advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... XIV

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, just a case of a crazy-looking rant, the contents of which were unnecessarily long. I have two questions for you:

When you take part in a debate Nick, you need to have something to say.

1) Do you think we'd have been better off staying in?

The question more accurately posed a few months ago by George Monbiot, who asked two questions - was the UK better of in the EU, and is the EU a good thing?

The answer to the first is yes, and to the second, no. It follows that one then has to take a moral position, weighing up all of the many pros and cons on both sides of the debate. That I remain very uncertain is undoubtedly why I waste so much of my time posting to this thread.

2) If you are so concerned about human rights, as that long post seemed to suggest, why did you vote Tory?

This thread is about leaving the EU, not about my political affiliations. The question should have been addressed to yourself, as in "If you, Nick, are so concerned about human rights, why did you vote to remain in the EU?"
 
Just curious, who's the guy? And is he a successor to the Tsar (I thought that was Putin!)? That's a sort-of copy of the crown of Vladimir Monomakh, traditionally worn by the Tsars (the original is kept in the Kremlin).
It’s Prince Michael of Kent isn’t it?
First cousin to the queen.
 
Speaking about predictable tropes... you can be relied upon to bring things back to the awful, undemocratic, unaccountable EU. I won't bore you and everyone else by listing the exaggerations, distortions and false statements in your second paragraph. Just one thing: what is this weird statement that the EU prohibits strikes? I'm sure you've worked out a circular way to come to that result, but can't imagine what it is.

My second paragraph did not contain exaggerations, distortions or false statements, just truths. That you don't happen to agree with them makes them no less so.

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike
 
I reread your post - the lengthy speech that made a number of nostrils twitch- it’s vintage Goldsmith-era UKIP, from the days before they let the real knuckle staggers in. I see you’ve temporarily retired the Poor African Farmer and have began using the Poor Continental Factory Worker with the same cod sympathy. The “up the workers!” / levelling up Panto that Johnson indulges in but no one really buys.

Your post was really all about British exceptionalism and the dislike and distrust of foreigners, especially their supranational institutions. A position that asserts we are sovereign equal to this United States of Europe and superior to all of them individually.

What a load of cobblers. Particularly nasty too.

You have just demonstrated, once again, that there is no low to which you will not reach in order to misrepresent the posts of people who don't happen to agree with your worldview. It's a very unpleasant trait. Where did you learn it?
 
My second paragraph did not contain exaggerations, distortions or false statements, just truths. That you don't happen to agree with them makes them no less so.

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike
I will disagree with your disagreement, howzat?

On the more interesting question of the law cases you quote, a few quotes from your link:
"in both cases, the ECJ held that the right to take industrial action is a ''fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of community law" and
"The ECJ held in both cases that the issue of whether industrial action is justified and proportionate is a matter for national courts."

How do these fit with your assertion that the EU prohibits strikes? It would appear you are as guilty of imperial overstretch as your beloved EU. The EU does not outlaw strikes any more than the UK does. There is a general right to strike, with various constraints placed when this general right conflicts with other rights. Nothing very controversial, surely.
 
It has become an entirely predictable trope that, when forced to acknowledge that the EU has 'shortcomings', the typical EUphile will utter the same weaselish flannel about how they 'know that the EU isn't perfect' before launching into a qualification, beginning with the word 'but', that comprises a list of the reasons why they think that the EU is in fact pretty much perfect, most of them typically exhibiting a complete absence of comprehension of, or more insidiously a refusal to acknowledge, what the EU is about, and how it functions. These lists routinely offer the expressions 'democracy', 'human-rights', 'workers' rights', 'freedom' and 'civil-liberty', amongst other airy blandishments. In other words, and going right back to my post above, a profound and immovable belief that the EU stands uniquely for the utopian principles of peace, democracy, progressivism, tolerance etc...

The EU is not democratic, indeed, in the makeup of its institutions and governance it is actively anti-democratic. When, in advancing its political ambitions it has faced referenda in member States, it has routinely and without exception steamrollered on, ignoring unwelcome results, or rephrasing the question until it gets the result it wants. The EU espouses peace, indeed was founded in the ashes of world war, but is hapless and divided on foreign policy, and increasingly divisive in internal policy. Its powerful agricultural and fisheries lobbies have ensured policies that have wrought massive environmental destruction on land, and have laid waste to not only Europe's own seas, but far beyond, to those of West-Africa and the Indian Ocean, in the process collapsing the livelihoods of the coastal communites that depend on the affected fisheries. It places capital ahead of labour, permitting companies to move to regions of cheaper labour whilst prohibiting the existing labour forces from striking in response, or compelling workers in the poorer regions to migrate to the wealthier regions, depopulating and deskilling vast tracts of the eastern countries for the benefit of western capital. Working long, exhausting hours in disgusting conditions in a German meat factory for money barely sufficient to pay for the shoddiest of living conditions many miles from home is not 'freedom', it is virtual slavery, and the EU does nothing to prevent or ameliorate it, indeed actively encourages it. The EU does very little to protect your human rights, less still those meat factory workers, or your civil liberties. In fact your workers' and civil rights were hard won by the liberal, labour and trades union movements in this wretched little country which you seem to hate so much, and your liberty was won by a coalition government led by an old Etonian tory, whose force of personality was fundamental to the defeat of fascism and the subsequent halt of the march of communism, and created the peace in Europe in which the EU's foundations could be dug.

You were a 'subject' of the monarchy even within the EU, and that and the 'rigged' electoral system are matters to be dealt with within our own democracy, by encouraging and supporting worthwhile and effective opposition, and by protest. By outsourcing these things to the EU you are merely handing it to more distant and infinitely more unnaccountable power, power that does not, despite your fond musings, have your interests at heart.

Executive Summary: EV hates the EU (and Europe).
 
When you take part in a debate Nick, you need to have something to say.



The question more accurately posed a few months ago by George Monbiot, who asked two questions - was the UK better of in the EU, and is the EU a good thing?

The answer to the first is yes, and to the second, no. It follows that one then has to take a moral position, weighing up all of the many pros and cons on both sides of the debate. That I remain very uncertain is undoubtedly why I waste so much of my time posting to this thread.



This thread is about leaving the EU, not about my political affiliations. The question should have been addressed to yourself, as in "If you, Nick, are so concerned about human rights, why did you vote to remain in the EU?"
Because he correctly foresaw UK human rights going down the toilet after we left?
 
I will disagree with your disagreement, howzat?

On the more interesting question of the law cases you quote, a few quotes from your link:
"in both cases, the ECJ held that the right to take industrial action is a ''fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of community law" and
"The ECJ held in both cases that the issue of whether industrial action is justified and proportionate is a matter for national courts."

How do these fit with your assertion that the EU prohibits strikes? It would appear you are as guilty of imperial overstretch as your beloved EU. The EU does not outlaw strikes any more than the UK does. There is a general right to strike, with various constraints placed when this general right conflicts with other rights. Nothing very controversial, surely.

"Conclusion

These two rulings impose substantive new restrictions on the lawfulness of industrial action and require the UK courts to adopt a new approach to the grant of injunctive relief, at least where there is a direct international element. Moreover, they may also apply where there is very little or even no direct international element. There is therefore every reason to conclude that Viking Line and Laval have provided employers with a potent new weapon with which to oppose industrial action."
 
I found a 2yr old Morrisons shopping receipt at the bottom of my shopping bags so I tried a wee experiment (more accurately my mother did on my behalf - she does my shopping as I have SPMS), she priced up the exact same purchases whilst getting my fortnightly supplies and what was originally a £65.34 shop back in July 2019 now costs £79.96, The largest individual increase was the cost of fruit & veg. :mad:
 
EV,
That conclusion you quote was in the context of employment lawyers advising UK clients about potential changes/loopholes/risks due to these 2 ECJ rulings in late 2008, i.e before the Charter of Fundamental Rights was made binding by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Before this, there was no European regulation or law about the right to strike. This created conflicts, between member states and also with the Commission, especially with the expansion of the EU to E. European states with various levels of employee protections. In this particular case, conflict between Swedish employment law (robust collective bargaining tradition but no minimum wage) and Baltic employment law and practices.

Reading that opinion, the general idea seems to be that employers and employee representatives have to negotiate before getting to the injunctions/strike action stage. Key words: "acting proportionately in the exercise of that right" to strike, which the EU recognizes as said above. EU countries with practices of collective bargaining enshrined in law (i.e. you have to go through various steps before you can call a strike) would probably not see what was so controversial about the judgement, which balances right to strike, right to organize, right to establish, etc.

Anyway, the cases you refer to were judged in 2008, and there have been many developments since then, in particular new ECJ decisions that refine the points made in Laval and Viking (e.g. the Rüffert case, the CFR becoming part of EU law. Oh, and the UK voting to Leave), so I wouldn't get too excited about this as a tool to beat up the EU. But as you clearly have a genuine interest in EU labor law, I'll dig in later to see what has happened in the intervening 15 years. But I have a bit of regular work to do first.

Good to see you standing squarely with European trade union organizations, though.
 
Just curious, who's the guy? And is he a successor to the Tsar (I thought that was Putin!)? That's a sort-of copy of the crown of Vladimir Monomakh, traditionally worn by the Tsars (the original is kept in the Kremlin).
He does look like the Romanov branch of the family,

R3CRBNt.jpg
 
When you take part in a debate Nick, you need to have something to say.



The question more accurately posed a few months ago by George Monbiot, who asked two questions - was the UK better of in the EU, and is the EU a good thing?

The answer to the first is yes, and to the second, no. It follows that one then has to take a moral position, weighing up all of the many pros and cons on both sides of the debate. That I remain very uncertain is undoubtedly why I waste so much of my time posting to this thread.



This thread is about leaving the EU, not about my political affiliations. The question should have been addressed to yourself, as in "If you, Nick, are so concerned about human rights, why did you vote to remain in the EU?"

Because all the signs were that Brexit would leave the UK worse off, including the erosion of human rights under the increasingly authoritarian Tories. And so it is coming to pass. Which brings me back to my question: if you are so concerned about human rights, why did you vote Tory? No more deflections or whataboutisms please.
 
Which ones?
Which ones do you see as being unthreatened?

Right to vote and right to protest...already as good as gone.
Helpful hint...check out how the national socialists did it in the 30's.
Those who do not learn from history, etc, etc
 
It is not a 'deflection' or a 'whataboutism' at all, Nick. The thread is about Brexit. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask you why, if you care so much about human rights, you voted to stay in the EU, which has shown itself perfectly content to ride roughshod over them on numerous occasions.

As regards Johnson and the tories, suffice it it say that I am one amongst increasing numbers of both small and big-C conservatives who are deeply disillusioned by the conduct of the government. I'm sure, however, there's another thread about it elsewhere.
 
It is not a 'deflection' or a 'whataboutism' at all, Nick. The thread is about Brexit. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask you why, if you care so much about human rights, you voted to stay in the EU, which has shown itself perfectly content to ride roughshod over them on numerous occasions.

As regards Johnson and the tories, suffice it it say that I am one amongst increasing numbers of both small and big-C conservatives who are deeply disillusioned by the conduct of the government. I'm sure, however, there's another thread about it elsewhere.

It is deflection as you still haven't answered my question.

I've already answered the question about human rights. I can distill it down for you to five words:

Because the Tories are worse.

We'll never get a perfect option, so it's wise to opt for the best that's on offer. Leaving in a huff and slamming the door behind you will not be productive at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top