Why so much surprise over Corbyn calling for Labour to Abstain?

Durhamjen

I answered your question re Corbyn and replied:-

Yes I have 'agreed' with Corbyn because a fact is a fact , not because I find him in anyway honourable nor agree with his principles. Anybody would agree with wanting to live in Shangri LA but I do not believe it is achievable and certainly not by the economics I hear from Labour under Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum.

I have made mentioned 'many times' the problems for British Workers of the ' European Union Workers Directive''. It is a regulation that allowed for EU workers to work in the UK on the wages of the country they came from, UNDERCUTTING British workers wages. I believe there has recently been a vote to say the payment should be that of the country they are now working in but that comment needs checking. I believe that Corbyn and the Unions had an issue with the EU Workers Directive also, for obvious reasons.

I stand by what I say.
--

I have further looked into The European Workers Directive which I clearly stated had recently been voted on for change.

This is the new Directive which does now state the following and to which you refer and I did say I thought had been introduced:-

ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=471

maximum work periods and minimum rest periods
minimum paid annual holidays
the minimum rates of pay (including overtime)
health and safety at work
protection for women who are pregnant or have just given birth
equal treatment for men and women and other rules to prevent discrimination
hiring out agency workers

What you did not post was another section in the Directive which states:-

Revision of the Posting of Workers Directive

' On the 8 of March 2016, the European Commission 'proposed' a revision of the rules on posting of workers within the EU to ensure they remain fit for purpose. Until Member States and the European Parliament have agreed on the revision and the new rules have entered into force, ' the current rules remain in place'.
-

The European Workers Directive is/was commonly known as 'Social Dumping' and as far as I can see it there is still controversy/problems surrounding the 'new' and yes improved workers rights on equal pay.

The 'new/improved' Directive has not been officially passed by the 28 EU Nation States thus far hence the Directive states :-

Until Member States and the European Parliament have agreed on the revision and the new rules have entered into force, ' the current rules remain in place'.

The European Workers Directive most certainly does UNDERCUT wages and if a company is self governing and applying the revised Directive well good on them but that may not be the case.

The European Workers Directive was started in 1996 and has been an issue ever since. An old example would be the 2009 mass walk out by Refinery Workers at the Lindsey Refinery , Immingham .

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7855752.stm

'Mass walkout over foreign labour'

"Unite shop steward Garry Scales said: "We are angry that workers have been taken on from outside the UK when people here are out of work."

This article is one of many that are informative if anybody can be bothered to read it:-

www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-jobs/news/posted-workers-revision-gets-off-to-shaky-start/

Quotes

"The new proposal intends to redress so-called ‘social dumping’, where European companies use low-cost workers to circumvent the labour laws of the host country.

The revision of the 1996 EU law has sparked controversy in the past, as the 28-country bloc struggles to reconcile the freedom to offer cross-border services, a cornerstone of the internal market, with clear differences in wages and levels of social protection.

An average hour of work costs an employer €40 in Denmark and €39 in Belgium, but only €3.80 in Bulgaria, €4.60 in Romania or €8.40 in Poland, according to Eurostat data for 2014."

Blimey pogs we answer your question and then you ask it again. I've given up

Maizie d

I DID NOT ask a question about Posted Workers Directive I was answering a question from Durhamjen.

" Have you ever seen anything positive in anything Corbyn has said, POGS?".

I also said in my post.

" I believe there has recently been a vote to say the payment should be that of the country they are now working in but that comment needs checking. I believe that Corbyn and the Unions had an issue with the EU Workers Directive also, for obvious reasons."

I repeat the question I asked was about the Single Market and Labours stance!

Just for clarity, POGS. You said this:

I have made mentioned 'many times' the problems for British Workers of the ' European Union Workers Directive''. It is a regulation that allowed for EU workers to work in the UK on the wages of the country they came from, UNDERCUTTING British workers wages.

As you can see from dj's post this is completely incorrect.

Well, POGS. I have quoted directly from your last 3 posts (before the one I'm now responding to). In the third one (which I quoted from first in my post) you say you've been asking questions about the Posted Workers Directive and have had no response. I was puzzled as to why you should bring that up as your questions today (also quoted) were about the Single Market.

Anyway, dj has now responded about Posted Workers. The things I read about it said that its purpose was to prevent contractors paying their workers at rates lower than those of the country they are working in. So I don't see how posted workers can be having adverse effects on wage rates.

If the country you’re posted to has a higher minimum wage, your employer must give you that rate or higher.

Posted workers directive. That doesn't undercut wages here.

Your employer must follow some of the employment rules of the country you’ve been posted to. These are the ones relating to:

maximum work periods and minimum rest periods
minimum paid annual holidays
the minimum rates of pay (including overtime)
health and safety at work
protection for women who are pregnant or have just given birth
equal treatment for men and women and other rules to prevent discrimination
hiring out agency workers

Yes Maizie.

I should have used the full term not the abbreviated ,lazy term .

I don't follow your point re I have not asked a question today. Very confusing!

I was not asking a question about the EU Posted Workers Directive but I have been asking about the Single Market .

European Union Workers Directive

I've googled that term, POGS; it doesn't appear to exist.

There is the Working Time Directive and the Posted Workers Directive. Is it either of those?

21.34 2nd July
I have made mentioned 'many times' the problems for British Workers of the ' European Union Workers Directive''. It is a regulation that allowed for EU workers to work in the UK on the wages of the country they came from, UNDERCUTTING British workers wages. I believe there has recently been a vote to say the payment should be that of the country they are now working in but that comment needs checking. I believe that Corbyn and the Unions had an issue with the EU Workers Directive also, for obvious reasons.

I note neither yourself or anybody else has answered my 'repeated' question on various threads since the Referendum but I hope I have answered your question.

But, POGS, you haven’t asked that question today on this thread.
These are the questions you have asked
POGS @11.47 2nd July
I have asked so many times but 'How can the UK Government TELL the EU that it must give us the 'same benefits as we have now'?

What would happen if after negotiations the EU told the UK that if it does not agree to the Free Movement of People no deal will be offered and in March 2019, ' THEIR ' offer not ours was “take it or leave it”?

POGS @12.01 2nd July
So if Starmer has stated Labour will 'End the Free Movement of People' how can it keep expecting to keep the 'same benefits'?

Why are you now castigating dj for not answering a question today which you haven’t actually asked her?

it's very hard to follow what is going on here...

That's interesting and makes sense of something I was told. My ex's new partner is a lorry driver but she has packed it in because she said that EU lorry drivers were prepared to work for far less than British workers and so she struggled to find work.

Durhamjen 12.24 and again 13.02

" Have you ever seen anything positive in anything Corbyn has said, POGS?"

I could call that a deflection from answering a question but I will answer.

Yes I have 'agreed' with Corbyn because a fact is a fact , not because I find him in anyway honourable nor agree with his principles. Anybody would agree with wanting to live in Shangri LA but I do not believe it is achievable and certainly not by the economics I hear from Labour under Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum.

I have made mentioned 'many times' the problems for British Workers of the ' European Union Workers Directive''. It is a regulation that allowed for EU workers to work in the UK on the wages of the country they came from, UNDERCUTTING British workers wages. I believe there has recently been a vote to say the payment should be that of the country they are now working in but that comment needs checking. I believe that Corbyn and the Unions had an issue with the EU Workers Directive also, for obvious reasons.

I note neither yourself or anybody else has answered my 'repeated' question on various threads since the Referendum but I hope I have answered your question.

Hate to say just wait and see, but we'll have to.

The EU have already said that it's not possible. Why does anyone believe they'll change their mind?

(WTF don't we just stay in the EU, really...)

But it's not insisting. It's asking.
And if it's not possible, that's the answer. What the EU said was in rssponse to May saying that she would leave without a deal if it wasn't the deal she wanted.

And I'd like to know how anyone, of any party can believe that insisting that it's possible to retain all 'current benefits' of the EU without allowing Freedom of Movement is a credible position.

I know that, Maizie. I also know that you see many positive things about Corbyn.
Whatever he does or says as far as Brexit is concerned will be wrong to some people.

I still would like to know if POGS has ever seen anything positive in anything Corbyn has said.

dj, both POGS and I are questioning how Labour can aspire to achieve 'exactly the same benefits' we have now when they are apparently refusing to accept Free Movement.

I see lots of positive things in what Corbyn says but I don't see anything positive, or at all feasible, in this particular aspiration.

Have you ever seen anything positive in anything Corbyn has said, POGS?

DJ

" It's not telling. It's asking.
It's called negotiation."
-----

BUT the EU has stated it's 'Non Negotiable'.!!

Yes, obviously negotiations are taking place but the only way this 'Mexican Stand Off' is for the EU to drop the 4 Freedoms/Pillars is none negotiable stance or the UK to drop the 'We will end the free movement of people' stance. The latter stated by both the Labour and Conservative Parties.

I think voters have been taken for fools by Labours rhetoric over the Single Market and now the penny is dropping for many.

Corbyn used the 'whip' over the Queens Speech Amendment tabled by the Labour MP Chuka Umunna which called for ' The UK should remain in the single market and in the customs union.'.

That said it all to some but obviously not to others.

There is often the mention of Norway on sooooo many Brexit Threads (DJ Sat 10.21).

Norway is in EFTA

www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

'Free Movement of Persons'

The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.

So if Starmer has stated Labour will 'End the Free Movement of People' how can it keep expecting to keep the 'same benefits'.?

Just for once I am entirely with POGS on this.

How can we possibly achieve the 'same benefits' as we have now without conceding Free Movement of workers?

The Labour party seem to be regarding this as a red line. So is the EU!

How can anyone honestly believe that a way can be negotiated round this?

It's not telling. It's asking.
It's called negotiation.
The Tory government TELLS the EU what it wants.
Labour negotiate, and try to come to an agreement.

That to me is the main difference between the two parties anyway.

Whitewave Sat 10.11
Durhamjen Sat 10.17

Re Starmer 6 points on Brexit negotiations.

2. Does it deliver the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union.
-------

Labour has stated they would end 'The Free Movement of People' , as have the Conservative Party.

The EU have stipulated that the 'Free Movement of People' thus far is 'Non Negotiable' , there will be no 'Cherry Picking'.

The EU states the 4 Freedoms/Pillars of ' Free Movement of Goods, People, Services and Capital' is 'Non Negotiable'.

I have asked so many times but 'How can the UK Government TELL the EU that it must give us the 'same benefits as we have now'?

What would happen if after negotiations the EU told the UK that if it does not agree to the Free Movement of People no deal will be offered and in March 2019, ' THEIR ' offer not ours was “take it or leave it”. ?

These are questions never answered by the likes of Labours Starmer, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gardiner, Thornberry , they simply say something like "Well we mustn't leave the EU without getting the same rights as we have now".

Labour are being disingenuous by trying to say they want/we could have the same benefits AND end Free Movement of People.
If it were to happen it would be because the EU dropped their stance on the 4Freedoms/Pillars being the defining principal they insist on. If only!

Eloethan Sat 02.05

"POGS Are you the same POGS that used to post a couple of years ago - your style of writing seems to have changed?"

Yes I am the same POGS and I don't know what makes you think otherwise to be honest. More than a couple of years too!!!

Farage, Hannan (and Hopkins) were sh*t stirring - they're good at that!