The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[retep]

things must be bad, even the mail is admitting things may not be rosy in brexitland

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117679/The-latest-cost-quitting-Brussels-sprouts-crisis.html

 

The sprouts will probably be eaten by the other immigrants( diamondback moths ) before the immigrant sprout pickers get to them.

[chalga]

No. I gave an accurate summary of the European Court of Justice ruling regarding Viking and Laval. If you examine the 'Conclusion' in your link it states:

 

"These two rulings impose substantive new restrictions on the lawfulness of industrial action and require the UK courts to adopt a new approach to the grant of injunctive relief, at least where there is a direct international element. Moreover, they may also apply where there is very little or even no direct international element. There is therefore every reason to conclude that Viking Line and Laval have provided employers with a potent new weapon with which to oppose industrial action."

 

The EU is a neoliberal Bosses front. It is anti-worker, and anti-working class.

 

Nowhere does it say that there were jobs at risk by importing cheap labour,in the Swedish case it says that the Swedes were trying to get a better deal for the posted workers as far as I can see,and the ruling threw it back to national courts and governments to legislate in accordance with the ruling,so there would be no reason for an employee favourable national government not to put a stop to whatever loophole employers found to exploit.

[I1L2T3]

No. I gave an accurate summary of the European Court of Justice ruling regarding Viking and Laval. If you examine the 'Conclusion' in your link it states:

 

"These two rulings impose substantive new restrictions on the lawfulness of industrial action and require the UK courts to adopt a new approach to the grant of injunctive relief, at least where there is a direct international element. Moreover, they may also apply where there is very little or even no direct international element. There is therefore every reason to conclude that Viking Line and Laval have provided employers with a potent new weapon with which to oppose industrial action."

 

The EU is a neoliberal Bosses front. It is anti-worker, and anti-working class.

 

I don’t disagree that the EU is an agent of neoliberalism.

 

I don’t even necessarily disagree that one day we could/should leave.

 

The problem is we are being driven off an economic cliff by right wing hard Brexiters who have captured the process. These are people who would accelerate the neoliberalism you hate so much. We need a soft Brexit with a careful and lengthy transition period, or you are not going to get the Lexit you want and the workers and working class you care about so much are going to be smashed apart by what happens.

 

It could not be more obvious

[Car Boot]

Nowhere does it say that there were jobs at risk by importing cheap labour,

 

According to the link that you posted:

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/...d-right-strike

 

"In both cases, employees sought to strike to protest against plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-paid workers from another."

 

in the Swedish case it says that the Swedes were trying to get a better deal for the posted workers as far as I can see,

 

Latvian company Laval won a contract from the Swedish government to renovate it's schools, so it sent Latvian economic migrants to Sweden to do the work. These workers earned much less than comparable Swedish workers. This is called social dumping, something the EU excels at.

 

The Swedish Building Workers' Union believed that Laval was lowering the pay and conditions for ALL comparable workers in that sector, and asked Laval to sign it's collective agreement ensuring all comparable workers had equal pay.

 

Laval refused, as it believed such an arrangement was against the EU's sacrosanct free movement of services. Downward pressure on wages is an intended, deliberate consequence of the 'free movement' mantra.

 

and the ruling threw it back to national courts and governments to legislate in accordance with the ruling,

 

Yes. The European Court of Justice held that National courts and governments must recognise that the right to take industrial action can only be exercised in a manner that is compatible with EU law. Industrial action in a member state must not restrict the cherished free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services.

 

so there would be no reason for an employee favourable national government not to put a stop to whatever loophole employers found to exploit.

 

National governments cannot infringe upon the 'four freedoms', which are so sacrosanct to the EU that they are indivisible and there can be no 'cherry picking' by member states. The 'four freedom's are a basic condition of EU membership.

 

The EU has never been a workers union. It is a Bosses Union.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Car Boot

[tzijlstra]

National governments cannot infringe upon the 'four freedoms', which are so sacrosanct to the EU that they are indivisible and there can be no 'cherry picking' by member states. The 'four freedom's are a basic condition of EU membership.

 

The EU has never been a workers union. It is a Bosses Union.

 

The freedom of movementfor workers does not equate to a freedom to national welfare provision.

 

This has been discussed a billion times in these threads, but for the sake of completion - you can move to the NL and have a job. If you don't have a job, within three months the government can ask you to jog on. The same goes in many other EU countries, exception? Britain.

 

Because the neoliberal British government wants more labour and people here because without them the economy would be flagging.

[chalga]

According to the link that you posted:

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/...d-right-strike

 

"In both cases, employees sought to strike to protest against plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-paid workers from another."

 

 

 

Latvian company Laval won a contract from the Swedish government to renovate it's schools, so it sent Latvian economic migrants to Sweden to do the work. These workers earned much less than comparable Swedish workers. This is called social dumping, something the EU excels at.

 

The Swedish Building Workers' Union believed that Laval was lowering the pay and conditions for ALL comparable workers in that sector, and asked Laval to sign it's collective agreement ensuring all comparable workers had equal pay.

 

Laval refused, as it believed such an arrangement was against the EU's sacrosanct free movement of services. Downward pressure on wages is an intended, deliberate consequence of the 'free movement' mantra.

 

 

 

Yes. The European Court of Justice held that National courts and governments must recognise that the right to take industrial action can only be exercised in a manner that is compatible with EU law. Industrial action in a member state must not restrict the cherished free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services.

 

 

 

National governments cannot infringe upon the 'four freedoms', which are so sacrosanct to the EU that they are indivisible and there can be no 'cherry picking' by member states. The 'four freedom's are a basic condition of EU membership.

 

The EU has never been a workers union. It is a Bosses Union.

 

 

 

The ECJ held that the consequence of recognising that the right to take industrial action has its origins in community law is that the right can only be exercised in a manner that is compatible with that law. The important consequence of this is that the right is fettered in so far as it restricts freedom of movement and freedom of establishment such that where industrial action restricts freedom of movement or establishment, it will only be lawful if it is both justified and proportionate.

 

Justified and proportionate

 

The ECJ held in both cases that the issue of whether industrial action is justified and proportionate is a matter for national courts. Nonetheless, it provided guidance as to how to address these issues.

 

As to justification, the ECJ held that ''the right to take collective action for the protection of workers was a legitimate interest, which in principle justified a restriction of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty''. As to proportionality (only addressed in Viking Line), it was held that national courts should assess whether the union taking industrial action has ''other means at its disposal which were less restrictive of freedom of establishment'' and has ''exhausted those means''.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

This nobody knows the future line is the greatest cop-out of all time.

 

The economy is and unavoidably will be the deciding factor.

No. Ever heard of post-hoc rationalisation?

[Cyclecar]

Another twopennyworth.........

 

All these discussions, now or later, large or small, are towards a conclusion. And at the outset we have been told: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

 

So far we have been offering more and more money as a "settlement", the EU say "not enough, try harder".

 

Eventually an acceptable figure may be reached. Then we get on to tariffs and access, etc. The EU will make an offer, so we then say: "Not enough, try harder". Should be fun.

 

Most tariff negotiations are about reducing them. This time it will be about increasing them.

 

Why don't we start by saying all tariffs should be zero. We are having no change, whether between Dover and Calais, or Belfast and Dublin. If the EU want to set up a "hard" border on the island of Ireland, that's down to them, we aren't having one. No change.

 

Let's have M. Barnier on a toasting fork for a change. If there's no deal, we pay nothing post March 2019, as nothing will be agreed....

[Lockdoctor]

When we joined, I thought we joined the Common Market, not the now EU or am i wrong? Were the rules the same as joining the now EU?

You are correct it was known as the Common Market when the UK joined in 1973. The correct name at the time was the European Economic Community. The fact the name changed to the EU (European Union) proves the organisation the UK originally joined changed its originally objectives and also changed the rules. The changes all occurred after the 1975 referendum. I have no doubt if the original format had not been changed, then the UK electorate would have not voted to leave in 2016.

[chalga]

Another twopennyworth.........

 

All these discussions, now or later, large or small, are towards a conclusion. And at the outset we have been told: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

 

So far we have been offering more and more money as a "settlement", the EU say "not enough, try harder".

 

Eventually an acceptable figure may be reached. Then we get on to tariffs and access, etc. The EU will make an offer, so we then say: "Not enough, try harder". Should be fun.

 

Most tariff negotiations are about reducing them. This time it will be about increasing them.

 

Why don't we start by saying all tariffs should be zero. We are having no change, whether between Dover and Calais, or Belfast and Dublin. If the EU want to set up a "hard" border on the island of Ireland, that's down to them, we aren't having one. No change.

 

Let's have M. Barnier on a toasting fork for a change. If there's no deal, we pay nothing post March 2019, as nothing will be agreed....

 

It sounds like your offer is going to be what Canada got..............take it or leave it.