How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 4)

[SpeckledJim]

Integroo said:

SpeckledJim said:

I'd like it to be a bit easier. I'm not talking extremes, just shades.

If we saw more fluid movement between in work, out of work, and back into work, we'd find more people finding the job that's right for them, and more businesses finding staff that fit in their workplaces.

So many people don't like their jobs but are petrified of doing anything about it, who work (or don't) for a boss who doesn't rate them, but who can't find the energy to start the laborious and unpleasant process of moving them on.

If it was an easier process it would work well for businesses, for good staff, for good unemployed people, and in lots of cases even for the 'bad' staff, who ultimately end-up somewhere that suits them better.

I'm not calling for US-style 'hire at will' policies - I think they go too far.

I don't disagree that there are problems with employers being too scared of tribunals etc. to get rid of genuinely poor employees - but equally, employers tend to be the ones in positions of strength and it is the employee who may be unable to pay their bills if they suddenly lose their job, so they should be protected. In any event, the current rules only really kick in after two years so if you can't tell someone is a crap employee by then ...

For the 'bad' staff, would they really end up somewhere that suits them better, or would they go to an interview be told 'you got let go at your last job you can't be great' and then they can't find work?

Some would, yes. But if someone HAS to be without a job, we'd all rather it was a useless or unpleasant person who wasted their opportunity than a keen and energetic person who just needs that opportunity.

On the other hand, no. Lots of people are doing a poor job in a job they dislike, simply because they're in the wrong spot. They haven't the gumption to sort it themselves, and in many cases that gumption won't come from a fearful or busy manager either. In a different role, in a different place, they'd be just fine.

It just needs more impetus, or the removal of a few hurdles. A social security system that perhaps provides a few months at the previous salary, to facilitate moving jobs, might also be helpful. There you go - that's a suggestion of MORE workers rights!

In short, what I'm saying is that if you shake the box a bit, you can fit more in.

[don'tbesilly]

I understand Corbyn and Abbott are off to Brussels to pow-wow with Barnier, after the conference in Liverpool.

No doubt the meeting will further the ongoing machinations and machiavellian methods employed to date to stop Brexit.

[confused_buyer]

don'tbesilly said:

I understand Corbyn and Abbott are off to Brussels to pow-wow with Barnier, after the conference in Liverpool.

No doubt the meeting will further the ongoing machinations and machiavellian methods employed to date to stop Brexit.

Corbyn AND Abbott. Poor old Barnier.

[TTwiggy]

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

[JagLover]

Sway said:

Roboraver said:

Interesting breaking story from Reuters also :

EU negotiators are ready to offer Theresa May a free-trade area after Brexit but say that, contrary to her “Chequers” plan, there must be a customs border that will make trade less than “frictionless”, according to an internal EU document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

The document — three pages of “defensive points” for EU officials to make against the UK prime minister’s July proposal on future ties with the bloc — may offer May some comfort in showing a readiness to seal a free trade agreement (FTA) like those giving access to Japan or Canada’s goods and services.

But as she prepares for her Conservative Party conference this weekend, it also rams home, in some detail, the rejection of the Chequers proposal for a special customs deal that would avoid border checks on goods and keep supply chains fluid.

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-chequ...

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

It appears to be nothing new

The EU has been willing all along to offer a FTA.... as long as they can slice off NI. That second part hasn't been acceptable to the UK government.

[WCZ]

we pay our workers for any unused holidays, it's normally only 1-2 days max per employee though, most have used them up by August though

[PurpleMoonlight]

Does Labour not understand that both the leave and remain campaign made it perfectly clear that leave vote would mean leaving the SM/CU?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

[WCZ]

Dr Jekyll said:

Bizarre response from Jeremy Corbyn to a BBC interviewer.

BBC: If the vote was Leave or Remain which way would you vote?
Corbyn: We don't know what the question would be.
BBC: But hypothetically if the question was Leave or Remain?
Corbyn: I can't answer that because we don't know what the question would be.

He really is a complete fool.

presumably he's implying that he wouldn't vote to leave unless he knew what the terms would be, which is reasonable ?
also implies he wouldn't want to remain though or he'd just say that

[don'tbesilly]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Does Labour not understand that both the leave and remain campaign made it perfectly clear that leave vote would mean leaving the SM/CU?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

I detect a sniff of sarcasm and doubt within your post, however If I'm not mistaken the Labour manifesto written for the GE of 2017 stated similar.

Perhaps Labour should be reminded of that, just in case people need reminding yet again that both Leave/Remain campaigns prior to the referendum were unequivocal in stating that the UK would leave the SM/CU.

[Hayek]

don'tbesilly said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Does Labour not understand that both the leave and remain campaign made it perfectly clear that leave vote would mean leaving the SM/CU?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

I detect a sniff of sarcasm and doubt within your post, however If I'm not mistaken the Labour manifesto written for the GE of 2017 stated similar.

Perhaps Labour should be reminded of that, just in case people need reminding yet again that both Leave/Remain campaigns prior to the referendum were unequivocal in stating that the UK would leave the SM/CU.

Before the referendum fools on the remain side seemed to treat it as some kind of threat.

[Digga]

TTwiggy said:

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/16/work...

[Jockman]

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/16/work...

Might be a bit of misunderstanding, Digga. You are both correct but for different reasons.

[confused_buyer]

Labour's policy, in so far as they have any policy on anything, is to leave the Single Market.

However, they demand the exact same benefits of the Single Market. So, they want all the benefits but don't want FoM which will upset voters in their heartlands.

In other words, they want the cherry picking / have your cake option the EU won't give May.

The only reason they seem to indicate the EU will give Labour everything they want and won't give May is that they are "nicer". Presumably they'l take some chocolate hob-knobs on the Eurostar wiht them or something and all will be well.

i.e. their entire policy is complete and utter fantasy tosh.

[B'stard Child]

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/16/work...

It’s the Guardian - nothing written in that rag can be trusted See also Daily Mail


Just wanted to make sure it got at least one reply rather than just be completely ignored

[slow_poke]

JagLover said:

Sway said:

Roboraver said:

Interesting breaking story from Reuters also :

EU negotiators are ready to offer Theresa May a free-trade area after Brexit but say that, contrary to her “Chequers” plan, there must be a customs border that will make trade less than “frictionless”, according to an internal EU document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

The document — three pages of “defensive points” for EU officials to make against the UK prime minister’s July proposal on future ties with the bloc — may offer May some comfort in showing a readiness to seal a free trade agreement (FTA) like those giving access to Japan or Canada’s goods and services.

But as she prepares for her Conservative Party conference this weekend, it also rams home, in some detail, the rejection of the Chequers proposal for a special customs deal that would avoid border checks on goods and keep supply chains fluid.

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-chequ...

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

It appears to be nothing new

The EU has been willing all along to offer a FTA.... as long as they can slice off NI. That second part hasn't been acceptable to the UK government.

It was acceptable to the UK Govt right up to the point they went into thrall to the DUP!

[Sway]

JagLover said:

Sway said:

Roboraver said:

Interesting breaking story from Reuters also :

EU negotiators are ready to offer Theresa May a free-trade area after Brexit but say that, contrary to her “Chequers” plan, there must be a customs border that will make trade less than “frictionless”, according to an internal EU document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

The document — three pages of “defensive points” for EU officials to make against the UK prime minister’s July proposal on future ties with the bloc — may offer May some comfort in showing a readiness to seal a free trade agreement (FTA) like those giving access to Japan or Canada’s goods and services.

But as she prepares for her Conservative Party conference this weekend, it also rams home, in some detail, the rejection of the Chequers proposal for a special customs deal that would avoid border checks on goods and keep supply chains fluid.

Brussels argues it would give Britain an unfair advantage in the single market, applying some EU rules but not others.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-chequ...

Excellent.

Davis/ERG/etc. proposal it is then.

It appears to be nothing new

The EU has been willing all along to offer a FTA.... as long as they can slice off NI. That second part hasn't been acceptable to the UK government.

Rather, there's a solution that meets the GFA. The EU believe the only option is to slice off NI.

Unfortunately, in trying to promote that option, they've pointed out that modern customs processing means exceptionally limited 'friction'. Difficult for them to then say that this approach is appropriate for the Irish channel, but wouldn't work on the existing border...

[Digga]

Jockman said:

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/16/work...

Might be a bit of misunderstanding, Digga. You are both correct but for different reasons.

It depends how the people who insure/indemnify your HR risk interpret the rules. There is still an argument to treat this particular area in a belt and braces manner, which did not exist, prior to EU rules.

[Jockman]

Digga said:

Jockman said:

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Mrr T said:

Err you do understand these are rules imposed by your company not the EU or the UK government.

99% of Brexit in a nutshell.

Oh really?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/16/work...

Might be a bit of misunderstanding, Digga. You are both correct but for different reasons.

It depends how the people who insure/indemnify your HR risk interpret the rules. There is still an argument to treat this particular area in a belt and braces manner, which did not exist, prior to EU rules.

The trouble is that, as you say, there is no mechanism for mopping up unused holiday via a payment route - we used to do this too.

The theory is that workers should be permitted sufficient time to rest which could in turn lead to increased productivity. That's the theory.

If there were to be a mop up option inserted into this regulation then, as is human nature, many workers would opt to take the money instead. It's just human nature.

MrrT has highlighted the word 'forced' and this is the point upon which he is disagreeing with you. Edit to add you yourself have highlighted the word.

Edited by Jockman on Wednesday 26th September 14:14

[confused_buyer]

Sway said:

Rather, there's a solution that meets the GFA. The EU believe the only option is to slice off NI.

.

Virtually every proposed solution meets the GFA. The GFA actually says very little about the mechanics of the border at all.

[Tycho]

confused_buyer said:

The only reason they seem to indicate the EU will give Labour everything they want and won't give May is that they are "nicer". Presumably they'l take some chocolate hob-knobs on the Eurostar wiht them or something and all will be well.

i.e. their entire policy is complete and utter fantasy tosh.

I heard that uncle Jeremy is taking over some homemade jam for them to have and also if we get a free trade agreement then he will send over packages of pickled onions and Piccalilli.