Can you negotiate with people who are certifiable? Ask the EU
The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, the one member of the cabinet whose job description is to know nothing whatsoever about Brexit. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. And who better to deputise for the prime minister during the latest debate on why the government still doesn’t have a clue about what it’s doing about Brexit than the Brexit secretary himself? Stephen Barclay’s the one member of the cabinet whose job description is to know nothing whatsoever about Brexit. A man put on the payroll for the sole purpose of being kept out of the loop. In a parallel, fairer, world, Barclay would be an anonymous financial adviser, whose only success was to have been runner-up in a lifetime achievement award hosted by the north-east Cambridgeshire regional chamber of commerce for being the only person dim enough to have mis-sold himself his own pension. Instead he finds himself charged with misleading the country over the government’s Brexit policy. A job he does with ease, as he doesn’t even know what it is he doesn’t know.
Barclay opened the debate by mumbling that it was still government policy not to have a policy. And he was happy to confirm that, as the prime minister had been taken hostage by the European Research Group, the natural consequence of accepting the impossible demands of the Brady amendment calling for the renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement, was that the UK would almost certainly be leaving the EU on 29 March with no deal. Several Tory Brexiters could scarcely believe their luck. They had been expecting far more of a fight than this and hurriedly sought reassurances that their preferred “no deal” was still on the table. Owen Paterson wanted confirmation that the Malthouse compromise really was as pointless as his appointment to the Alternative Arrangements Working Group had indicated. Barclay was delighted to confirm this. He had spoken at length to Jean-Michel Jarre and they had agreed that squads of highly trained, armed, badgers were the key to solving the Northern Ireland backstop. Yvette Cooper asked whether Barclay was still 100% committed to a no deal even if it meant people losing their jobs or dying. “Absolutely,” the Brexit secretary beamed. No greater love and all that. Besides, it would only be the weak and the unpatriotic who would be out of work or croak. Those who were prepared to hold their nerve would be absolutely fine. This didn’t go down well with the Tories’ Caroline Spelman, who was disappointed to discover that her own amendment that had been passed – expressing parliament’s aversion to a no deal – was not being taken as seriously by the government as the Brady amendment. Barclay had an answer ready. The only way the government could send a clear message to the EU showing we were a nation that could be trusted in negotiations was to act in a thoroughly untrustworthy way by cherry picking the best amendments. Keir Starmer becomes more impressive with each outing at the despatch box. Mainly because he now merely has to reiterate what everyone, except Barclay, knows – namely that the prime minister was merely running down the clock and, if push came to shove, was quite happy to leave the EU with no deal if that was the price of keeping the Tory party more or less together. But he is also helped by getting to fend off witless interventions from some Conservatives. James Cleverly tried to claim that May running down the clock was conclusive proof she couldn’t be running down the clock, while Alex Chalk didn’t even seem to realise he had voted against the government’s withdrawal agreement by backing the Brady amendment. This is politics 101. And these are supposed to be two of the Tory party’s rising stars. The one flaw in the shadow Brexit secretary’s performance was that Labour had yet to come up with an alternative plan of their own. Every time Starmer produces something vaguely sensible, Jeremy Corbyn puts a red line through it. At this rate, Labour and the Tories are in a race to see which party will split first. Thereafter the debate followed a predictable course. It was the same as every other Brexit debate, only a bit more rubbish. The more serious the situation becomes the more it resembles a third-rate farce. The only thing that comes close to uniting the Brexiters and remainers is a mutual distrust of anything said by the government front bench. The idea that a minister might actually be able to distinguish between truth and lies – or even achieve something – has become unimaginable. It ended in chaos. First Anna Soubry pulled her amendment as the government had indicated it would provide an impact analysis of a no-deal Brexit. Then both the leaver and remainer Tories abstained so that the government was defeated on the main motion it had won two weeks previously. You couldn’t make it up. May could not even win a meaningless vote. Which, ironically, in itself had meaning. Humiliation. For her and the country. The EU must be **** themselves. How can you negotiate with people who are certifiable? Corbyn immediately demanded that May got to the despatch box to give a statement declaring she accepted that her strategy had failed and that she would come back with a plan that could win a majority in parliament. Which would have been a start. Only there was no sign of the prime minister. And none of her ministers was prepared to take the hit for her. Only the sound of a clock ticking to break the silence. May was holed up in Downing Street. Her software stripped bare. Searching for a programme. Any programme. Control. Alt. Delete.
Rachel Johnson strips off on Sky News: Brexit remain campaigner 'inspired by' Dr Victoria Bateman 'to get her voice heard'
Brexit took an inexplicable turn on Thursday when Remain campaigner Rachel Johnson stripped off on Sky News. Ms Johnson, appearing on The Pledge debate show, said she was inspired by 'The Naked Brexit Protester' Dr Victoria Bateman as she removed her blouse. Since Friday last week, Dr Bateman, an anti-Brexit Cambridge University professor, has been appearing naked on TV and radio shows to make the point that “Brexit leaves Britain naked”. She has also challenged leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg to a naked debate.
She was educated at Winsford First School on Exmoor, Primrose Hill Primary in Camden, north London, the European School of Brussels, the independent Ashdown House School in East Sussex, Bryanston School in Dorset and St Paul's Girls' School.[6] In 1984 she went to New College, Oxford to read Classics (Literae Humaniores);[7] there she edited the student paper Isis[8] and graduated with a 2:1.[9]
Still Stupid.
I wonder what your academic achievements, that prove your superior intelligence, might look like.
Rachel Johnson strips off on Sky News: Brexit remain campaigner 'inspired by' Dr Victoria Bateman 'to get her voice heard'
Brexit took an inexplicable turn on Thursday when Remain campaigner Rachel Johnson stripped off on Sky News. Ms Johnson, appearing on The Pledge debate show, said she was inspired by 'The Naked Brexit Protester' Dr Victoria Bateman as she removed her blouse. Since Friday last week, Dr Bateman, an anti-Brexit Cambridge University professor, has been appearing naked on TV and radio shows to make the point that “Brexit leaves Britain naked”. She has also challenged leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg to a naked debate.
She was educated at Winsford First School on Exmoor, Primrose Hill Primary in Camden, north London, the European School of Brussels, the independent Ashdown House School in East Sussex, Bryanston School in Dorset and St Paul's Girls' School.[6] In 1984 she went to New College, Oxford to read Classics (Literae Humaniores);[7] there she edited the student paper Isis[8] and graduated with a 2:1.[9]
However educated she might be doesn't negate the fact that stripping off to make a point is pretty stupid to be fair .
I don't think it advances the debate, but it was topical.
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
Retail sales bounced back sharply in January, rising by 1% on the previous month, official figures showed.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the amount of goods sold rose by 1%, after falling by 0.7% in December, with discounts in clothing helping to boost sales.
Compared with a year ago, retail sales were 4.2% higher in January.
That was the biggest annual rise since December 2016. The figures beat most economists' expectations.
"Clothing stores saw strong sales, luring consumers with price reductions, with food sales also growing after a slight dip after Christmas," said ONS statistician Rhian Murphy.
The ONS said clothing prices fell by the most since August 2016.
The figures suggest that consumer spending may have picked up again after a lull following the summer's World Cup.
Inflation falls to two-year low in January Economic growth slowest since 2012 The findings also echo those from the British Retail Consortium, which indicated that shops saw their fastest sales growth for seven months in January.
Other recent data has shown wages picking up after years of stagnation and rising faster than inflation.
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Ok, but do they get holiday pay?
Google told me this : For employees on a zero hours contracts, holiday entitlement accrues in the same way, but due to the sporadic nature of the work, it is easier to calculate it based on hours. So, your worker is entitled to a pro-rata amount of 5.6 weeks holiday, which is equivalent to 12.07% of hours worked over a year.
How do you calculate zero hours contract holiday pay? Workers are entitled to receive zero hour contract holiday pay. They are also eligible for payment in lieu of any untaken statutory leave entitlement on the termination of their employment.
To calculate the rate of holiday pay where you have workers without normal working hours, you can take an average of their pay over the preceding 12 weeks. For any weeks where there were no hours worked, and therefore no pay received, then those weeks should be replaced by the most recent previous weeks where pay was earned.
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
Ok, but do they get holiday pay?
Google told me this : For employees on a zero hours contracts, holiday entitlement accrues in the same way, but due to the sporadic nature of the work, it is easier to calculate it based on hours. So, your worker is entitled to a pro-rata amount of 5.6 weeks holiday, which is equivalent to 12.07% of hours worked over a year.
How do you calculate zero hours contract holiday pay? Workers are entitled to receive zero hour contract holiday pay. They are also eligible for payment in lieu of any untaken statutory leave entitlement on the termination of their employment.
To calculate the rate of holiday pay where you have workers without normal working hours, you can take an average of their pay over the preceding 12 weeks. For any weeks where there were no hours worked, and therefore no pay received, then those weeks should be replaced by the most recent previous weeks where pay was earned.
Ok, I just wondered if employers could get away with not paying them.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
Brexit puts £44bn worth of business per day at risk, RBS warns
RBS has warned that Brexit puts its ability to clear daily cross-border payments under threat, and warned that a hard Brexit could have a “significant impact” on the bank. The lender said the total value of the 300,000 cross-border payments it makes per day is “typically in excess of €50bn (£44bn) in any one day”. The bank is taking action to prevent any obstacles to those transactions, but said that “given the quantum of affected payments and lack of short-term contingency arrangements, in the event that such euro clearing capabilities were not in place in time for a Hard Brexit or as required in the future, it could have a material impact on the group and its customers”. RBS said the general uncertainty surrounding Brexit “could have a significant impact on the Group's operations or legal entity structure”, including higher costs if the bank has to restructure.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
Parts of It obviously needs reform...post Brexit would seem like a good opportunity
WTR rules surrounding holiday and sick leave have been a particular bone of contention for many years. For example, employees who fall ill while on holiday are entitled to claim those days back, and take them at a later date. Furthermore, employees continue to accrue rights to annual leave under the WTR while being on long-term sick leave, providing an opportunity for these rules to be abused.
There are further examples of the WTR placing a potentially unfair cost on businesses. Compulsory and voluntary overtime, incentive bonuses and results-based commission payments must now be taken into account when calculating an employee’s rate of pay during WTR-mandated annual leave, which, some say, unfairly rewards employees, and benefits those who manipulate the timing of their leave.
Likewise, depending on when they take their leave, the WTR may entitle part-time employees who only work for part of the year to the same holiday pay as those who work a full year, burdening employers and creating arbitrary distinctions.
I am not going to have a big argument on this, but there is a case for saying that many people are employed in commission based jobs, which have a smallish salary, and the bulk of their earnings are linked to sales. In these instances the above arrangements would seem fairer. In my last job, our sales staff were paid a basic of 15k, yet the average earnings were over 40k. It would have been unfair to pay them holiday pay based on their 15k salary.
It is worse even than this. Many of the UK's leading employers were routinely placing employees (usually women) on part-time hours (typically 24 hours per week) and demanding these workers work the rest of their hours on "overtime" at 1x salary. This was ripping these people off from 50% of their holiday, pensions etc
What do you get on zero hours contacts?
Provided you are to be regarded as a "worker" (a creation of the EU), quite a lot. If you don't believe me, look up any case involving Pimlico Plumbers
This Pimlico Plumbers?
I think it is a much more effective slogan than "Take Back Control"
Comments
Can you negotiate with people who are certifiable? Ask the EU
The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, the one member of the cabinet whose job description is to know nothing whatsoever about Brexit.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. And who better to deputise for the prime minister during the latest debate on why the government still doesn’t have a clue about what it’s doing about Brexit than the Brexit secretary himself? Stephen Barclay’s the one member of the cabinet whose job description is to know nothing whatsoever about Brexit. A man put on the payroll for the sole purpose of being kept out of the loop.
In a parallel, fairer, world, Barclay would be an anonymous financial adviser, whose only success was to have been runner-up in a lifetime achievement award hosted by the north-east Cambridgeshire regional chamber of commerce for being the only person dim enough to have mis-sold himself his own pension.
Instead he finds himself charged with misleading the country over the government’s Brexit policy. A job he does with ease, as he doesn’t even know what it is he doesn’t know.
Barclay opened the debate by mumbling that it was still government policy not to have a policy. And he was happy to confirm that, as the prime minister had been taken hostage by the European Research Group, the natural consequence of accepting the impossible demands of the Brady amendment calling for the renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement, was that the UK would almost certainly be leaving the EU on 29 March with no deal.
Several Tory Brexiters could scarcely believe their luck. They had been expecting far more of a fight than this and hurriedly sought reassurances that their preferred “no deal” was still on the table.
Owen Paterson wanted confirmation that the Malthouse compromise really was as pointless as his appointment to the Alternative Arrangements Working Group had indicated. Barclay was delighted to confirm this. He had spoken at length to Jean-Michel Jarre and they had agreed that squads of highly trained, armed, badgers were the key to solving the Northern Ireland backstop.
Yvette Cooper asked whether Barclay was still 100% committed to a no deal even if it meant people losing their jobs or dying. “Absolutely,” the Brexit secretary beamed. No greater love and all that. Besides, it would only be the weak and the unpatriotic who would be out of work or croak. Those who were prepared to hold their nerve would be absolutely fine.
This didn’t go down well with the Tories’ Caroline Spelman, who was disappointed to discover that her own amendment that had been passed – expressing parliament’s aversion to a no deal – was not being taken as seriously by the government as the Brady amendment.
Barclay had an answer ready. The only way the government could send a clear message to the EU showing we were a nation that could be trusted in negotiations was to act in a thoroughly untrustworthy way by cherry picking the best amendments.
Keir Starmer becomes more impressive with each outing at the despatch box. Mainly because he now merely has to reiterate what everyone, except Barclay, knows – namely that the prime minister was merely running down the clock and, if push came to shove, was quite happy to leave the EU with no deal if that was the price of keeping the Tory party more or less together.
But he is also helped by getting to fend off witless interventions from some Conservatives. James Cleverly tried to claim that May running down the clock was conclusive proof she couldn’t be running down the clock, while Alex Chalk didn’t even seem to realise he had voted against the government’s withdrawal agreement by backing the Brady amendment. This is politics 101. And these are supposed to be two of the Tory party’s rising stars.
The one flaw in the shadow Brexit secretary’s performance was that Labour had yet to come up with an alternative plan of their own. Every time Starmer produces something vaguely sensible, Jeremy Corbyn puts a red line through it. At this rate, Labour and the Tories are in a race to see which party will split first.
Thereafter the debate followed a predictable course. It was the same as every other Brexit debate, only a bit more rubbish. The more serious the situation becomes the more it resembles a third-rate farce.
The only thing that comes close to uniting the Brexiters and remainers is a mutual distrust of anything said by the government front bench. The idea that a minister might actually be able to distinguish between truth and lies – or even achieve something – has become unimaginable.
It ended in chaos. First Anna Soubry pulled her amendment as the government had indicated it would provide an impact analysis of a no-deal Brexit. Then both the leaver and remainer Tories abstained so that the government was defeated on the main motion it had won two weeks previously.
You couldn’t make it up. May could not even win a meaningless vote. Which, ironically, in itself had meaning. Humiliation. For her and the country. The EU must be **** themselves. How can you negotiate with people who are certifiable?
Corbyn immediately demanded that May got to the despatch box to give a statement declaring she accepted that her strategy had failed and that she would come back with a plan that could win a majority in parliament. Which would have been a start.
Only there was no sign of the prime minister. And none of her ministers was prepared to take the hit for her. Only the sound of a clock ticking to break the silence. May was holed up in Downing Street. Her software stripped bare. Searching for a programme. Any programme. Control. Alt. Delete.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ask-eu-negotiate-people-certifiable-191401201.html
How do you calculate zero hours contract holiday pay?
Workers are entitled to receive zero hour contract holiday pay. They are also eligible for payment in lieu of any untaken statutory leave entitlement on the termination of their employment.
To calculate the rate of holiday pay where you have workers without normal working hours, you can take an average of their pay over the preceding 12 weeks. For any weeks where there were no hours worked, and therefore no pay received, then those weeks should be replaced by the most recent previous weeks where pay was earned.
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again.
The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee.
In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been.
“That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-vote-cost-uk-economy-40bn-per-year-much-divorce-bill-121236365.html
RBS has warned that Brexit puts its ability to clear daily cross-border payments under threat, and warned that a hard Brexit could have a “significant impact” on the bank.
The lender said the total value of the 300,000 cross-border payments it makes per day is “typically in excess of €50bn (£44bn) in any one day”.
The bank is taking action to prevent any obstacles to those transactions, but said that “given the quantum of affected payments and lack of short-term contingency arrangements, in the event that such euro clearing capabilities were not in place in time for a Hard Brexit or as required in the future, it could have a material impact on the group and its customers”.
RBS said the general uncertainty surrounding Brexit “could have a significant impact on the Group's operations or legal entity structure”, including higher costs if the bank has to restructure.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-puts-44bn-worth-business-084100691.html
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
Hungarian FM stands up to the eu.
Maybe the eu just dont like Demoracy.