UK to leave EU

[Napoléon]

The UK had a 'sweetheart spot'. Fucking lol, even remainers must scoff at this.

Bollocks. You're creating your own fantasy reality here.

Nerr nerr you're wrong I'm right.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The Tories were demanding far too much. And it was good that the EU told them to fuck off. I don't want the Tories trying to wriggle out of denying me my rights as a worker to have a modicum of job stability and work life balance. Do you actually know what the Tories were trying to get rid of? Do you even care? Or is it just generic red tape to you because that's what you have been told?

Oh come on then name them. This should be interesting. Human rights act? We need that do we?

Working Time Directive which I have since posted about.

You tell me why we don't benefit from the Human Rights Act. First hit on google is

The Human Rights Act is a UK law passed in 1998. It means that you can defend your rights in the UK courts and that public organisations (including the Government, the Police and local councils) must treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.

What's wrong with that?

Do you think that red tape is like a natural waste product that just builds up over time through no reason? Regulations are put in place to protect us from the corporations who would sell out all our quality of lives to maximise their own profit margins.

Please don't lecture me on the EU being the harbinger of not selling out to corporations when the current EU commissioner was president of one of the biggest tax havens in the world and did nothing at all to change it.

You're avoiding the point that I am making. Red tape is there to protect us and the environment. Each regulation came about for a reason. If the EU commissioner as president sold out to corporations then this is entirely irrelevant.

[Napoléon]

Not that the article you posted explains what the working time directive is:

Because that's not the point of the article? If it explained every last detail it would be an essay not an article, I mean heaven forbid if someone didn't know what it was, it's almost as if they could use this fantastic tool called a search engine.

In general the Working Time Regulations provide rights to: a limit of an average 48 hours a week on the hours a worker can be required to work, though individuals may choose to work longer by "opting out" paid annual leave of 5.6 weeks' a year. 11 consecutive hours' rest in any 24-hour period.

Basically David Cameron was demanding that bosses could force employees to work longer than 48 hours without giving them an option to opt out. In a land of zero hours contracts, and the Beecroft reports, just be glad that the EU turned him down.

Shows how biased the Telegraph is that they didn't mention you.

The biased telegraph that is basically saying he failed on the majority of what he demanded anyway. Lol. Yeah, biased tory newspaper alright lmao.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not that the article you posted explains what the working time directive is:

Because that's not the point of the article? If it explained every last detail it would be an essay not an article, I mean heaven forbid if someone didn't know what it was, it's almost as if they could use this fantastic tool called a search engine.

Quite important though to mention quite what Cameron was demanding (to work everyone to the bone) and what the EU refused to give him. It would have changed the readers opinions entirely. You and the Telegraph are being economical with the truth.

[Napoléon]

Working Time Directive which I have since posted about.

You tell me why we don't benefit from the Human Rights Act. First hit on google is

The Human Rights Act is a UK law passed in 1998. It means that you can defend your rights in the UK courts and that public organisations (including the Government, the Police and local councils) must treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.

What's wrong with that?

Never said we don't benefit from it, but the EU doesn't have the monopoly on what it actually is. Which was the point.

You're avoiding the point that I am making. Red tape is there to protect us and the environment. Each regulation came about for a reason. If the EU commissioner as president sold out to corporations then this is entirely irrelevant.

Are you seriously saying there is not an issue with over-regulation? Do you know what red tape actually means? Excessive bureaucracy.

[Napoléon]

Well that's a good thing, because if the EU distributed seats according to who gave the most money, I'd be right there with you saying it was an undemocratic organization.

In reality, seats are distributed according to population. The U.K. has the third most seats, because it is the third most populous country.

I still don't get how that's undemocratic. You vote for your representative the same way anyone else does. Just because your views aren't represented by the majority doesn't mean the process is undemocratic; rather it means your views are likely in the minority.

Did we as British citizens get a chance to vote for Juncker?

Tell you what was democratic. The referendum. And the first thing the supposed liberal democracy loving lefties did was protest it because people are too stupid to know what they're voting for and because they didn't get what they wanted.

inb4 "hurrr democracy means we can protest", doesn't mean what you're protesting for isn't the reversal of democracy.

[Napoléon]

"The biggest founders" and the first to pussy out.

Yeah because the terms have stayed the same since the EU was founded right? /sarcasm

[I_am_not_mafia]

You're avoiding the point that I am making. Red tape is there to protect us and the environment. Each regulation came about for a reason. If the EU commissioner as president sold out to corporations then this is entirely irrelevant.

Are you seriously saying there is not an issue with over-regulation? Do you know what red tape actually means? Excessive bureaucracy.

Excessive bureaucracy from whose point of view? The consumer and worker or the corporations trying to maximise their profit margins. My point is that each regulation came in for a specific reason. Those reasons still apply. Like for example regulating against a particular ingredient in food that's found to be carcinogenic or material that is toxic when disposed of.

Give me an example of excessive bureaucracy which is entirely redundant.

[Napoléon]

Excessive bureaucracy from whose point of view? The consumer and worker or the corporations trying to maximise their profit margins.

The thousands of small businesses. The fishing industry. Farmers.

My point is that each regulation came in for a specific reason. Those reasons still apply. Like for example regulating against a particular ingredient in food that's found to be carcinogenic or material that is toxic when disposed of.

I do not dispute many regulations have noble intentions, but many of them are detrimental instead of beneficial. That's my point.

Give me an example of excessive bureaucracy which is entirely redundant.

Three crop rule
http://www.nfuonline.com/archived-conten...r-madness/

[The Grand Nudger]

That's actually a pretty damned good rule Nap. OFC a monocropper won't like it (not exactly talking small farmers here), but monocropping isn't a very good idea. That's a rule they had to follow...to get some government cheese, right? I'm not sure I understand the problem. Don't want to follow the rule, don't get subsidies. Follow the rule, get subsidies.

-edit: No..no, wait, I just looked it up, they don't even lose their subsidies...just a portion of them......