If the net effect is a disincentive to hiring and an incentive to outsource either at home or abroad, the EU is shooting itself in its economic foot and needs to review its directives in that light.

The myth of the 'disincentive to hire' is nothing more than a baseless assertion used by those who find any form of employment protection an impediment to growth. Such protection is enforced throughout the 27 member states of the Union to ensure the free movement of labour. It is an important part of the 'social chapter' from the Conservative government under John Major negotiated an 'opt out' as the price of ratifying the treaty of Maastricht and which the Labour government 'opted in to' in 1997 which now form virtually the entire basis of our employment law.

The attempt by the current Conservative-led government to 'repatriate' powers is an attempt to have the social chapter now incorporated within the current Treaty dis-applied to the United Kingdom. Fortunately, they will not succeed in doing so. The powers they seek a 'repatriation' of are far too important to entrust to low-grade British politicians. Indeed, the stark hypocrisy of both parties who, last week gave public speeches railing against 'Capitalist Greed' while at the same time, covertly seeking to dismantle the very protections against its worst excesses is a paradigm of the contempt in which the electorate is held.

Thus, I am personally pleased that the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union is prepared to take a robust line against any state who seeks to dilute the protection that many people believe would never be conferred upon them by their own Parliament, let alone defended by it. Our system of Parliamentary democracy is too weak and fragile to act in defence of anything other than the government's own interest which corresponds exactly with that of the business community and financial sector it represents.

Iolis, you argue your case with eloquence and obvious knowledge for which I give you credit for (even while not entirely agreeing), something the anti-Euro brigade seem unable to aspire to.

Could I logically assume you are ideologically aligned to the whole EU citizenship/rights socialist model, rather than the Federalist agenda? In which case, at what point do you see (if you see at all), such ideals clashing with the reality of a market economy that has to be competitive in a global marketplace?

Originally Posted by Iolis

The myth of the 'disincentive to hire' is nothing more than a baseless assertion used by those who find any form of employment protection an impediment to growth. Such protection is enforced throughout the 27 member states of the Union to ensure the free movement of labour. It is an important part of the 'social chapter' from the Conservative government under John Major negotiated an 'opt out' as the price of ratifying the treaty of Maastricht and which the Labour government 'opted in to' in 1997 which now form virtually the entire basis of our employment law.

The attempt by the current Conservative-led government to 'repatriate' powers is an attempt to have the social chapter now incorporated within the current Treaty dis-applied to the United Kingdom. Fortunately, they will not succeed in doing so. The powers they seek a 'repatriation' of are far too important to entrust to low-grade British politicians. Indeed, the stark hypocrisy of both parties who, last week gave public speeches railing against 'Capitalist Greed' while at the same time, covertly seeking to dismantle the very protections against its worst excesses is a paradigm of the contempt in which the electorate is held.

Thus, I am personally pleased that the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union is prepared to take a robust line against any state who seeks to dilute the protection that many people believe would never be conferred upon them by their own Parliament, let alone defended by it. Our system of Parliamentary democracy is too weak and fragile to act in defence of anything other than the government's own interest which corresponds exactly with that of the business community and financial sector it represents.

when labour opted in though they also as part of that repealed the very real statutory instruments which the uk had in place to prevent the escalation of wages and the growth in the gap between top and bottom earners, in truth the eu legislation which john major's government opted out of has done far more to promote capitalist greed than staying as we were, never mind it was the snowball effect from implementing that pile of garbage into the uk system which lead ot Gordon Brown plundering the pensions pots of every single person in the uk under the guise that as it was no longer mandatory it was no longer tax exempt.....


say what you like about the idiotic methods there now trying ot maintain the greedy capatilst money train with whilst simultanously preventing new commers from following suit and stifeling proper market places competition in the recruitment process its a very clear case of to soft and in the wrong direction, as is the same with at least 70% of EU regulation and legislation.

also i note with gay abandon that you mention mere country leaders cannot be trusted, yet unelected morons who dance to whatever tune there current bribe payer plays (i'm refering to the tecnocrats not the meps who arre at least elected for the most part even if there perhaps even more corrupt) yet seem to be of the opinion that the revers is true of such pinicles of depravety, who knowing what they were going to be about there first order of buisness was declaring themselves exempt from prosecution, except where charges were brought through there own internal system

at least mp are impeachable and can be tried for there crimes (even if the last few years make it seem otherwise)

the problem is that the rules were paid for and promoted as good, then passed into fact by a bunch of champagne swilling self indulgent drunkards more intersted in gettign a refill than what they were passing into fact, most of them didnt even know what the contents of the drivel prepared by the faceless minions, happily enough were able thanks to the idiocy of certain a certain PM to see just how bad for the uk in both personel and buisness sences thease directives are.

its the same piece of junk that gave us the minimum wage fiasco, where we went from getting a living wage in many occupations to getting offered lower and lower wages rather than the supposed increase in average lower saleries.

the cost of living rose thanks the the finacial deregulation again provided for under certain EU directives.

tbh i'm hoping that the eu kicks us out or we leave, i would prefer the former since it wont cost us anywhere near as much and by all counts CMD is doing a pretty good job of making the EU need ot get rid of the UK, lets hope they take the correct action, after all whilst it may affect buisness or how buisness operates it will be less harmful than if we decide ot leave as a country.

i dont doubt the directives were meant at least on some level to provide some semblance of a good thing to people in countries with extreamly poor legislation but sadley only one country seems to have benefited from the EU at all the rest of us have faltered and ceeded, strange then that same country whilst adopting the laws found ways ot write them into there constitution that didnt contravene or follow the EU directives....

Originally Posted by nanotm

...by all counts CMD is doing a pretty good job of making the EU need ot get rid of the UK...

Really?

Cam’s Euro U-turn – this is what happens when you fail to negotiate

An interesting question. I do not regard it as a condition sine qua non of competition with the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, that it is necessary to replicate the working conditions that existed in the factories and mills of the 18th and 19th Centuries before the first Factories Acts. Neither do I see any necessary connection between employment protection and socialism. It is really not my intention to submit an answer by way of essay other than to say that public ignorance about the European Union formed largely by the newspaper industry in this country is quite appalling as is the behaviour of successive governments who have abrogated their responsibility for public education, who see ignorance as the principle vehicle of manipulation and social control. It is amenable that a ten-year old German child has a working knowledge of the European Parliament, the Commission, Council and how these institutions interact with each other to produce a body of principles and law, dismissed by so many in this country who do not even know the difference between the Council of Europe and the European Council! It is disgraceful that the only institutions that are actively engaged in securing democratic rights and freedoms for people in this country are those that within our lifetime lived under a totalitarian dictatorship in Europe. To see the behaviour of our elected politicians in the European Parliament, and indeed, in the chamber of the Council of Europe is a national disgrace and an embarrassment. It is remarkable that our European neighbours have tolerated United Kingdom politicians for as long as they have!

Originally Posted by Iolis

An interesting question. I do not regard it as a condition sine qua non of competition with the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, that it is necessary to replicate the working conditions that existed in the factories and mills of the 18th and 19th Centuries before the first Factories Acts. Neither do I see any necessary connection between employment protection and socialism. It is really not my intention to submit an answer by way of essay other than to say that public ignorance about the European Union formed largely by the newspaper industry in this country is quite appalling as is the behaviour of successive governments who have abrogated their responsibility for public education, who see ignorance as the principle vehicle of manipulation and social control. It is amenable that a ten-year old German child has a working knowledge of the European Parliament, the Commission, Council and how these institutions interact with each other to produce a body of principles and law, dismissed by so many in this country who do not even know the difference between the Council of Europe and the European Council! It is disgraceful that the only institutions that are actively engaged in securing democratic rights and freedoms for people in this country are those that within our lifetime lived under a totalitarian dictatorship in Europe. To see the behaviour of our elected politicians in the European Parliament, and indeed, in the chamber of the Council of Europe is a national disgrace and an embarrassment. It is remarkable that our European neighbours have tolerated United Kingdom politicians for as long as they have!

you lost me in the first part of that, i dont do latin i'm afraid being to pig ignorant to learn other languages so it didnt make sence,

asside from the effects that repealing various facets of uk law and implimenting the laws thrust upon us leaving gaping expolitative gaps that will no matter what spin be put on them be expolited at an exponetial rate just as intendted by the mongs that implemented them more keen on maintaing the correct depth in there ever full trough of bribes than caring for the people they crap all over

take the child labour stuff, it became illegal for children ot be employed to just work, there had to be an element of teaching involved and the ages at which a person could attempt to find a sturday job or paper round went up, the knock on effect was small buisnesses started slowley and quietly to go bust, more and more kids sat round wallowing in slef pity and killed themsleves, the average young adult left education with no idea what work was or how to act properly around others of differing age groups, (more suicides ) resulting in disasterous gaps in society.

those lawas wernt required in the uk in the form which they arrived, they were required in 1 country and oddley enough no other country enacted them wholsesale (we can blame the usless pm of the day for it sicne he just signed that accord as well) it matters not waht part of europe the legislation came from it matters that we didnt need it

so many other stupid useless laws have similarly arrived yet the uk as the primary leading light in all things comapsionate and vulnerable freindly somehow ends up wholesale adopting this entirety of the horse crap which we already had coverd.

i'm not especially anti Europe either just any junk that hamstrings a previously viable economy into some twisted greed and debt based version of itslef

Originally Posted by Iolis

Thus, I am personally pleased that the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union is prepared to take a robust line against any state who seeks to dilute the protection that many people believe would never be conferred upon them by their own Parliament, let alone defended by it. Our system of Parliamentary democracy is too weak and fragile to act in defence of anything other than the government's own interest which corresponds exactly with that of the business community and financial sector it represents.

On the other hand, you could reasonably argue that the success of the European Union and its body of law and treaties in mitigating some of the excesses of the free market for individual workers has removed the incentive for those individuals to organise, mobilise and exert greater control over the democratic process in their domestic Parliaments. The repatriation of the powers purported by business to be hampering growth could inadvertently serve as the catalyst for a resurgence of collective action.

That said, the domestic legal framework within which collective action of any kind can be lawfully carried out has been deliberately designed so as to render such action largely ineffectual - hence millions of public sector workers can strike and it can have almost no effect on public policy debates.

The United States, which has sacrificed the most to long term growth prospects, has curiously not actually done that well in historical terms. Also, the nominal increases in GDP which form the basis of public policy debates about 'growth' are a deliberate distortion in that they do not communicate the distribution of the proceeds of growth. Low earners in the United States have seen real terms incomes stagnate for almost 40 years now, in spite of the majority of that period consisting of aggregate increases in national wealth.

The point I am trying to convey is that the erosion of employment protections is not a guarantor of greater growth than would ordinarily have been the case and, even if it were, the distribution of the gains of growth will almost certainly not reach as far down the income scale as those who have had to sacrifice their entitlements in order to achieve it.