Brexit amendments: The MPs trying to change Theresa May's course
MPs are trying to influence the Brexit process in a number of ways, as Theresa May continues her bid to get the EU to change the deal.
Most MPs want to avoid a no-deal scenario, fearing chaos at ports and disruption to business. However, some Brexiteers have played down that prospect, arguing it is an example of "Project Fear", and say the no-deal option offers leverage in negotiations with Brussels. "A senior ERG source says they haven't decided whether to abstain or vote against, but they won't back the government," said BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg.
Another criticism being levelled at Brexiteers, is that they tend to go onto forums, and post the same videos multiple times. Mistakenly thinking that nobody will notice. Maybe its a memory issue.
Another criticism being levelled at Brexiteers, is that they tend to go onto forums, and post the same videos multiple times. Mistakenly thinking that nobody will notice. Maybe its a memory issue.
remoaners like 2 have 2 votes for the same issue, maybe its a memory issue.
Quick question to all remoaners, who want to stay in the eu, with so many countries in Europe having so called far right political parties on the rise, what happens to the eu if they gain power ?
Brexit: Theresa May suffers fresh Commons defeat Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered another Commons defeat after MPs voted down her approach to Brexit talks.
MPs voted by 303 to 258 - a majority of 45 - against a motion endorsing the government's negotiating strategy.
The defeat has no legal force and Downing Street said it would not change the PM's approach to talks with the EU.
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged Mrs May to "admit her Brexit strategy has failed" and to come forward with a plan Parliament would support.
The defeat came after the pro-Brexit European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs announced it had taken a "collective decision" to abstain, because backing the motion would have amounted to an endorsement of efforts to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The voting figures showed it was not just hardline Brexiteers that failed to support the government - a number of Tory Remainers also declined to vote, as more than a fifth of the party in the Commons failed to back the government.
Five Conservative MPs - Brexiteers Peter Bone, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Hollobone, and Anne Marie Morris, and the pro-Remain Sarah Wollaston - even voted with Labour against the motion.
Downing Street blamed Mr Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion
As far as the bolded bit above , that really is rich , considering how a section of their own party voted / abstained .
Brexit: Theresa May suffers fresh Commons defeat Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered another Commons defeat after MPs voted down her approach to Brexit talks.
MPs voted by 303 to 258 - a majority of 45 - against a motion endorsing the government's negotiating strategy.
The defeat has no legal force and Downing Street said it would not change the PM's approach to talks with the EU.
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged Mrs May to "admit her Brexit strategy has failed" and to come forward with a plan Parliament would support.
The defeat came after the pro-Brexit European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs announced it had taken a "collective decision" to abstain, because backing the motion would have amounted to an endorsement of efforts to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The voting figures showed it was not just hardline Brexiteers that failed to support the government - a number of Tory Remainers also declined to vote, as more than a fifth of the party in the Commons failed to back the government.
Five Conservative MPs - Brexiteers Peter Bone, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Hollobone, and Anne Marie Morris, and the pro-Remain Sarah Wollaston - even voted with Labour against the motion.
Downing Street blamed Mr Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion
As far as the bolded bit above , that really is rich , considering how a section of their own party voted / abstained .
Impossible for the EU to think that she has any credibility.
A life of servitude awaits us all if we ditch the EU’s flagship employment legislation, say critics – but some are less concerned
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Working Time Regulations (WTR). It’s arguably the most important piece of legislation concerning the way we employ people in the UK. And yet it is so taken for granted that its flagship birthday will pass largely unnoticed.
Now, it faces perhaps its toughest challenge to date. In December, newspapers reported that Michael Gove and Boris Johnson were among members of the cabinet calling for the WTR to be scrapped after Brexit. They are said to have broad support in the Conservative Party, including among influential figures such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and secretary of state for international trade Liam Fox, who has described the regulations as a ‘burden’.
What do the regulations mean in practice? The legislation says workers in the UK can work no more than 48 hours a week on a 17-week average. Under-18s cannot work more than eight hours a day and 40 hours per week. It grants a mandatory right to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, including bank and public holidays, and a minimum 20 minutes’ rest in any shift lasting more than six hours. But many workers are excluded, such as those in jobs that require 24-hour staffing, the Armed Forces, emergency services and domestic servants, as well as those where working time is ‘unmeasured’ and essentially within the worker’s control. Employers can ask workers to opt out of the WTR at any point. Many are willing to opt out; for example, to ensure they receive overtime pay. But as no one can at present opt out of restrictions on working hours for night shifts or statutory rest breaks, repealing the WTR would allow more flexibility over shift patterns, affecting night workers, for example. When it comes to holiday pay, the UK has already gone beyond EU law. The Labour government amended existing regulations in 2007, adding a further 1.6 weeks’ annual leave entitlement to a maximum 28 days for a five-day-week employee.
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.
The Asylum Seeker dispersal programme may well have created Leave Voting areas.
The contracting out of this has resulted in the companys involved taking up only the very, very, cheapest accommodation available. Therefore dispersing large numbers of asylum seekers into areas that are already the poorest locations in the country, and none into the more affluent areas where no cheap housing is available.
Comments
MPs are trying to influence the Brexit process in a number of ways, as Theresa May continues her bid to get the EU to change the deal.
Most MPs want to avoid a no-deal scenario, fearing chaos at ports and disruption to business. However, some Brexiteers have played down that prospect, arguing it is an example of "Project Fear", and say the no-deal option offers leverage in negotiations with Brussels.
"A senior ERG source says they haven't decided whether to abstain or vote against, but they won't back the government," said BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47225819
Taking our jobs thread might be better place to post this.
Let's talk about immigration | EU Referendum – Brexit 2016
I just abbreviated it a little.
Mistakenly thinking that nobody will notice.
Maybe its a memory issue.
Are these the immigrants you are referring to haysie.
Will post video in a sec.
Sorry about late reply.
Now back to Brexit.
Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered another Commons defeat after MPs voted down her approach to Brexit talks.
MPs voted by 303 to 258 - a majority of 45 - against a motion endorsing the government's negotiating strategy.
The defeat has no legal force and Downing Street said it would not change the PM's approach to talks with the EU.
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged Mrs May to "admit her Brexit strategy has failed" and to come forward with a plan Parliament would support.
The defeat came after the pro-Brexit European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs announced it had taken a "collective decision" to abstain, because backing the motion would have amounted to an endorsement of efforts to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The voting figures showed it was not just hardline Brexiteers that failed to support the government - a number of Tory Remainers also declined to vote, as more than a fifth of the party in the Commons failed to back the government.
Five Conservative MPs - Brexiteers Peter Bone, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Hollobone, and Anne Marie Morris, and the pro-Remain Sarah Wollaston - even voted with Labour against the motion.
Downing Street blamed Mr Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion
As far as the bolded bit above , that really is rich , considering how a section of their own party voted / abstained .
A life of servitude awaits us all if we ditch the EU’s flagship employment legislation, say critics – but some are less concerned
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Working Time Regulations (WTR). It’s arguably the most important piece of legislation concerning the way we employ people in the UK. And yet it is so taken for granted that its flagship birthday will pass largely unnoticed.
Now, it faces perhaps its toughest challenge to date. In December, newspapers reported that Michael Gove and Boris Johnson were among members of the cabinet calling for the WTR to be scrapped after Brexit. They are said to have broad support in the Conservative Party, including among influential figures such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and secretary of state for international trade Liam Fox, who has described the regulations as a ‘burden’.
What do the regulations mean in practice?
The legislation says workers in the UK can work no more than 48 hours a week on a 17-week average. Under-18s cannot work more than eight hours a day and 40 hours per week. It grants a mandatory right to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, including bank and public holidays, and a minimum 20 minutes’ rest in any shift lasting more than six hours.
But many workers are excluded, such as those in jobs that require 24-hour staffing, the Armed Forces, emergency services and domestic servants, as well as those where working time is ‘unmeasured’ and essentially within the worker’s control. Employers can ask workers to opt out of the WTR at any point.
Many are willing to opt out; for example, to ensure they receive overtime pay. But as no one can at present opt out of restrictions on working hours for night shifts or statutory rest breaks, repealing the WTR would allow more flexibility over shift patterns, affecting night workers, for example.
When it comes to holiday pay, the UK has already gone beyond EU law. The Labour government amended existing regulations in 2007, adding a further 1.6 weeks’ annual leave entitlement to a maximum 28 days for a five-day-week employee.
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/long-reads/articles/who-needs-working-time-regulations
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.
The contracting out of this has resulted in the companys involved taking up only the very, very, cheapest accommodation available. Therefore dispersing large numbers of asylum seekers into areas that are already the poorest locations in the country, and none into the more affluent areas where no cheap housing is available.