Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[rollover]

2 hours ago, kzb said:

• Maternity leave – UK: 52 weeks, EU: 14 weeks

 

Some EU countrys have 3 years maternity leave.

You are intentionally misleading here.

Edited Monday at 15:11 by rollover

[ZeroSumGame]

12 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I think that’s a massive overstretch of A49

The UK can unilaterally revoke A50. It does not need to provide any reason.

That’s what unconditional means.

Correct.  The Advocate General has been over-ruled. I've just read the whole document (and some others).

Even though you're right and I'm wrong : that's much better than I even believed it would be.

Edited Monday at 15:17 by ZeroSumGame

[GrizzlyDave]

23 minutes ago, ZeroSumGame said:

Correct.  The Advocate General has been over-ruled. I've just read the whole document (and some others).

Even though you're right and I'm wrong : that's much better than I even believed it would be.

 Ok - so for the avoidance of doubt - you agree we can unilaterally revoke A50 with no preconditions (eg good faith)?

 

[ZeroSumGame]

4 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

 Ok - so for the avoidance of doubt - you agree we can unilaterally revoke A50 with no preconditions (eg good faith)?

 

Yip. Even during the A50 extension.

[kzb]

39 minutes ago, rollover said:

Some EU countrys have 3 years maternity leave.

You are intentionally misleading here.

It is not saying that many countries also do not exceed the EU minimum.

It is saying it is a mistake to think UK workers' rights are protected by the EU, when the EU floor is below the UK floor.

I think it is people who say this is the case are the ones being intentionally misleading.

[GrizzlyDave]

6 minutes ago, ZeroSumGame said:

Yip. Even during the A50 extension.

OK - good stuff.

 

Hope we don’t - but useful to know we can.

[kzb]

31 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

 Ok - so for the avoidance of doubt - you agree we can unilaterally revoke A50 with no preconditions (eg good faith)?

 

What has changed in the past few weeks ? 

[GrizzlyDave]

23 minutes ago, kzb said:

What has changed in the past few weeks ? 

Is that a specific question?

[kzb]

16 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Is that a specific question?

Yes sorry to be so late into the discussion.

After the ECJ case on revoking article 50, there were side-documents which gave conditions.  In particular the "good faith" clause.

Has anything else come out since then?

[GrizzlyDave]

7 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes sorry to be so late into the discussion.

After the ECJ case on revoking article 50, there were side-documents which gave conditions.  In particular the "good faith" clause.

Has anything else come out since then?

Final ruling is that we can revoke A50 unilaterally and unconditionally.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1297534

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

It is not saying that many countries also do not exceed the EU minimum.

It is saying it is a mistake to think UK workers' rights are protected by the EU, when the EU floor is below the UK floor.

I think it is people who say this is the case are the ones being intentionally misleading.

It's not a mistake, the EU rules make it very hard to reduce workers rights once granted and prevents employers creating new classes of workers to get round employment protections.

It is losing this protection that people are concerned about not what  the Romanian minimum wage or maternity pay is.

 

[rollover]

13 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes sorry to be so late into the discussion.

After the ECJ case on revoking article 50, there were side-documents which gave conditions.  In particular the "good faith" clause.

Has anything else come out since then?

I think this apply for extending A50.

[Confusion of VIs]

Just now, rollover said:

I think this apply for extending A50.

The obligation to act in good faith is a general one, it does not need to be directly stated in each article.

That said it is assumed that a party is acting in good faith unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[GrizzlyDave]

3 minutes ago, rollover said:

I think this apply for extending A50.

Extending a50 requires unanimous agreement by the EU27.

 

many key players in the EU have said that they need a good reason for the extension.

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Final ruling is that we can revoke A50 unilaterally and unconditionally.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1297534

What about the last sentence ?:

The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

Could that be interpreted as a promise not to invoke Article 50 again?

If not, it seems to leave the EU open to Article 50 applications and revocations constantly.

[GrizzlyDave]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The obligation to act in good faith is a general one, it does not need to be directly stated in each article.

That said it is assumed that a party is acting in good faith unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

 

Good faith is a condition.

we can revoke it unconditionally.

[GrizzlyDave]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

What about the last sentence ?:

The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

Could that be interpreted as a promise not to invoke Article 50 again?

If not, it seems to leave the EU open to Article 50 applications and revocations constantly.

Good question.

I don’t know.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The obligation to act in good faith is a general one, it does not need to be directly stated in each article.

That said it is assumed that a party is acting in good faith unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

Would revoking it only to invoke it a little later be taken as evidence of not being in good faith (I'd have thought so)?

[rollover]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

It is not saying that many countries also do not exceed the EU minimum.

It is saying it is a mistake to think UK workers' rights are protected by the EU, when the EU floor is below the UK floor.

I think it is people who say this is the case are the ones being intentionally misleading.

You just implying the UK workers' rights are better than the EU ones what is not a true.

I am not too sure about every EU country, but many EU countries have superior workers' rights compare to UK.

[kzb]

11 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The obligation to act in good faith is a general one, it does not need to be directly stated in each article.

That said it is assumed that a party is acting in good faith unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

 

I think we have comprehensively broken Article 4 (3) already !

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.

 

[kzb]

5 minutes ago, rollover said:

You just implying the UK workers' rights are better than the EU ones what is not a true.

I am not too sure about every EU country, but many EU countries have superior workers' rights compare to UK.

You're missing the point again !  If you are truly interested in discussing this, please go back to my earlier posts today.  Read the whole post, not just the first sentence.

[Dave Beans]

11 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Good faith is a condition.

we can revoke it unconditionally.

I'd imagine that IF it were to be revoked, A50 within the tfeu would be rewritten with all 28 states in mind to determine what would happen for any other future cases..

[kzb]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Would revoking it only to invoke it a little later be taken as evidence of not being in good faith (I'd have thought so)?

GD is saying the good faith requirement, that came with the opinion piece, is no more after this judgement came out.

However, the revocation brings an end to leaving. 

Parliament would have to vote to slap in Article 50 again, which ain't going to happen.

[Chunketh]

5 hours ago, kzb said:

Workers' and women's rights

1. EU workers’ rights laws are lower than UK’s

• UK statutory paid holiday entitlement is 28 days, in EU only 20 days
• National Minimum Wage Act 1998 – there's no EU minimum wage law
• Maternity leave – UK: 52 weeks, EU: 14 weeks
• Under EU laws, the British people's rights would decrease

• Untrue. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073511/Workers-UK-fewest-public-holidays-Europe-generous-statutory-holiday-entitlement.html we have one of the lowest combined holiday entitlements in the world. Almost all EU countries are higher in terms of this.
• There are only 6 member states in the EU without a minimum wage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage only 3 of those sit below us on the human development index, with 3 significantly higher than us.
• The UK provides for 6 weeks at 90% of AWE, then a maximum £145.18, hardly generous. Someone else already rubbished this point earlier.
• Baseless conjecture. We are already covered by EU law, so why is the PM making a big deal about retaining rights if its so great outside? Why do we get asked to opt out of the working time directive?

5 hours ago, kzb said:

2. UK established workers’ rights long before EU

• “Protection against sex, race and disability discrimination in the UK pre-dated EU law” (from TUC report)
• Women’s rights: Equal Pay Act, Abortion Act and Divorce Reform Act were all passed before UK even joined EU
• Sex Discrimination Act, Domestic Violence Act, Employment Protection Act – no EU involvement
• EU’s Posted Workers Directive means EU workers can be employed in UK for fraction of the cost of UK workers

• Not relevant. We are talking about now, not the past.
• Not relevant. We are talking about now, not the past.
• Not relevant. We are talking about now, not the past.
• Untrue. The posted worker has to have the same the exact same rights as a native (holiday, maternity, minimum wage, etc) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posted_Workers_Directive_1996

5 hours ago, kzb said:

3. EU healthcare rights are way below UK standards

• EU has no free healthcare requirement – most people pay for top-up private insurance
• In France it costs over £25 just for 5 minutes with your GP, paid at the time
• In many countries you pay, and get only partially reimbursed later
• With the UK’s NHS, treatment is free at the point of delivery

True, I wonder how long this will last when the salivating yanks get their hands on the NHS as a result of the trade deal we will be begging for. Answer : Not long.

5 hours ago, kzb said:

4. Finally, workers’ rights are only relevant if you have work

• In the Eurozone, austerity has taken the jobs of millions of workers
• You’re nearly twice as likely to be out of work in the Eurozone
• An entire young generation across southern Europe has been devastated by 30-50% unemployment for years

Partially true, although our unemployment figures are fudged with zhc and "forced" labour beyond all recognition. I don't think this is something to celebrate.

[kzb]

11 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

• Untrue. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073511/Workers-UK-fewest-public-holidays-Europe-generous-statutory-holiday-entitlement.html we have one of the lowest combined holiday entitlements in the world. Almost all EU countries are higher in terms of this. (1)
• There are only 6 member states in the EU without a minimum wage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage only 3 of those sit below us on the human development index, with 3 significantly higher than us.
• <EDIT>

It wasn't about this.  We are talking about the EU directed minimum conditions, which are generally poorer than under UK legislation. 

Yes the majority of EU countries also exceed these minimum conditions, but that is not the point.  The point was about people apparently believing the only thing saving them from slavery is the EU.  That cannot be true if the EU minima are worse than UK legislation minima.