Royal Mail in EU referendum

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[NWpostie]

It is a lot if things to a lot of people what read that pros and cons note TBT.

I suppose all we gave our own gut feelings and convictions, the facts on the ground on what is happening in the EU as it stand including countries failing, Euro failing, high unemployment, political unaccountability, extremism, mass migrant issues, EU insitution overtaken by events on the ground and to be ineffective.

Compared to this the UK looks very stable but like bad apples we will get affected if we stay in the box.

There is a lot more but I will leave it at that.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/05/le ... ts-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last month, we asked Michael Ford QC for an independent legal opinion on the consequences of Brexit for UK employment law and workers’ rights (you can read the whole thing here).

Looking over the many rights that are guaranteed by the EU, and our government’s past form and public policy documents, he suggested the protections that would be most vulnerable are:

Collective consultation, including the right for workers’ representatives to be consulted on major changes that will change jobs or result in redundancies (as we’ve seen recently in our crisis-hit steel industry).
Working Time Directive rules, including rules on excessive hours, breaks and the amount of holiday pay you’re entitled to.
EU-derived health and safety regulations.
Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE), the protections to your terms and conditions if your job is transferred or outsourced to a new employer.
Protections for agency workers and other ‘atypical’ workers, such as part-time workers.
Current levels of compensation for discrimination of all kinds, including equal pay awards and age discrimination.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ho ... um-7432734" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; How Should I Vote In The EU Referendum?

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/articl ... JxL2eFAvmb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Can we guess whether you're voting Remain or Leave in the EU referendum based on your answers to this quiz?

[Tman]

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/05/le ... ts-brexit/

Last month, we asked Michael Ford QC for an independent legal opinion on the consequences of Brexit for UK employment law and workers’ rights (you can read the whole thing here).

Looking over the many rights that are guaranteed by the EU, and our government’s past form and public policy documents, he suggested the protections that would be most vulnerable are:

Collective consultation, including the right for workers’ representatives to be consulted on major changes that will change jobs or result in redundancies (as we’ve seen etc etc blah blah blah )

Of course, all the various UK employers will have plans in place for their new policies post-Brexit, and we can all rest assured that by September (at the latest) we'll have a 50 hour week as the norm, young boys up chimneys and all sick leave abolished.
Cameron's WW3 prediction was crass enough, but this twaddle takes some beating.

[fishtank]

That's made my mind up, Tman "thinks" it's twaddle....
Presumably twaddle is anything you don't agree with.

[Tman]

You do like the perjorative comment Fishy. Is your point of view really that weak?
"Twaddle" because it's one person's opinion on the various aspects of employment laws which (he feels) could alter if the UK leaves the EU, and like so many "opinions" it's being presented as fact.
However, it's pleasing to see that you take such note of my opinion that it influences your own choice of where the X will go on the ballot paper.

[stan_lers]

Of course, all the various UK employers will have plans in place for their new policies post-Brexit, and we can all rest assured that by September (at the latest) we'll have a 50 hour week as the norm, young boys up chimneys and all sick leave abolished.
Cameron's WW3 prediction was crass enough, but this twaddle takes some beating.

Anyone who thinks our own government works for us and not for business is delusional. All we ever hear about is growth, we've had 5 years of austerity to protect 'the economy' but what have ordinary people got out of it? Economic growth comes first, even though there's very little trickle-down for most of the population.

The government is planning (if they haven't already, I don't remember) to hand over the regulation of livestock from an independent body to the industry itself. Are they going to make sure chickens are well-looked after at greater cost, or are they going to go the route that makes them the most money? No one in the world benefits from that decision besides the livestock industry. If we leave the EU, then you can guarantee that the government would try and erode workers' rights for the benefit of employers. Things like environment protection are also expensive, so those will be gone, too. Making employment more flexible = reduced costs, so that everyone can enjoy our growing GDP during our one unpaid week of leave per year.

These rights, regulations, directives etc are also the 'red tape' and 'bureaucracy' people talk about when criticising the EU. Funny how laws made by our elected MPs are just that - laws, yet ones made by our elected MEPs are Brussels meddling in our affairs, even though they actually protect consumers and workers.

[Tman]

If we leave the EU, then you can guarantee that the government would try and erode workers' rights for the benefit of employers. Things like environment protection are also expensive, so those will be gone, too. Making employment more flexible = reduced costs, so that everyone can enjoy our growing GDP during our one unpaid week of leave per year.

There you go then...clearly the sky will fall in and workers' rights will be gone in a heartbeat. Makes you wonder though how all those strikes and industrial strife etc occurred over the last forty years when we were under the golden wing of the EU and us workers had it so good?
Perhaps you should Google why the RMT ( a much better and stronger union than our dumb-a*se CWU) feel Brexit is the way to go, as clearly they don't foresee an instant return to the working conditions of the 1870s is a credible risk.

[Danelectro]

Brexit: A Massive Smokescreen (But Britain Should Still Leave)


Let’s all take a step back for a moment and reflect on the significance of the fact that, with all the problems that currently beleaguer the UK and Europe as a whole – rampant inequality, despicable levels of poverty and unemployment, widespread existential precariousness, environmental devastation, etc. – here we are talking about, er, Brexit, when in fact Britain’s EU membership has little or no bearing whatsoever on any of those (or other) critical issues. Has there ever been a better demonstration of the agenda-setting power of the elites? And – what’s worse – of our willingness to sing along to their tunes? They say jump, we spend months debating exactly how high we should jump. Hell, we have even written dozens of books about it.

If we were to believe the comments made in recent weeks by both the Remain and Leave sides, we would be justified in concluding that on June 23 Britons will indeed be called to decide on a matter of life or death – not just for the UK but for the entire world! On the one hand, we have the ‘inners’ – an unlikely ensemble ranging from business magnates and right-wing politicians to socialists and trade unionists – claiming that Brexit would destroy Britain and the European project, give you cancer and even trigger World War III. Leftist variations on the same theme include claims that Brexit would plunge Europe – and Britain itself – into 1930s-style fascism, threaten the rights and protections of British workers and even harm the UK’s environment.

On the other hand, we have the ‘outers’ – comprised mostly of right-wing nationalists but including also groups such as the ‘Christian Brexit-ers’ (or #BeLeavers – true story) and even some solitary left-wingers (even though Owen Jones subsequently retracted his support for an exit, he will not be forgiven by linguists and historians for coining the dreadful #Lexit hashtag) – arguing that, if Britain remains in the EU, it will soon be overrun with Koran-wielding immigrants and colonised by the EU fascist super-state. Boris Johnson, who is evidently running short of arguments by now, has even stated that as long as Britain is in the EU, it is not allowed to cut taxes to the UK’s poorest households. As for the claims that the ‘every UK citizen’ would be better/worst off by x pounds per year if the country leaves the EU – it should be clear to everyone by now that predictions made by economists are about as reliable as tasseography. (Anyway, if you’re interested, here’s an article that debunks the economics of both sides).

Needless to say, most of these assertions are totally unfounded. Both sides of the debate – and all the groups involved – should be deeply ashamed of resorting to such low-level scare-mongering tactics simply to feather the nests of their respective campaigns (though I must say that the Remain campaign wins when it comes to Project Fear). In the name of reason, let’s set the record straight: Britain, Europe or the world will not come to an end in the case of an unlikely ‘yes/out’ victory (or of a ‘no/in’ victory, for that matter). The fact of the matter is that Britain’s fate to a large degree does not depend on its EU membership (or lack thereof). As for the EU as a whole, Paul De Grauwe has argued that it would actually benefit from a Brexit.

The fundamental problem with the whole Brexit debate is that both sides of the argument are premised on a wildly embellished notion of the extent to which being part of EU impacts (positively or negatively) the scope of government action. The everyday life of the average British citizen is, quite obviously, influenced much more by the decisions taken in London than by those taken in Brussels – which is what makes this whole debate so surreal. The decision to slash social provisions to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society (such as disabled people); to cut funding for libraries, healthcare, education and environmental protection, while allowing massive corporations to get away with paying little or no taxes; to part-privatise the NHS, etc. – these were all taken by the British government in full autonomy, and any claims to the contrary are simply untrue. On the issues that matter the most to most people – work, housing, healthcare, etc. – Britain, as a powerful, currency-issuing economy, is as ‘sovereign’ as a country can be.

In this sense, the referendum appears like little more than a massive smokescreen to temporarily divert the people’s grievances away from the real culprits – the ones sitting in Downing Street and Westminster. It follows that the Leave-ers’ assertion that the UK is negatively constrained by the EU – i.e., that the EU is preventing the British government from acting in the British citizens’ best interests – is utterly unfounded. Equally unfounded, though, are the Remain-ers’ claims that the UK is positively constrained by the EU, on issues such as workers’ protection, immigration, civil rights, environmental protection, etc. Not only have EU institutions – most notably the European Commission – overseen in recent years a brutal assault on the social and economic rights of the citizens of Southern Europe; they have also proven utterly powerless to prevent member states (such as Hungary and Romania) from violating the rights of their citizens and/or from disregarding some of the basic tenets of the EU, such as the Schengen Treaty. Hence, the contention by some on the Left that the EU is the only thing preventing the UK from plunging into a Johnsonian fascist dystopia is frankly laughable.

So why, in light of these observations, do I support Brexit, as the title gives away? Because, once the UK drops out of the EU and it becomes apparent that the world is still spinning and the country hasn’t sunk into the ocean, it might help us break free of the TINA (there is no alternative) spell which most of us on the Left have been under for decades. Underpinning the Left’s rejection of Brexit is, in fact, the notion that nation-states have essentially been rendered powerless by globalisation, and thus that it makes no sense to initiate a political fight at the national level. The claim is that the internationalisation of finance and the growing importance of transnational corporations have eroded the ability of individual nation-states to autonomously pursue social and economic policies – especially of the progressive/redistributive kind. Markets – and particularly financial markets – rule supreme, it is said, and these will punish governments that pursue policies not in accord with the profit ambitions of global capital through capital flight, delocalisations, etc. The conclusion is that ‘Keynesianism-in-one-country’ is a thing of the past, and that change, today, can only be realised at the supranational (and ideally global) level. This is particularly evident in the European debate, which is not surprising considering that the European Left – and Labour in particular, I’m sorry to say (James Callaghan, anyone?) – played a crucial role in cementing this ideological shift towards a ‘post-national’ (and post-sovereign) view of the world.

As Labour MP Clive Lewis – a member of the Another Europe is Possible campaign, which sees the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis join the UK shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and others to make ‘a progressive case for the UK to stay in’ – says: ‘Capital long ago fled national borders. In order to build a society which is fair for everyone, we need an international response to austerity and the financial crisis’. The same claim is regularly made by Varoufakis as well. Not only is this line of thinking – which essentially premises change on the achievement of an impossible alignment of Left governments/movements at the international level – arguably the main cause of the Left’s global decline in recent decades. It also theoretically flawed. The notion that the state, today, has essentially been overpowered by the markets implies the existence of a fundamental separation/opposition between states and markets, with the balance of power constantly tilting between one extreme (socialism) and the other (free market capitalism, the system allegedly in place today). As Karl Polanyi pointed out more than seventy years ago, though, the state-market dichotomy is a myth. In his 1944 classic, The Great Transformation, Polanyi dismantled the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that the development of modern market economies was inextricably linked to the development of the modern state, since the state was needed to enforce changes in social structure and human thinking that allowed for a competitive capitalist economy. ‘There was nothing natural about laissez-faire; free market could never have come into being merely by allowing things to take their course’, he wrote. ‘Laissez-faire was planned. It was enforced by the state’.

The same is true today – truer than ever, perhaps. As Bob Jessop writes: ‘Neoliberal forms of economic globalization continue to depend on political institutions and policy initiatives to roll out neoliberalism and to maintain it in the face of market failures, crisis tendencies, and resistance’. In other words, the state, despite the rhetoric of the free-marketeers – and, what’s worse, of most contemporary leftists – remains central to the well-oiled functioning of capitalism. In this sense, Chris Dillow says, neoliberalism is not the triumph of the market over the state; it ‘is simply what we get when the boss class exercises power over the state’. As Bill Mitchell, with whom I am writing a book on the topic, notes: ‘The actual reality [is] that politicians still have legislative capacity to restrict economic activity across borders. The actual challenge is not to cede national sovereignty to some mythical state of international economic integration, but to resist the corruption of the national policy-making process by shifts to technocracies and to ensure that the voting systems are not corrupted by lobbyists working in the interests of specific capital elites’.

Of course, telling people that nation-states are powerless is politically very convenient, since it allows national elites to depoliticise their decisions, thus reducing the political costs of unpopular policies, by ‘scapegoating’ international institutions (such as the European Commission) or simply ‘the markets’. Which brings me back to the question of Brexit: while being part of the EU does not pose any real constraints to the government’s policies, it does provide the government with a convenient scapegoat for its failure to deliver decent jobs and social provisions to its citizens. With the EU out of the way, British politicians would have no such excuse anymore (though, of course, they would still be free to blame ‘the markets’ or ‘globalisation’). More importantly, though, the realisation that Britain has not sunk in the ocean or been crushed by ‘the pressures of globalisation’ as a result of Brexit might, one would hope, embolden Labour and UK progressive movements in general to dream much bigger than they have done in recent decades – and to realise that they don’t need to wait for the rest of the world to overturn austerity to do so themselves. They can do it on their own, on their own terms, simply by reclaiming the state back from the forces of capital that have hijacked it – inside or outside of the EU.

Thomas Fazi

[jetblack]

I voted to come out today (by post - I hope it gets there OK )

It was as a direct response to the people telling me that I shall have nuclear warheads showered on my head should we leave, that all my investments (such that they are) will be wiped out, my father will be proved via paternity test not to be my father at all, my Mrs. will start having it off with random strangers (if, of course she isn't already ), that my penis will shrink by 3 inches etc etc.

But seriously, I reckon most people will vote out on the immigration issue. A large pool of cheap labour does and will lower wages and curtail union power. But, to be fair, TPTB let people into this country way before we joined the common market - just as they will continue to do so should we exit the EU.
No, my reason for voting out (and it was a close run thing - the EU has brought benefits for workers (anyone remember the working week being limited (to 45 hours I believe)) was more to do with a belief that what we require today is a decentralisation of power - not the total opposite. Just as we require a decentralisation of monetary power, currently being centrally controlled by the Bank of England and the commercial banks. Just as we require a decentralisation of military power, and so on.

Just my tuppeneth.

[Postie45]

Anyone who thinks our own government works for us and not for business is delusional. All we ever hear about is growth, we've had 5 years of austerity to protect 'the economy' but what have ordinary people got out of it? Economic growth comes first, even though there's very little trickle-down for most of the population..

Theres a big deficit, theres 2 ways to reduce it - austerity or higher taxes. Would you have really been happy about the 2nd option ?

[jetblack]

Anyone who thinks our own government works for us and not for business is delusional. All we ever hear about is growth, we've had 5 years of austerity to protect 'the economy' but what have ordinary people got out of it? Economic growth comes first, even though there's very little trickle-down for most of the population..

Theres a big deficit, theres 2 ways to reduce it - austerity or higher taxes. Would you have really been happy about the 2nd option ?

Put another way - either the 1% pay for the debt or the rest of us do.

I guess your answer to the question depends on who you believe was at the root of the problem in the first place.

Average UK household debt = £45,000 BTW

[stan_lers]

Anyone who thinks our own government works for us and not for business is delusional. All we ever hear about is growth, we've had 5 years of austerity to protect 'the economy' but what have ordinary people got out of it? Economic growth comes first, even though there's very little trickle-down for most of the population..

Theres a big deficit, theres 2 ways to reduce it - austerity or higher taxes. Would you have really been happy about the 2nd option ?

You don't solve a recession by cutting. The economy grows when money is spent, and the government is the single biggest spender in the economy. Therefore, it's possible to buy your way out through the public sector, even if that means borrowing. Why not solve the housing crisis and the deficit at the same time with mass public house building? Maybe because so many MPs are landlords and have a vested interest in the status quo?

Austerity is ideological - decimate the public sector for private profit, even though the majority of the population suffer because of it. We're a direct result of that, where the service is only going to deteriorate while Osborne's best man has already made a fortune off the sale.

Also, a deficit isn't even a problem. We've had one for hundreds of years - the Tories have spun the lie that Labour created the whole thing and that we have to 'balance the books' or we'll become the next Greece (totally different situation, and impossible in the UK). The reason I didn't vote for Miliband is because he let them get away with blatant lies at his own expense.

[Tman]

Anyone who thinks our own government works for us and not for business is delusional. All we ever hear about is growth, we've had 5 years of austerity to protect 'the economy' but what have ordinary people got out of it? Economic growth comes first, even though there's very little trickle-down for most of the population..

Stan_lers wrote the above, not me.