Back to the Good 'Ole Days

[cookiemonster]

As a person with a single vote, I only have the tiniest and broad brush influence.

Thus I vote Conservative (in a safe Labour seat) and expect the Conservatives, if elected, to get on with their polices, of which Brexit was a key one.

I could try to enhance my tiny influence a tiny bit by becoming politically active, but I choose not to.



No attempt to establish a dichotomy, false or otherwise.

Workers, as I said, benefit from prosperous companies.

More prosperous companies means more benefits for workers.

There's nothing to suggest any changes will reduce protections for workers, not least because no one - including those making the changes - has yet any clear idea of what they will be.

Erm.. you mean more prosperous companies that pay their workers the minimum will mean more benefits for shareholders. Why do you think 40% of UC claimants are employed but the wages are so crap that the Gov has to step in.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yeah, seriously, Pale Rider, you post something ("There's nothing to suggest any changes will reduce protections for workers...") which pretty well everyone knows is rubbish - The Snail promptly posted clear evidence disproving it. How far those reduced protections will end up going is an issue for debate - it's a legitimate viewpoint to say that many of the protections which Rees Mogg et al would like to do away with are in fact so embedded and so welcomed that they may discover it's too electorally unpopular to go as far as they would want. But to say there is "nothing to suggest" that the reassessment of regulation following Brexit will reduce protection for workers? That's so brazen that I thought my no-doubt-not-very-good attempt at humour was quite a restrained response.

So you regard an article from a back bencher six years ago as 'clear evidence' of government policy in 2021?

That's a dumb assertion designed only to justify a fixed view.

 

[swansonj]

Before we completely disappear down a rabbit hole....

You said there was "nothing" to support the claim that changes will reduce protection for workers.

Rees Mogg's article is, on its own, sufficient to disprove your statement that "nothing" suggests this. But Rees Mogg's article is not the only piece of evidence. There has been abundant discussion from multiple players, first in the Brexit camp, and latterly in this government, that reducing protection for workers is very much part of the broad agenda, and that the need to decide which former EU regulations to keep is an opportunity to further that agenda.

Honestly, I don't see why we're arguing about this specific point. The desirability of rolling back protections for workers is a legitimate debate - as you point out, those protections have economic consequences, and the actual practical value of some of the regulations is certainly debateable - but that fact that this is on the agenda of this government seems to me so clear as to be beyond debate.

 

[Pale Rider]

Before we completely disappear down a rabbit hole....

You said there was "nothing" to support the claim that changes will reduce protection for workers.

Rees Mogg's article is, on its own, sufficient to disprove your statement that "nothing" suggests this. But Rees Mogg's article is not the only piece of evidence. There has been abundant discussion from multiple players, first in the Brexit camp, and latterly in this government, that reducing protection for workers is very much part of the broad agenda, and that the need to decide which former EU regulations to keep is an opportunity to further that agenda.

Honestly, I don't see why we're arguing about this specific point. The desirability of rolling back protections for workers is a legitimate debate - as you point out, those protections have economic consequences, and the actual practical value of some of the regulations is certainly debateable - but that fact that this is on the agenda of this government seems to me so clear as to be beyond debate.

All based on a six-year-old article saying what you want to hear.

It's just more Brexit catastrophizing.

 

[mudsticks]

Before we completely disappear down a rabbit hole....

You said there was "nothing" to support the claim that changes will reduce protection for workers.

Rees Mogg's article is, on its own, sufficient to disprove your statement that "nothing" suggests this. But Rees Mogg's article is not the only piece of evidence. There has been abundant discussion from multiple players, first in the Brexit camp, and latterly in this government, that reducing protection for workers is very much part of the broad agenda, and that the need to decide which former EU regulations to keep is an opportunity to further that agenda.

Honestly, I don't see why we're arguing about this specific point. The desirability of rolling back protections for workers is a legitimate debate - as you point out, those protections have economic consequences, and the actual practical value of some of the regulations is certainly debateable - but that fact that this is on the agenda of this government seems to me so clear as to be beyond debate.

How's about this from that well known lefty bastion the FT.??

https://www.ft.com/content/55588f86-a4f8-4cf3-aecb-38723b787569

 

[Bromptonaut]

All based on a six-year-old article saying what you want to hear.

It's just more Brexit catastrophizing.

OK, so it's 6 years ago.

Do you believe JRM has had a Damascene conversion since then?

HAve the authors of Britannia Unchained changed their spots?

The Beecroft report in 2011, which wanted wholesale cuts in worker's rights, conflicted with the Realpolitik of the coalition but I doubt the views of investment fund directors have changed.

 

[Pale Rider]

Do you believe JRM has had a Damascene conversion since then?

Unlikely, but I also believe Rees Mogg has a lot less influence the Conservative party than some outside it think he has.

He comes up with occasional nutty statement, so is a useful bete noire for lefties to latch onto.

A bit like the Abbott on the other side.

Both entertaining, but of little practical value.

 

[AndyRM]

Having read the article my biggest concern is that we're going to "lead the way" within the AI ecosystem.

So we'll end up with a bunch of rubbish Terminators strolling around the place who rust easily and can't climb stairs.

Eventually they will turn on us but we'll be able to defeat them using an army of children pelting them with conkers.

 

[BoldonLad]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/rules-gm-farming-cars-top-uk-bonfire-eu-laws-brexit

Back to pounds and ounces, Why not sell items in pounds, ounces and the metric system? Use both. It's simple arithmetic or is thi It would be nice if they could solve the supply chain issues to supermarkets so that things can be sold in pounds/ounces.

Crown stamp on pint glasses? Who actually stays awake at night worrying about that?

Goodbye clean air/water/food/HS at work?

How long before decimalisation is reversed? This is the work of a bunch of old white guys who wish it was 1950. Why do they want to take the UK back in time when everywhere else is advancing?

As an "old white guy" (assuming 74 qualifies as "old"), I find this offensive, I have most definitely ditched my rose coloured spectacles.

 

[BoldonLad]

Having read the article my biggest concern is that we're going to "lead the way" within the AI ecosystem.

So we'll end up with a bunch of rubbish Terminators strolling around the place who rust easily and can't climb stairs.

Eventually they will turn on us but we'll be able to defeat them using an army of children pelting them with conkers.

A sort of "Return of British Leyland" then?

 

[BoldonLad]

The story in the OP refers to a review of 'thousands' of laws and regulations inherited from the EU - as promised in the Brexit manifesto.

It has bugger all to do with how Mr Chan buys his rice in his local market.

Laws and regulations made by us to suit us makes more sense than the one size fits all approach by the EU.

No doubt a lot of it will remain or our versions will be similar, but as Frostie says:

"We now have the opportunity to do things differently and ensure that Brexit freedoms are used to help businesses and citizens get on and succeed. Today’s announcement is just the beginning. The government will go further and faster to create a competitive, high-standards regulatory environment which supports innovation and growth across the UK as we build back better from the pandemic."

Makes sense to me, and I suspect lots of other British citizens.

I am afraid I find the bits in bold rather contradictory (and not just this Government, on past performance).

 

[BoldonLad]

The UK signed up to the use of metric weights and measures long before the EU was even thought of.

There’s really no need to revert to pounds, ounces, pints, quarts, bushels, pecks and hundredweights. It won’t actually improve anything for anyone but will provide the theatre of this government appearing to ’take back control’ and appeal to older folk who mourn the fading memories of their youth.

All rather pointless really.

Objection! That should read "and appeal to SOME older folk who mourn the fading of memories of their youth, and are still wearing their rose tinted spectacles"

 

[BoldonLad]

We will have to keep a huge number of them to trade with the EU, so in this era of massive international trade we will need to adhere to multiple rules and regulations because we design to have our own. We cannot afford to be isolationist.

Exactly

 

[BoldonLad]

There are thousands of rules to be remade, a work which will take an army of civil servants and lawyers.

It's impossible all that work could be done with the aim of 'entrenching existing positions of privilege'.

I also wonder who are these people of privilege to whom you refer.

A key focus appears to be improving matters for British business, so our businessmen, big and small, will likely do well out of the process.

But a thriving business is equally good for the little people on the shop floor, unless you want to bankrupt the millionaire or billionaire owner at the inevitable cost of throwing many out of work.

Seems to me, it may be good news for civil servants and lawyers, but, for the rest of us, who will have to pay for it (one way or another), perhaps, not such a good deal.

 

[fozy tornip]

All based on a six-year-old article saying what you want to hear.

It's just more Brexit catastrophizing.

Isn't all the Brexiter rhetoric - the lies and the menace - a similar age now?