens as their primary objective. However, I take a fundamentally different view. The EU is a highly protectionist organisation. By that, I mean it protects its members from what it terms "unfair competition" from each other. To that end, it enacts laws which effectively prevent one country from undercutting, out performing or stealing a march on the others. The Working Time Directive is one such example. It effectively prevents people in one country working longer hours (and possibly being more productive) than those in the others. You may believe its principle aim is to prevent employers exploiting their staff but I prefer to believe that is merely a side-effect. Almost all of the EU's directives aim to homogenise the continent into one single entity to prevent "unfair competition".
Another directive where you may have difficulty explaining how it relates to the protection of EU citizens' rights is that (or those) governing VAT. The imposition of VAT is an EU requirement, as are the minimum rates at which it must be imposed. How the imposition of any tax can have, as its principle aim, the protection of the rights of citizens is a little hard to fathom (unless you believe that levying taxes is fundamentally in everybody's interest). But once again, the principle aim is to prevent one country ditching VAT as a requirement. I don't think you have any worries on that score because I don't see the UK ditching VAT anytime soon. More than that, it imposes the tax at a higher rate than the minimum required and most of the rest of the world sees fit to impose this most ridiculous of all taxes.
The EU has specific legislation that prevents State Aid to industries without their consent. Can you explain to me the benefit that UK citizens would gain if the government was prevented from aiding a business if it saw fit but the EU prevented? There can be only one aim in controlling state aid, and that is back to the EU's protectionist principles.
It is far too simplistic to assume that EU Directives have the welfare of its citizens at their heart. But it doesn't matter because the UK is no longer bound by them and quite soon the enormous number that have been subsumed into UK law will be ditched. I see that as a huge Brexit benefit because I believe the EU has no right to impose laws on its member nations and UK governments should never had allowed such a situation where it could do so to develop (hence my vow, made in 1992, to vote to leave). You obviously think the only people capable of looking after citizens' rights are EU bureaucrats but fortunately your view did not prevail in the referendum.
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that I will be out of a job as a result of the UK ditching the EU Directives (for the reasons already explained).
In fact now that people who are dealing with both the UK and Europe are required to comply with EU Directives and UK Statutory Instruments means than my employer’s services will be in greater demand from their clients.
Whilst my employer might gain something from this, their clients may have increased costs as a result – and those costs will be passed onto their customers, UK citizens (another Brexit benefit).
In fact now that people who are dealing with both the UK and Europe are required to comply with EU Directives and UK Statutory Instruments means than my employer’s services will be in greater demand from their clients.
Whilst my employer might gain something from this, their clients may have increased costs as a result – and those costs will be passed onto their customers, UK citizens (another Brexit benefit).
NJ, you claim that the EU is a protectionist organisation to prevent unfair competition between countries, which it is – and there is a fundamental reason for this, which I think I’ve explained before.
All countries around the world impose some sort of tariff on goods entering their country, some just to raise taxes, but many to protect their own production/industries.
Imagine France has a well established widget manufacturing industry (the main such industry within the EU), that supplies widgets not only throughout Europe but the world too. To protect this industry from cheap subsidised imports, the EU places a 15% tariff on widgets imported to the EU.
Within the UK, having no widget manufacturing to speak of, we have to buy our widgets from France or import them with a 15% tariff. If the rules allowed us to import our widgets from outside the EU with no tariff, then they could be freely shipped on to Europe (with the free movement of goods) allowing widget imports to sidestep the EU tariff.
The same applies to an EU member State unfairly subsidising an industry to the detriment of other EU States production. If the UK was to unfairly subsidise a widget manufacturing operation in the UK, this would have the same effect as allowing the cheap subsidised imports from outside the EU.
It seems to me that some such scheme is essential where you have a system of free movement of goods between countries.
With regards the Working Time Directive, to my mind this is an example of an EU Directive protecting their citizens - from being exploited, having to work all hours to earn a crust. But the UK negotiated an opt-out of this, allowing people to sign away their rights.
I recall when VAT came in (replacing our point of sale tax) the increased bureaucracy was just stupid, requiring those goods passed down the line to notionally pay VAT, then claim it back – many, never being subject to VAT as the end user was exempt.
But to impose VAT rates may be to stop goods being purchased in one country (VAT free) and then shipped to another where there would have been a 20% VAT fee – so there may be some sense to this requirement.
Later on, I will supply a list of examples of EU Directives that protect EU citizens.
All countries around the world impose some sort of tariff on goods entering their country, some just to raise taxes, but many to protect their own production/industries.
Imagine France has a well established widget manufacturing industry (the main such industry within the EU), that supplies widgets not only throughout Europe but the world too. To protect this industry from cheap subsidised imports, the EU places a 15% tariff on widgets imported to the EU.
Within the UK, having no widget manufacturing to speak of, we have to buy our widgets from France or import them with a 15% tariff. If the rules allowed us to import our widgets from outside the EU with no tariff, then they could be freely shipped on to Europe (with the free movement of goods) allowing widget imports to sidestep the EU tariff.
The same applies to an EU member State unfairly subsidising an industry to the detriment of other EU States production. If the UK was to unfairly subsidise a widget manufacturing operation in the UK, this would have the same effect as allowing the cheap subsidised imports from outside the EU.
It seems to me that some such scheme is essential where you have a system of free movement of goods between countries.
With regards the Working Time Directive, to my mind this is an example of an EU Directive protecting their citizens - from being exploited, having to work all hours to earn a crust. But the UK negotiated an opt-out of this, allowing people to sign away their rights.
I recall when VAT came in (replacing our point of sale tax) the increased bureaucracy was just stupid, requiring those goods passed down the line to notionally pay VAT, then claim it back – many, never being subject to VAT as the end user was exempt.
But to impose VAT rates may be to stop goods being purchased in one country (VAT free) and then shipped to another where there would have been a 20% VAT fee – so there may be some sense to this requirement.
Later on, I will supply a list of examples of EU Directives that protect EU citizens.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.