Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[JAG]

21 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Another month of hemorrhaging support and a vote of NO confidence will be called anyway.

 

Lords step in and and a vote of NO confidence will be called.

 

EU accept May White Bog Roll and a vote of NO confidence will be called.

 

One way or another, it is coming.

You are probably right. A side issue: if The House of Lords is party to the fall of the government it will bring to the fore an interesting constitutional issue, bearing in mind the disproportionate number of opposition members, in particular the Liberal Democrats, whose presence in the upper house is out of all proportion to their numbers in the lower (elected ) house.

 

As I said, a side issue - an attempt by an elected government, with a mandate, backed by a referendum, to remove the UK from a Union arguably run by an elected executive,itself foiled by an unelected upper house?

 

Hmm...

Edited July 18, 2018 by JAG

[tebee]

Just now, The Renegade said:

This is what I said.

 

The EU / Barnier have made it clear that any deal that the UK has with the EU will require ECJ primacy and  '' Freedom of Movement '' is non negotiable.

 

.....

 

 

On no he didn't

[tebee]

The UK’s Brexit red lines have severely circumscribed EU options for any future deal, European Council president Donald Tusk warned London on Wednesday.

“It should come as no surprise,” he said, “that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement.”

 

So an FTA like Canada is possible without FOM, ECJ

 

Source https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/uk-s-red-lines-severely-limit-eu-brexit-options-tusk-1.3418551

[tebee]

What is clear so far is that both models the European Commission has put on the table — “Canada,” which doesn’t satisfy Britain’s demands on services, or “Norway,” which crosses the U.K.’s red lines on free movement and European Court of Justice jurisprudence — are non-starters in Britain.

 

Source https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-theresa-may-cant-afford-red-lines/

 

[The Renegade]

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

As I said, a side issue - an attempt by an elected government, with a mandate, backed by a referendum, to remove the UK from a Union arguably run by an elected executive,itself foiled by an unelected upper house?

 

Hmm...

Hmm indeed.

 

 

[The Renegade]

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

The UK’s Brexit red lines have severely circumscribed EU options for any future deal, European Council president Donald Tusk warned London on Wednesday.

“It should come as no surprise,” he said, “that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement.”

 

So an FTA like Canada is possible without FOM, ECJ

 

Source https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/uk-s-red-lines-severely-limit-eu-brexit-options-tusk-1.3418551

tebee

 

Do you read your own links ?

 

Quote

The EU is ready “to initiate work towards a free trade agreement (FTA), to be finalised and concluded once the UK is no longer a member state”.

And it could all have been avoided if they had simply transferred most of the current deal to an FTA.

 

The only goal the EU had was trying to keep the UK tied at the hip to the EU, Brussels and under the thumb of the ECJ.

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

tebee

 

Do you read your own links ?

 

Quote

The EU is ready “to initiate work towards a free trade agreement (FTA), to be finalised and concluded once the UK is no longer a member state”.

 

And it could all have been avoided if they had simply transferred most of the current deal to an FTA.

 

The only goal the EU had was trying to keep the UK tied at the hip to the EU, Brussels and under the thumb of the ECJ.

That is because we can't legally negotiate a FTA whille we are still part of the EU one and we don't know what our future relationship with the EU will be.

 

This was why we need the transition period  

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

That is because we can't legally negotiate a FTA whille we are still part of the EU one and we don't know what our future relationship with the EU will be.

BINGO. 

 

So how could the EU / Barnier be offering a '' Canada deal '' ?

[whatsupdoc]

8 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

tebee

 

Do you read your own links ?

 

And it could all have been avoided if they had simply transferred most of the current deal to an FTA.

 

The only goal the EU had was trying to keep the UK tied at the hip to the EU, Brussels and under the thumb of the ECJ.

Cakeism at its best: transfer most of the current deal to an FTA. Keep the benefits but not the burdens...

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

BINGO. 

 

So how could the EU / Barnier be offering a '' Canada deal '' ?

He can offer one for the post-brexit period 

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

He can offer one for the post-brexit period 

But you just said

 

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

That is because we can't legally negotiate a FTA whille we are still part of the EU one and we don't know what our future relationship with the EU will be.

So are you admitting what the majority of us already know.

 

That EU rules and Laws are selective ??

 

Finally. The UK will decide what it does after it leaves the EU, the EU will not decide.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An argument based on workers being helpless.

 

Well those that don’t join unions are.

 

Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions.

 

So let’s not join a union and blame the EU for the rapacious practices of British employers.

 

While of course turning a blind eye to the fact that the Tories are openly planning a post-Brexit purge of EU regulations and laws protecting worker’s rights.

 

If you think British workers suffer in the EU, you’ve seen nothing yet.

 

I have to dispute that, certainly in my case.

 

Oddly enough I worked for 50 years and I never felt the need to join a union. I got paid the same rate that guys who were in a union got paid. I worked in the RAF for 25 years, a satellite tracking station, the Home Office, 2 different cellular companies and as a private contractor.

 

As a contractor I also worked in Holland twice, Belgium, France and Germany. I also worked as a contractor in Pakistan twice, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and also as a company employee in New Zealand. No unions anywhere.

 

The working conditions were exactly the same.

[Orac]

You are probably right. A side issue: if The House of Lords is party to the fall of the government it will bring to the fore an interesting constitutional issue, bearing in mind the disproportionate number of opposition members, in particular the Liberal Democrats, whose presence in the upper house is out of all proportion to their numbers in the lower (elected ) house.
 
As I said, a side issue - an attempt by an elected government, with a mandate, backed by a referendum, to remove the UK from a Union arguably run by an elected executive,itself foiled by an unelected upper house?
 
Hmm...

Only the HoC can vote out the govt in a confidence motion so, no matter what level of incompetence or moves by the HoL, the government could only fall if its deal with the DUP fails, or members of its own party vote against it.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[The Renegade]

Copied and pasted for the remainers.

 

Not my words, I just happen to agree with most of them.

 

Quote

Here are some evident truths. Most countries that have an FTA with the EU are happy for the UK to continue with the same agreements after leaving.

 

Many other countries would be willing to start talks immediately.

 

Most people recognise that some level of immigration must continue after Brexit. Most people would prefer that to come from EU countries.

 

Supply chains go in both directions.

 

The Irish border exists as any person who has driven across it will testify. There is plenty of signage already. The addition of a few cameras would no more excite them than the cameras on the Dublin ring road.

 

In my working life I traded with 66 different countries. 58 of them were not in the EU.

 

Finally Brexit was never solely about trade. Those of us who voted Leave were aware that it would cause some economic upheaval. But the greater prize of being excluded from the EU superstate project was worth the cost.

Now stop shaking in your safe spaces. Armageddon is not going to befall the UK.

[tebee]

32 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

But you just said

 

So are you admitting what the majority of us already know.

 

That EU rules and Laws are selective ??

 

Finally. The UK will decide what it does after it leaves the EU, the EU will not decide.

There is a world of difference between offering a deal and negotiating the fine detail of one.

 

There are times when I am not sure whether you just like to be obtuse for sake of creating argument and conflict or it is just your command of the subtleties of the English Language is poor.

 

Let me draw you a picture in metaphorical crayon to help you understand.

 

You are getting divorced. You no longer need the large marital home.

 

You can offer me a deal to lease the house post divorce, but you would be very ill-advised to sign a legal contract with me to do so, before all  the divorce details have been finalized.   

Edited July 18, 2018 by tebee

[RuamRudy]

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I have to dispute that, certainly in my case.

 

Oddly enough I worked for 50 years and I never felt the need to join a union. I got paid the same rate that guys who were in a union got paid. I worked in the RAF for 25 years, a satellite tracking station, the Home Office, 2 different cellular companies and as a private contractor.

 

As a contractor I also worked in Holland twice, Belgium, France and Germany. I also worked as a contractor in Pakistan twice, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and also as a company employee in New Zealand. No unions anywhere.

 

The working conditions were exactly the same.

I guess it's a bit of a moot point, but it could be argued that you benefited from the union membership of your colleagues, or if your employers were not unionised, from union activities with competitor companies.

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I have to dispute that, certainly in my case.

 

Oddly enough I worked for 50 years and I never felt the need to join a union. I got paid the same rate that guys who were in a union got paid. I worked in the RAF for 25 years, a satellite tracking station, the Home Office, 2 different cellular companies and as a private contractor.

 

As a contractor I also worked in Holland twice, Belgium, France and Germany. I also worked as a contractor in Pakistan twice, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea and also as a company employee in New Zealand. No unions anywhere.

 

The working conditions were exactly the same.

Anecdote is not data:

 

So let’s take a look at a report based on data.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html

[The Renegade]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

There is a world of difference between offering a deal and negotiating the fine detail of one.

from your original link

 

https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-accept-eus-offer-canada-style-deal-claim-diplomatic-triumph/

 

Quote

that is to take up the EU’s offer of a Canada-style deal and to execute that deal by October.

How can that be tebee ?

 

That would be against the Law according to you. You said it right here.

Quote

That is because we can't legally negotiate a FTA whille we are still part of the EU one and we don't know what our future relationship with the EU will be.

Yet according to YOUR article, the EU want it executed by OCTOBER

 

So who is obtuse tebee ?

 

Is it you for posting articles that you do not understand.

 

Is it you for posting unsubstantiated shoite.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

from your original link

 

https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-accept-eus-offer-canada-style-deal-claim-diplomatic-triumph/

 

How can that be tebee ?

 

That would be against the Law according to you. You said it right here.

Yet according to YOUR article, the EU want it executed by OCTOBER

 

So who is obtuse tebee ?

 

Is it you for posting articles that you do not understand.

 

Is it you for posting unsubstantiated shoite.

But they can negotiate a transition period where an agreement could be arrived at. 

[dick dasterdly]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An argument based on workers being helpless.

 

Well those that don’t join unions are.

 

Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions.

 

So let’s not join a union and blame the EU for the rapacious practices of British employers.

 

While of course turning a blind eye to the fact that the Tories are openly planning a post-Brexit purge of EU regulations and laws protecting worker’s rights.

 

If you think British workers suffer in the EU, you’ve seen nothing yet.

"Well those that don’t join unions are.  Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions."

 

Not entirely true as unions for a few decades have been far more interested in their own power - than those they are supposed to be representing...

 

I've endless stories on this subject - with which, you'll be pleased to hear, I won't bore you!

Edited July 18, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Well those that don’t join unions are.  Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions."

 

Not entirely true as unions for a few decades have been far more interested in their own power - than those they are supposed to be representing...

 

 

What does "not entirely true" mean? You mean that there are exceptions? And that undermines the evidence offered by Chomper Higgot how?

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anecdote is not data:

 

So let’s take a look at a report based on data.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html

 

Anecdote is not data. It was not an anecdote as you claim but real data provided by a real person which was me. You responded to my post by clicking a "confused" emoji. Please tell me why you were confused and what you were confused about?

 

Why not talk reality instead of 

 

quoting your link.  

 

"An average trade union member earns £4,000-a-year more than non-unionised workers, many of whom have suffered wage freezes or pay cuts in the last year, a government report suggests."

 

It does not report that union members ARE earning £4,000-a-year more than non-unionised workers, but that some may be.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Anecdote is not data. It was not an anecdote as you claim but real data provided by a real person which was me. You responded to my post by clicking a "confused" emoji. Please tell me why you were confused and what you were confused about?

 

Why not talk reality instead of 

 

quoting your link.  

 

"An average trade union member earns £4,000-a-year more than non-unionised workers, many of whom have suffered wage freezes or pay cuts in the last year, a government report suggests."

 

It does not report that union members ARE earning £4,000-a-year more than non-unionised workers, but that some may be.

Definition of anecdote: "a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person."

So unless your story was fiction (or neither amusing nor interesting) it was an anecdote.

And if true, it does qualify as data. But not data controlled for demographics. Just your personal experience. Not exactly diagnostic for matters affecting millions of workers.

And you've got the interpretation wrong. It says an average trade union worker earns 4000 more. That means some earn over 4000 more and some less and most likely a few exactly 4000. Not that "some may be" except in the most trivial sense.

Edited July 18, 2018 by bristolboy

[dick dasterdly]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An argument based on workers being helpless.

 

Well those that don’t join unions are.

 

Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions.

 

So let’s not join a union and blame the EU for the rapacious practices of British employers.

 

While of course turning a blind eye to the fact that the Tories are openly planning a post-Brexit purge of EU regulations and laws protecting worker’s rights.

 

If you think British workers suffer in the EU, you’ve seen nothing yet.

 

46 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Well those that don’t join unions are.  Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions."

 

Not entirely true as unions for a few decades have been far more interested in their own power - than those they are supposed to be representing...

 

I've endless stories on this subject - with which, you'll be pleased to hear, I won't bore you!

 

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What does "not entirely true" mean? You mean that there are exceptions? And that undermines the evidence offered by Chomper Higgot how?

You really want me to go into details as to why I believe (with personal stories to support the case) that unions are pursuing their own power, rather than the interest of their members??

 

Perhaps better pursued by pm's - as it's more than a little off-topic.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anecdote is not data:

 

So let’s take a look at a report based on data.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html

Quite possibly true (?), but it's gradually being eroded for those at the bottom of 'the scale' in large companies with unions that are supposed to be representing those that pay their salaries....

 

Somehow, those unions have barely bothered to argue against the large companies/public sector 're-structuring' (i.e. reducing the salaries of those at the bottom...). ☹️

 

But admittedly, this is an obvious problem with the uk - more so than with the eu?  The open borders policy has only given companies an even greater reason  to keep wages at the bottom VERY low....  Whilst, of course, wages at the top need to be kept very high to attract the best candidates ?.

[dick dasterdly]

My favourite story is a few decades old, when the union agreed a pay deal that gave a higher percentage increase in salary to those on higher scales!  Querying this with the union rep. ( a manger), he admitted that they only cared about 'themselves' - certainly not those at the bottom of the scale ?!

 

Edit - I must add that he also admitted that they weren't interested in recruiting members at the bottom of 'the scale'....

Edited July 18, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Well those that don’t join unions are.  Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions."

 

Not entirely true as unions for a few decades have been far more interested in their own power - than those they are supposed to be representing...

 

I've endless stories on this subject - with which, you'll be pleased to hear, I won't bore you!

And yet workers who are in unions earn higher pay and enjoy better working conditions.

 

But yes, for decades the rightwing press have pushed the message that workers unions are not good for workers.

 

So let’s follow a Brexit run by members of the elite and funded by a handful of Billionaires/ Multimillionaires and stick our head in the sand when the Tories talk of post Brexit deregulation of worker’s rights.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

My favourite story is a few decades old, when the union agreed a pay deal that gave a higher percentage increase in salary to those on higher scales!  Querying this with the union rep. ( a manger), he admitted that they only cared about 'themselves' - certainly not those at the bottom of the scale ?!

 

Edit - I must add that he also admitted that they weren't interested in recruiting members at the bottom of 'the scale'....

But you did get s pay rise!

[nontabury]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An argument based on workers being helpless.

 

Well those that don’t join unions are.

 

Those that do earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions.

 

So let’s not join a union and blame the EU for the rapacious practices of British employers.

 

While of course turning a blind eye to the fact that the Tories are openly planning a post-Brexit purge of EU regulations and laws protecting worker’s rights.

 

If you think British workers suffer in the EU, you’ve seen nothing yet.

A number of years ago, the government of the day,rightly curtailed the powers of the unions. Now unfortunately the pendulum has swung the other way.

The rest of your rant, is pure speculation. What I would say is that yes,the E.u. Is not responsible for all employment problems, but it’s certainly not been the protector of employees rights, as some of the remoaners try to put out.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Quite possibly true (?), but it's gradually being eroded for those at the bottom of 'the scale' in large companies with unions that are supposed to be representing those that pay their salaries....

 

Somehow, those unions have barely bothered to argue against the large companies/public sector 're-structuring' (i.e. reducing the salaries of those at the bottom...). ☹️

 

But admittedly, this is an obvious problem with the uk - more so than with the eu?  The open borders policy has only given companies an even greater reason  to keep wages at the bottom VERY low....  Whilst, of course, wages at the top need to be kept very high to attract the best candidates ?.

Your whole comment flies in the face of reality.

 

How does a company employ people at a salary below that agreed with a union?

 

They don’t!