Carryfast:
No we knew that the whole net EU budget contribution was never all going to go to the NHS.But a lot more would obviously be available in that regard than letting the zb Socialists give it all away to the zb EU in the cause of East European wealth redistribution.So who’s the real liars in this case.The Leave campaign or the Socialist scum pretending to their naive brainwashed followers that there’d be more for money for the NHS by staying in.When the truth is their agenda is all about adding to their demographic with open door immigration and giving our money away to be spent on East European basket case economies.
Ah dear Carryfast, the logic of “saving money” is that there’d be additional money for the NHS without a single tax rise or spending cut - other than cutting the money to the EU, of course.
Any need for a tax rise or spending cut entails an acceptance that there will be zero net saving! Let alone a saving of £350m a week.
Of course, we knew it was all lies - if the Brexiteers have voted for anything, it is that facts are not going to get in the way of fantasy, just like the donkey led by a carrot on a stick.
Carryfast:
No we knew that the whole net EU budget contribution was never all going to go to the NHS.But a lot more would obviously be available in that regard than letting the zb Socialists give it all away to the zb EU in the cause of East European wealth redistribution.So who’s the real liars in this case.The Leave campaign or the Socialist scum pretending to their naive brainwashed followers that there’d be more for money for the NHS by staying in.When the truth is their agenda is all about adding to their demographic with open door immigration and giving our money away to be spent on East European basket case economies.
Ah dear Carryfast, the logic of “saving money” is that there’d be additional money for the NHS without a single tax rise or spending cut - other than cutting the money to the EU, of course.
Any need for a tax rise or spending cut entails an acceptance that there will be zero net saving! Let alone a saving of £350m a week.
Of course, we knew it was all lies - if the Brexiteers have voted for anything, it is that facts are not going to get in the way of fantasy, just like the donkey led by a carrot on a stick.
It was actually remain campaign bser Osborne who tried to dress up the ‘fact’ of the return of our ‘net contributions’ as requiring cuts and tax rises.Feel free to explain the maths of how the return of a ‘net’ contribution supposedly leaves us worse off.Having said that it was only a while ago that a typically deranged socialist in campaigner tried to make the case on BBC tv that her chosen EU funded gravy train got more back from the EU than we pay in.Now who’s not letting the facts get in the way of Socialist fantasy.Yes we get it the Socialists are ideologically opposed to the nation state and democracy.So for now at least take your undemocratic victory and zb of and hopefully we can finish this argument where it needs to take place within Europe. Now hopefully surely you’re not going to support Tharesa May’s idea of EEA membership in that regard.
Rjan:
Any need for a tax rise or spending cut entails an acceptance that there will be zero net saving! Let alone a saving of £350m a week.
We all knew that the 350m figure was not true mate, didn’t you see the news?
As for tax rises and spending cuts, you’re getting ahead of yourself!
And what if there are, should we stay in the EU and be dependent on them allowing them to slowly strangle us as we are too scared to leave?
Rjan:
Any need for a tax rise or spending cut entails an acceptance that there will be zero net saving! Let alone a saving of £350m a week.
We all knew that the 350m figure was not true mate, didn’t you see the news?
As for tax rises and spending cuts, you’re getting ahead of yourself!
And what if there are, should we stay in the EU and be dependent on them allowing them to slowly strangle us as we are too scared to leave?
There are loads of different figures concerning the net EU contribution.But what is in no doubt is that it’s a ‘net contribution’ and it’s a ‘lot’ of money.Probably easier weighed by the truckload than counted.No surprise the Socialists would rather make it part of their foreign wealth re distribution plan than spend it at home.
Carryfast:
Feel free to explain the maths of how the return of a ‘net’ contribution supposedly leaves us worse off.
Because the relatively small slice of our contribution which represents the “net” contribution, it is accompanied by the loss of facility of being a member of the EU. In this way the figure is not “net” in the overall sense - it just represents a crude subtraction of what the EU spends on us, from what we spend on it, without any attempt to value the facility we receive from what the EU spends on itself!
It’s like asking how much we spend on judges, compared to how much judges spend on us (whether in time or money, which for 99% of people is nothing), which completely overlooks the public value of having rule of law (which is not predominantly a service rendered physically by judges to individuals, but a public benefit from living in an environment that has judges and has laws).
So when I talk of facility, I’m talking about things like harmonisation of laws that allow firms to trade without hiring a lawyer in every locality. Clearly, such a facility is neither a type of “good” nor a type of “service” (and the bureaucracies that support these facilities, and which could be quantified as kind of service, are not traded privately in the market but are a common public service), but it is a boon to economic productivity and cross-border trade - because it reduces the amount of labour power needed to create and trade goods and services.
It can also mean a reduction in competitive risk (and the political risks that arise from the ways that individual national governments might try to address them), because of the existence of strong supra-national agencies that can correct issues of competition that will otherwise go runaway to the common ruin (like banking collapses or tax evasion), and the democratic benefit of having our representatives within such agencies.
Of course, the economics of EU membership is not my pet interest, so I won’t go any further or try to speculate on the extent of these facilities how the value of these facilities compare to our net contribution (although widespread business support for the EU suggests capitalist analysts do think EU membership has an economic benefit - the Brexiteers seem to have almost no economic analysts on their side and have already been caught lying and exaggerating before votes were even cast).
Evil8Beezle:
And what if there are, should we stay in the EU and be dependent on them allowing them to slowly strangle us as we are too scared to leave?
It’s nice to talk in metaphor but what form does this strangulation actually take in the real world?
Are we talking purely about our financial contribution, or is there some other way that the hand is on our windpipe?
Rjan:
the Brexiteers seem to have almost no economic analysts on their side and have already been caught lying and exaggerating before votes were even cast).
I think Rikki is asking for this conversation to be moved to the EU Mega thread!
And on that thread maybe you could explain how long our government was lying about being able to bring down immigration…
It’s all very well accusing the Brexiteers of being liars, but to do that you need to have the moral high ground!
Carryfast:
Feel free to explain the maths of how the return of a ‘net’ contribution supposedly leaves us worse off.
Because the relatively small slice of our contribution which represents the “net” contribution, it is accompanied by the loss of facility of being a member of the EU. In this way the figure is not “net” in the overall sense - it just represents a crude subtraction of what the EU spends on us, from what we spend on it, without any attempt to value the facility we receive from what the EU spends on itself!
It’s like asking how much we spend on judges, compared to how much judges spend on us (whether in time or money, which for 99% of people is nothing), which completely overlooks the public value of having rule of law (which is not predominantly a service rendered physically by judges to individuals, but a public benefit from living in an environment that has judges and has laws).
So when I talk of facility, I’m talking about things like harmonisation of laws that allow firms to trade without hiring a lawyer in every locality. Clearly, such a facility is neither a type of “good” nor a type of “service” (and the bureaucracies that support these facilities, and which could be quantified as kind of service, are not traded privately in the market but are a common public service), but it is a boon to economic productivity and cross-border trade - because it reduces the amount of labour power needed to create and trade goods and services.
It can also mean a reduction in competitive risk (and the political risks that arise from the ways that individual national governments might try to address them), because of the existence of strong supra-national agencies that can correct issues of competition that will otherwise go runaway to the common ruin (like banking collapses or tax evasion), and the democratic benefit of having our representatives within such agencies.
Of course, the economics of EU membership is not my pet interest, so I won’t go any further or try to speculate on the extent of these facilities how the value of these facilities compare to our net contribution (although widespread business support for the EU suggests capitalist analysts do think EU membership has an economic benefit - the Brexiteers seem to have almost no economic analysts on their side and have already been caught lying and exaggerating before votes were even cast).
You’re avin a larf.The only ‘facility’ we’ve got with the EU is people like Juncker telling us how to run the country and a massive trade deficit to show for our net contribution.So in keeping with the topic what we actually need is to forget bs Brexit and create a Confederal Europe.That doesn’t confuse co operation with appeasement and throwing our own national interest away to please a bunch of idealistic dictatorial Socialists and bankers who’ve invested more of our money in foreign economies like Germany and Eastern Europe than they have at home and who therefore have a conflict of interest regarding maintaining the status quo as opposed to the Nationalist protectionist policies we need.
Rjan:
the Brexiteers seem to have almost no economic analysts on their side and have already been caught lying and exaggerating before votes were even cast).
I think Rikki is asking for this conversation to be moved to the EU Mega thread!
And on that thread maybe you could explain how long our government was lying about being able to bring down immigration…
It’s all very well accusing the Brexiteers of being liars, but to do that you need to have the moral high ground!
The only lying going on is that of the so called Leave campaign’s level of commitment in taking on the pro immigration agenda among the remainers.Bearing in mind it was the remainers who actually lost the vote and the Leave vote/mandate was based on a clear manifesto to end ‘free movement’ from the EU.For that EEA member state obviously has to be off the table and article 50 needs to be invoked.Instead of which we’ve got remainers acting like they won the referendum,refusing to recognise the vote,crowning a remain MP as PM and trying to distort the facts as to what the leave manifesto actually said and what the leave vote actually voted for.To the point now where it would be better to concede to the remainers and go for a Confederal Europe instead.From the higher moral ground of having a democratic mandate which has been over turned by the remainers in typical Federalist fashion.
tommy t:
What i would like to see once we are out of the EU is a reversal of most of the Eu directives and other bs that is pointless and unworkable
Working hours and paid holidays? Data protection? Agency workers (before it was watered down by an opt-out)? Birds and fish? Consumer rights (including distance selling rights)?
Many of these things supplement or reflect the protections the British already had, mind, so if they are abolished it will only be trashing the legacy of our own British law - no doubt because right-wingers just want to turn us into a cheap, corrupt China.
tommy t:
What i would like to see once we are out of the EU is a reversal of most of the Eu directives and other bs that is pointless and unworkable
Working hours and paid holidays? Data protection? Agency workers (before it was watered down by an opt-out)? Birds and fish? Consumer rights (including distance selling rights)?
Many of these things supplement or reflect the protections the British already had, mind, so if they are abolished it will only be trashing the legacy of our own British law - no doubt because right-wingers just want to turn us into a cheap, corrupt China.
Let’s just say that unsurprisingly we are closer to the exploitative Socialist zb hole of China now under the rule of Spinelli’s Communist EU vision than we were in 1972.As for remainers moaning about China,you couldn’t make this zb up.You do know that China is on record as supporting the EU and our EU membership and being against Brexit.Supposedly to counterbalance US influence.While strangely enough the US supports the Chinese position.
Which can really only leave one of two answers.Either you’re lying about your bs opposition to the Chinese commy zb’s.
Or you’re misinformed.
Knowing the Socialist mindset my money is on the former.
The struggle against fascism yeah right that was under White Chinese rule of Chiang Kai Shek.As opposed to the deaths of Australian and Brit servicemen regards the Yangtse incident,Korea and Vietnam.
I have noticed some posts stating the CPC should have this or that or other items added to it,why not just scrap the bxxxxy thing,i really do not see what purpose it serves,it was an EU law that we do not need now we have voted out,its a waste of money,having said that if it was scrapped no doubt the government would find another way of making us pay into government coffers
truckman020:
why not just scrap the bxxxxy thing,i really do not see what purpose it serves,it was an EU law that we do not need now we have voted out,
‘Voted out’ isn’t the same thing as the government discharging article 50 and stating that swapping EU for EEA is off the table even if they do go through with the former.
WTD opt out,
60mph when running empty, statutory standards for motorway services, road trains for long haul and service area points built to accommodate and service them, zero tolerance drink drive limit for Hgv’s, graded pay structure based on experience and skill.
So far the WTD has been resisted by firms who just get drivers to use POA and end up working them 50-84 hours still, but now only being given upto 48 hours as overtime, like RM do.
So… Overtime is now restricted, and the only the plum jobs are keeping up pay-wise are those on a 4x12 hour shift basis, with the option of a 5th shift of 12 hours (60 hour week) as overtime when one’s aggregate reference period figure permits it…
Lose the WTD? - We’ll probably see jobs coming back that run us ragged, but they can easily be side-stepped by not applying for any job that doesn’t have “overtime” as part of the contract.
“open ended hours for a salary” just WON’T cut it here.
The agency I used to work for cannot get drivers in to cover the increase in work available now, and in my mind that now allows the dross to get a foot in the door, that then give agency drivers a bad name by smashing up client kit etc.
…This assumes of course that what’s happening around my way is being rolled out and repeated across the UK… Are agency rates rising yet? Significantly?
Are there now more actual full time jobs available? Locally?
I reckon we should see a sharp increase in freight forwarding work over the coming decade…
Winseer:
So far the WTD has been resisted by firms who just get drivers to use POA and end up working them 50-84 hours still […]
The real solution is for pay rates to increase (to preserve overall take-home pay), and for waiting times to be decreased.
People often seem to talk as though higher rates of pay with reduced hours, or doing jobs differently, is totally inconceivable, like saying we should break the laws of physics.
I would like to see a complete overhaul of the drivers hours regulations. There are 2 major things that need to be changed.
1 - The amount of hours we can do should be drastically reduced. I’m fed up of hearing how many hours, junior doctors, or teachers or nurses or whoever have to do when we’re doing the same, often more and no one gives a ■■■■ coz we don’t provide them with any political mileage.
2 - The regulations should be simplified. No split this, reduced that, compensation for the other. I’d like to see something like this …
Max duty per shift - 13 hours
Max driving time per shift - 10 hours
Minimum 30 minute break to be taken every 5 hours
Minimum daily rest - 11 hours
Max duty per week - 52 hours
60mph speed limit. No infringements for eco rolling down the road at 61
Why increase the risk of getting killed? If we all got paid by the hour - it might get rid of this “job and knock” culture - that I’m sure leads to a LOT of serious accidents each year.
