Wimmin'

[Yelof]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They do that at competing businesses in China, don't they?

You are saying that what I am proposing makes the instituting country incompetitive against a non-instituting country.

3 points

1) That argument could me made as valid for any legislation that restricts the ability of an employer to exploit an employee..oh no! the 1st world is doomed to economic take over by the 3rd world because they let children work in sweatshops for next to nothing and we don't! or maybe not!

2) Uncompetitiveness can be largely negated when trading blocs introduce uniform social legislation, such as what the EU attempts to do

3) All societies are massivly inefficient anyhow, it is just a matter of how we prioritise our "wasteful" energies. Tax moneys should be put into legislation that provides for a better work-life experience and not into other "wasteful" activities such as defense. As long as the employer is mostly shielded from the cost of a proper maternity scheme I don't see how it effects competitiveness

I am actually quite ignorant of how the actually scheme works here if different countries in Europe and who bares the cost, I am just expounding how I think it should be

[xoxoxoBruce]

We all have ideas how we think it should be. Most of us would like to see people treated fairly and well. BUT, then reality rears its ugly head. Child labor and sweatshops are a reality, and will remain so as long as people buy their products, like those expensive sneakers. By shopping and spending wisely you can do more good than any laws or government programs.

[evansk7]

Originally Posted by Yelof

I am actually quite ignorant of how the actually scheme works here if different countries in Europe and who bares the cost, I am just expounding how I think it should be

The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks. Basically, a bunch of countries with entirely different political, social and economic make-ups get to impose their will on other countries and the poor bastards on the sharp end are supposed to be grateful.

Sometimes we win, sometimes the Germans win, sometimes the French win... rarely does anything else come up smelling of roses. But the pretty much constant theme is that someone gets shafted at the hands of their neighbours.

In the UK, the majority of "statutory leave" is paid for by the employer, and it's really hard to get rid of an employee who's off for a very long time and costing you money.

They've started doing radio adverts in my town (Sheffield) telling people that they can get extra help finding work if they've been unemployed for over 26 weeks. That's half a year. And at the same time, in the same town, we're struggling to fill low-income jobs because people don't want them and are too proud to take a part-time or low income job while waiting for something better.

But then, maybe that's about stigma. When I was looking for work and really struggling, I took a job working a bar, and had no problems with that. The hours sucked, the money sucked, but at least it was a job and I didn't have to feel beholden to the state (not that I was eligible for anything anyway!). And my friends would drop in and it'd be a fun evening. But I probably wouldn't, for example, have taken a job at McDonalds or Burger King... my friends might've seen me there.

Aren't double-standards odd?

[DanaC]

"The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks"
yeah...bloody Brussels insisting our government make proper social provisions for us and protect us from the excesses of the unscrupulous

[evansk7]

Originally Posted by DanaC

yeah...bloody Brussels insisting our government make proper social provisions for us and protect us from the excesses of the unscrupulous

Ah, irony.

My problem with Europe isn't what they do. It's that they've got no right or business doing it. I didn't elect the French government. I didn't elect the German one. I didn't elect the Spanish government, or the Italian, or the Polish, or the Hungarian, or the Irish, Austrian, Belgian, Cypriot, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgian, Maltese, Portuguese, Slovakian, Slovenian, Swedish, or the Netherlands governments.

I get to elect only one government, and that government is sworn to a duty of stewardship for this country. Not a single other government in Europe is sworn to look after the UK, and consequently it's wholly inappropriate that they should have the right to legislate for the UK.

I object, on the most fundamental level, to the surrender of our sovereign right to self-government to a body which is in no way obligated to govern in a fashion consistent with the interests of our country.

You and I have differing opinions on how the country should be run. You support a far more socialist point of view than I, and you espouse your views well. You, presumably, support the social chapter - I see it as super-governmental interference in the private relationship between me and my employer; interference I do not wish for, do not welcome, and do not appreciate. You have a right to your point of view, and I to mine; and as citizens of the UK, we both have a right to vote in elections which determine who should rule the country and therefore what the prevailing wish of the electorate is. The French, Germans (and everyone else in the list above) all have the same rights for their own country; I just don't believe in their right to determine what the UK should and should not do, any more than I believe I have a right to decide how they run their country.

The US sits on a border with Canada, and shares much trade with their northern neighbours. NAFTA grants relatively free passage of trade and goods across the border. Both countries have (depending on the metrics you use!) benefited from the arrangement as we've benefited from the easier flow of goods and services and skills throughout Europe. However, I humbly submit that if you were to propose that Canadian citizens should participate in electing the US president, both the Canadians and the Americans would consider you more than slightly off your rocker.

Europe-the-state is just odd. There's no precedent for it, there's little or no common ground thanks to the relatively capitalist, right-of-centre UK and the relatively socialist left-of-centre mainland Europe, our different working practices and work ethics, our different economies, etc etc.

I have nothing against our European neighbours; I just don't believe that they're the same as us. They're not better or worse; they're just different.

I value that diversity, and think it's actually worth preserving.

[slang]

Originally Posted by evansk7

..I object, on the most fundamental level, to the surrender of our sovereign right to self-government to a body which is in no way obligated to govern in a fashion consistent with the interests of our country.

I haven't had much reason to reply to your posts evansk7........but it seems we have something in common. You feel the same way about Europe as I feel about that worthless band of theives and malcontents...............The UN!

Enter, pro UN cellarites.

[Griff]

Smells a little bit like "these" United States of America circa 1859.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your right Griff, while I was reading that I was thinking states rights.

[Yelof]

Originally Posted by evansk7

The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks. ....
Sometimes we win, sometimes the Germans win, sometimes the French win... rarely does anything else come up smelling of roses. But the pretty much constant theme is that someone gets shafted at the hands of their neighbours.

While I agree with you that the methodology the EU uses to come up with common agreement on these issues suck, becauce it is all bargining and compromises and the final product is nobody's true want or responsibility, I still think these are issues in which the size of the EU common market can work in the favour of the vast majority of Europeans who want a good work-life balance.