Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
Perhaps but then we need to ask why that is the case ?
Possibly because British people and governments are more interested in consuming wealth than in creating it and the opposite applies in Germany ?
I what way does Brexit resolve that?
Our politicians can be held to account in setting policies that suit the country and not be determined by unelected bureaucrats or to blame it on them.
“Unelected bureaucrats” claxon. The fact that the person who will hold prime executive power in this country (on behalf of a hereditary monarch) is currently being appointed by a tiny selectorate of members of a tired political party that doesn’t even have a majority in the House of Commons - in fact has only held one for two years out of the last 23 - suggests if you are looking for a democratic deficit, then you should look to Westminster.
I am aware of the view, and its associated precept that "distance doesn't matter". I need to point out that the present grinding mess illustrates the fact that a beautiful theory can be derailed by logistics.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
Perhaps but then we need to ask why that is the case ?
Possibly because British people and governments are more interested in consuming wealth than in creating it and the opposite applies in Germany ?
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
The business environment is already set by our politicians. Post-Brexit, it will be more expensive and time consuming to trade with our biggest export market and there will be no change in the rest of the world.
Better than our inability to hold the unelected von der Leyen to account.
We can sack her via a vote of no confidence, just like a British PM.
British PMs also have a tendency to front General Elections and can be sacked then. Rather different to von der Leyen.
If Boris becomes PM he will be the third out of the last four Prime Ministers to have become PM without a general election.
While to date 100% of British Prime Ministers post-WWII have faced a General Election as party leader, either before or after they were elected.
If Boris becomes PM and reaches a General Election he continue that 100% trend.
If Boris becomes PM but falls before a General Election he will be the first PM since Neville Chamberlain not to have faced a General Election. Since the start of the 20th century only Chamberlain and Balfour were never elected or held to account by the voters at an election.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
Perhaps but then we need to ask why that is the case ?
Possibly because British people and governments are more interested in consuming wealth than in creating it and the opposite applies in Germany ?
I what way does Brexit resolve that?
Our politicians can be held to account in setting policies that suit the country and not be determined by unelected bureaucrats or to blame it on them.
“Unelected bureaucrats” claxon. The fact that the person who will hold prime executive power in this country (on behalf of a hereditary monarch) is currently being appointed by a tiny selectorate of members of a tired political party that doesn’t even have a majority in the House of Commons - in fact has only held one for two years out of the last 23 - suggests if you are looking for a democratic deficit, then you should look to Westminster.
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
I was hoping that Indian fans would send their Edgbaston semi-final tickets back to the official website, but they haven't started appearing on there yet.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
Actually quite a lot will prevent British firms from doing business once they are outside the single market and facing a plethora of tariff and non tariff barriers. The business environment for firms hoping to operate in or trade with the EU will be set by the EU. And unlike now, we will not be able to elect politicians who have any control over that. So apart from everything you say above being the exact opposite of reality, you are absolutely spot on.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
The business environment is already set by our politicians. Post-Brexit, it will be more expensive and time consuming to trade with our biggest export market and there will be no change in the rest of the world.
Only true if we agree to follow all EU regs. For example we may decide not have a carbon credits scheme that has done sever damage to heavy industry in most of the EU. We may decide not to follow the EU REACH for chemicals which has doubled the production cost of ethlene the basic building block of the plastics industry. I could go on there are a lot of examples.
Amazing . Apparently the EU have no television or internet so of course haven’t a clue what Boris is scheming !
The EU just yawn at these no deal threats.
Boris Johnson is a product of one of our elite public schools and so poor old Johnny Foreigner has absolutely no hope of understanding his awfully clever plans.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
Actually quite a lot will prevent British firms from doing business once they are outside the single market and facing a plethora of tariff and non tariff barriers. The business environment for firms hoping to operate in or trade with the EU will be set by the EU. And unlike now, we will not be able to elect politicians who have any control over that. So apart from everything you say above being the exact opposite of reality, you are absolutely spot on.
But wait, Southam just said that being outside a trade deal doesn't stop companies embracing the world. So are you suggesting that post-Brexit if the UK signs trade deals with other nations that could deal with a plethora of tariff and non tariff barriers that otherwise exist?
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
They hold a minority of the seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It’s not a Parliament of any of its constituent parts and members of the DUP don’t get a vote either. The EU is a straw man in this argument. We are not better than the EU. The EU has its faults but don’t use them to get around the fact that the voters put in a minority government based on an extremely strong manifesto promise that one T May would lead it. Now she’s not. The voters did not vote Tory on the basis that this lying charlatan would be given the keys. Neither did they vote for Brexit on a manifesto of “No Deal”. Tories only like democracy when it suits them.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
Actually quite a lot will prevent British firms from doing business once they are outside the single market and facing a plethora of tariff and non tariff barriers. The business environment for firms hoping to operate in or trade with the EU will be set by the EU. And unlike now, we will not be able to elect politicians who have any control over that. So apart from everything you say above being the exact opposite of reality, you are absolutely spot on.
But wait, Southam just said that being outside a trade deal doesn't stop companies embracing the world. So are you suggesting that post-Brexit if the UK signs trade deals with other nations that could deal with a plethora of tariff and non tariff barriers that otherwise exist?
The EU isn't a trade deal - it's an internal market. Being outside the EU doesn't do anything to bring us closer to the rest of the world.
That is exactly the comments to me by Team Boris when they phoned last night and I objected to no deal
Looks as if Boris is playing Hyufd and others to gain support
That's one possibility. Another is that he could be lying to you. A third is that he could be lying to you and @HYUFD simultaneously, which would be difficult but I think he could pull it off...
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Indeed, and trying to bully the whistleblowers in public with a big name law firm just adds to the pressure on them to withdraw their statements. Hopefully someone will agree to represent them pro bono if it comes to legal action.
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
They hold a minority of the seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It’s not a Parliament of any of its constituent parts and members of the DUP don’t get a vote either. The EU is a straw man in this argument. We are not better than the EU. The EU has its faults but don’t use them to get around the fact that the voters put in a minority government based on an extremely strong manifesto promise that one T May would lead it. Now she’s not. The voters did not vote Tory on the basis that this lying charlatan would be given the keys. Neither did they vote for Brexit on a manifesto of “No Deal”. Tories only like democracy when it suits them.
They hold the confidence of a majority of seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If that terminates and if no new majority can be found then we, the voters, will determine the outcome at a General Election.
So yes we are better.
The British know the PM can change during a Parliamentary session and if that happens they can pass judgement at the next election, as we did when we ejected Gordon Brown from Downing Street.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
That’s not quite true. Under PIDA a disclosure is “protected” if it shows, or tends to show, a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions. In this case, I would say the disclosures would go to the Labour Party’s failure to comply with legal obligations in the form of the Equality Act, or maybe the H&S of its employees, so the whistleblowers are protected, but Carter-Ruck will likely argue otherwise.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
That is exactly the comments to me by Team Boris when they phoned last night and I objected to no deal
Looks as if Boris is playing Hyufd and others to gain support
That's one possibility. Another is that he could be lying to you. A third is that he could be lying to you and @HYUFD simultaneously, which would be difficult but I think he could pull it off...
I am aware of those possibilities as was previously discussed earlier today
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is exactly the comments to me by Team Boris when they phoned last night and I objected to no deal
Looks as if Boris is playing Hyufd and others to gain support
That's one possibility. Another is that he could be lying to you. A third is that he could be lying to you and @HYUFD simultaneously, which would be difficult but I think he could pull it off...
I am aware of those possibilities as was previously discussed earlier today
The one possibility we can rule out is that Boris is being totally honest.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
We heard it last year but May was bluffing. She also made it abundantly obvious she was bluffing.
If it was so obvious she was bluffing, why did parliament need to go to such lengths to stop her?
They didn't.
May announced before MV2 (and without any votes forcing her to do so) that she'd give Parliament a vote on no deal and a vote on an extension, and she made both free votes.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
A lot of people don’t have a realistic choice. The statutory maximum you can get for unfair dismissal is the lower of about £85k or 52 weeks salary. If someone comes to you and offers that in return for a settlement containing an NDA, your alternative is a long drawn out tribunal case with he prospect of getting the same or less. What would you do?
Yes, that statutory cap on unfair dismissal is removed in a whistleblowing case, but if you were not fired for that reason, or just left of your own accord, your prospects for recovery are limited so you realistically have no choice but to sign. It’s a hot topic in employment law circles right now.
Amazing . Apparently the EU have no television or internet so of course haven’t a clue what Boris is scheming !
The EU just yawn at these no deal threats.
Boris Johnson is a product of one of our elite public schools and so poor old Johnny Foreigner has absolutely no hope of understanding his awfully clever plans.
Isn't £39bn the outcome based on the presumption that we would leave on 29th March 2019 with the vast majority of it payable before 31st December 2020?
Doesn't this leave us having a period of 21 months between March 2019 and December 2020 outside the EU experiencing inferior access whilst paying in full? So..if we drag leaving out until December 2020 - don't we get better access for the same price compared to the deal May negotiated?
What's the bill from 1st January 2021 under Leave, and what is it under Remain?
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
The point is, an NDA cannot stop you from speaking to a competent authority like the police (and I believe the EHRC) where publication is in the public interest.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
I support people's right to sign an NDA, take the settlement, and then blow the whistle on "a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions."* Companies know they cannot legally hide behind an NDA for those matters.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
You cannot, even by paying someone some money to settle their employment claim against you, deprive them of rights which they have under law. So, for instance, the NDA may deal with someone's claim for sex discrimination or unfair dismissal. But that does not prohibit a person from speaking up about other matters not covered by the NDA in accordance with the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act or speaking to a regulator or to a court etc.
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
They hold a minority of the seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It’s not a Parliament of any of its constituent parts and members of the DUP don’t get a vote either. The EU is a straw man in this argument. We are not better than the EU. The EU has its faults but don’t use them to get around the fact that the voters put in a minority government based on an extremely strong manifesto promise that one T May would lead it. Now she’s not. The voters did not vote Tory on the basis that this lying charlatan would be given the keys. Neither did they vote for Brexit on a manifesto of “No Deal”. Tories only like democracy when it suits them.
They hold the confidence of a majority of seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If that terminates and if no new majority can be found then we, the voters, will determine the outcome at a General Election.
So yes we are better.
The British know the PM can change during a Parliamentary session and if that happens they can pass judgement at the next election, as we did when we ejected Gordon Brown from Downing Street.
The European Parliament can dissolve the Commission as a whole following a vote of no-confidence (Art. 245 and 247, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as happened to the Santer commission in 1999
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
Now you're just confusing the argument with facts!
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
They hold a minority of the seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It’s not a Parliament of any of its constituent parts and members of the DUP don’t get a vote either. The EU is a straw man in this argument. We are not better than the EU. The EU has its faults but don’t use them to get around the fact that the voters put in a minority government based on an extremely strong manifesto promise that one T May would lead it. Now she’s not. The voters did not vote Tory on the basis that this lying charlatan would be given the keys. Neither did they vote for Brexit on a manifesto of “No Deal”. Tories only like democracy when it suits them.
They hold the confidence of a majority of seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If that terminates and if no new majority can be found then we, the voters, will determine the outcome at a General Election.
So yes we are better.
The British know the PM can change during a Parliamentary session and if that happens they can pass judgement at the next election, as we did when we ejected Gordon Brown from Downing Street.
The European Parliament can dissolve the Commission as a whole following a vote of no-confidence (Art. 245 and 247, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as happened to the Santer commission in 1999
Yes the European Parliament can, but I'm talking voters at a General Election. This may be surprising to you but I believe it is the voters that matter.
Every single Prime Minister without fail since WWII has faced a General Election. The last Prime Minister excluding WWII (when elections were suspended) not to face a General Election was Balfour over a century ago.
How many Commission Presidents have been elected at a General Election and how many have gone into an election seeking re-election?
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
That’s not quite true. Under PIDA a disclosure is “protected” if it shows, or tends to show, a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions. In this case, I would say the disclosures would go to the Labour Party’s failure to comply with legal obligations in the form of the Equality Act, or maybe the H&S of its employees, so the whistleblowers are protected, but Carter-Ruck will likely argue otherwise.
It's not just PIDA, though. Any decent employer should have a proper whistleblowing procedure and an essential element of such a procedure is that employees should not fear or face retaliation for speaking up, even if it turns out that there is no substance to their claims.
Of course a political party may consider itself too grand to have something which is now de rigeur everywhere else. But it is nonetheless shockingly bad practice on their part.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
They’ve only got 10 partners and 17 fee earners overall. They’re an excellent boutique firm at what they do but they’re not even in the top 200 firms by size in the UK and they are not employment lawyers.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
Now you're just confusing the argument with facts!
Labours civil war escalates as Stephen Kinnock tells Corbyn to back TM WDA as the only way out of the impasse
Amusing, as Boris and Hunt are both promising to bring something new back, not the TM WDA.
With the Tories busy chasing unicorns, looks like some few in Labour at least are realising the stable doors need closing long after the actual horses bolted from it. Not that the Tories should be let off the hook in the slightest for how they have behaved, but maybe the Kinnocks of this world should have not played partisan games with the last MV.
Labours civil war escalates as Stephen Kinnock tells Corbyn to back TM WDA as the only way out of the impasse
And let Boris off the hook? I can't see that happening.
It would be hilarious if enough Lab MPs publicly said they would now vote for it and May faced pressure to bring it back in the few weeks she still has left. Won't happen of course, not least because both her potential successors could not reasonably back it given they argue they can improve it, but it would be funny.
Since the end of March (i.e. the start of polling for the Brexit Party), Opinium have had Labour ahead of the Conservatives in every single poll of the 8 they have published, by a margin of up to 7% in several of them, and by 6% in the previous one. Tonight's published Labour lead of 2% is the smallest they have recorded in that period.
While polling companies are coming up with consistently different house effects, the trend in the polls published in the last couple of weeks seems consistent - a limited recovery of the Conservative position v Labour.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
Media work is one thing. Employment law and whistleblowing in particular is quite another. They do not have any particular expertise there.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
Media work is one thing. Employment law and whistleblowing in particular is quite another. They do not have any particular expertise there.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
That’s not quite true. Under PIDA a disclosure is “protected” if it shows, or tends to show, a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions. In this case, I would say the disclosures would go to the Labour Party’s failure to comply with legal obligations in the form of the Equality Act, or maybe the H&S of its employees, so the whistleblowers are protected, but Carter-Ruck will likely argue otherwise.
Any decent employer should have a proper whistleblowing procedure and an essential element of such a procedure is that employees should not fear or face retaliation for speaking up, even if it turns out that there is no substance to their claims.
Genuine question - does that ever work? The fact a procedure is needed promising that demonstrates that people will have the desire to punish, and that desire will remain even if a procedure in place says they won't act on that desire. The cynic in me cannot help but wonder given that, but presumably at least some are worth the paper they are written on.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the world now. It will be much harder to do business inside the EU post-Brexit and by leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union we will make ourselves a less attractive investment option than we are now.
Absolutely nothing is stopping British companies embracing the European Union post-Brexit.
Post-Brexit business environment will be set by the politicians we choose to elect.
The business environment is already set by our politicians. Post-Brexit, it will be more expensive and time consuming to trade with our biggest export market and there will be no change in the rest of the world.
Brexit makes trade more expensive with the rest of the world too, as a lot of our international agreements are predicated on membership with the EU.
Hence the small number of agreements that Liam Fox has partially rolled over
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
Media work is one thing. Employment law and whistleblowing in particular is quite another. They do not have any particular expertise there.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
What we know for certain is that Labour will not want any dispute involving anti-Semitism getting to court. For obvious reasons. Thus, this letter is an exercise in intimidation, nothing more. As such, it is beneath contempt.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
You cannot, even by paying someone some money to settle their employment claim against you, deprive them of rights which they have under law. So, for instance, the NDA may deal with someone's claim for sex discrimination or unfair dismissal. But that does not prohibit a person from speaking up about other matters not covered by the NDA in accordance with the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act or speaking to a regulator or to a court etc.
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
If so, then why do we have NDAs in the first place, if they are so ineffective ?
The PM is being elected by the members of the party that won a majority of seats in England, a majority of seats in Great Britain as a whole and only failed to win an overall majority because of Northern Ireland - but is being supported by the party that won a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
They hold a minority of the seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It’s not a Parliament of any of its constituent parts and members of the DUP don’t get a vote either. The EU is a straw man in this argument. We are not better than the EU. The EU has its faults but don’t use them to get around the fact that the voters put in a minority government based on an extremely strong manifesto promise that one T May would lead it. Now she’s not. The voters did not vote Tory on the basis that this lying charlatan would be given the keys. Neither did they vote for Brexit on a manifesto of “No Deal”. Tories only like democracy when it suits them.
They hold the confidence of a majority of seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If that terminates and if no new majority can be found then we, the voters, will determine the outcome at a General Election.
So yes we are better.
The British know the PM can change during a Parliamentary session and if that happens they can pass judgement at the next election, as we did when we ejected Gordon Brown from Downing Street.
The European Parliament can dissolve the Commission as a whole following a vote of no-confidence (Art. 245 and 247, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as happened to the Santer commission in 1999
Yes the European Parliament can, but I'm talking voters at a General Election. This may be surprising to you but I believe it is the voters that matter.
Every single Prime Minister without fail since WWII has faced a General Election. The last Prime Minister excluding WWII (when elections were suspended) not to face a General Election was Balfour over a century ago.
How many Commission Presidents have been elected at a General Election and how many have gone into an election seeking re-election?
Juncker arguably was. Who else?
The fact you equate the Commission President with the PM shows only that you do not understand what the Commission President does or the actual powers he/she has.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
You cannot, even by paying someone some money to settle their employment claim against you, deprive them of rights which they have under law. So, for instance, the NDA may deal with someone's claim for sex discrimination or unfair dismissal. But that does not prohibit a person from speaking up about other matters not covered by the NDA in accordance with the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act or speaking to a regulator or to a court etc.
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
If so, then why do we have NDAs in the first place, if they are so ineffective ?
Because most people will not decide to test the defences they could use for breaching the terms? Is it a bit like End User Licence Agreements, which IIRC can often include a whole bunch of things that won't hold up in court, but few are ever in a position where they actually feel the need to challenge them?
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
The efficient supply chain is one half o the argument. Also Germany has dominated the rest of the EU with its products.
66% of German exports go to the single market. Personally i do not consider these exports, it is like Trump saying California is great exporter to Florida.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
Well, it is not as though the EU generally is averse to fudging things and kicking them into the long grass so it is not an outright crazy idea, but I think if they were going to go for that idea they would have suggested it by now. Whether it is a good idea for them to do so or not, they have decided to stake it all on not bending on that point.
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
Media work is one thing. Employment law and whistleblowing in particular is quite another. They do not have any particular expertise there.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
What we know for certain is that Labour will not want any dispute involving anti-Semitism getting to court. For obvious reasons. Thus, this letter is an exercise in intimidation, nothing more. As such, it is beneath contempt.
Quite.
It has also backfired. There are any number of tweets pointing to various Labour worthies praising whistleblowers: Shami and McDonnell, for instance. Oh, the irony!
And at least one Labour MP has offered to repeat the allegations made by the whistleblowers in the Commons.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
You cannot, even by paying someone some money to settle their employment claim against you, deprive them of rights which they have under law. So, for instance, the NDA may deal with someone's claim for sex discrimination or unfair dismissal. But that does not prohibit a person from speaking up about other matters not covered by the NDA in accordance with the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act or speaking to a regulator or to a court etc.
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
If so, then why do we have NDAs in the first place, if they are so ineffective ?
They are very effective. If you are Joe Bloggs and have just signed a settlement agreement with an NDA in it would you risk coming up against the (usually) far greater resources of your ex employer in an effort to show that your disclosure was, in fact, protected under PIDA or otherwise? I’m a qualified lawyer who practices employment law and I would think twice. They can also be used to protect legitimate proprietary information like client lists, technical information etc.
Hammond, Liddington, Gauke, Clarke, Wright, Stewart, Lewis, Mundell all said to be facing the axe, even Fox not safe
Fox is definitely not safe given he's strayed from the true path for too long. And for a lot of those, it's not even unreasonable of course- how could many of them serve under Boris given what they think of what he may do, even if he insists he has other plans?
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
The efficient supply chain is one half o the argument. Also Germany has dominated the rest of the EU with its products.
66% of German exports go to the single market. Personally i do not consider these exports, it is like Trump saying California is great exporter to Florida.
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Carter Ruck does. One of my relatives works there. An excellent firm of lawyers.
I'm afraid that, with all due respect to your relative, they are not as well-regarded as you seem to think.
I Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
That is just silly. Their reputation for high profile media work is second to none. It's a huge firm who have their choice of the brightest and best. To dismiss it as high cost letter writing service doesn't fit the facts.
Media work is one thing. Employment law and whistleblowing in particular is quite another. They do not have any particular expertise there.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
What we know for certain is that Labour will not want any dispute involving anti-Semitism getting to court. For obvious reasons. Thus, this letter is an exercise in intimidation, nothing more. As such, it is beneath contempt.
Quite.
It has also backfired. There are any number of tweets pointing to various Labour worthies praising whistleblowers: Shami and McDonnell, for instance. Oh, the irony!
And at least one Labour MP has offered to repeat the allegations made by the whistleblowers in the Commons.
Yep - it’s the usual total and utter cock-up. No surprise. They’re incompetent bullies.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
Er.. then why sign an NDA ? Presumably, in a settlement where an NDA is part of it, money is involved. Are you saying taking the money and then whistle-blowing is OK ? Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
You cannot, even by paying someone some money to settle their employment claim against you, deprive them of rights which they have under law. So, for instance, the NDA may deal with someone's claim for sex discrimination or unfair dismissal. But that does not prohibit a person from speaking up about other matters not covered by the NDA in accordance with the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act or speaking to a regulator or to a court etc.
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
If so, then why do we have NDAs in the first place, if they are so ineffective ?
They are effective within limits. Most people don't need or want to test those limits. Most employees want to get on with the rest of their lives and don't have the money or stomach for a fight with a big company.
But when they are challenged their limitations become apparent.
This is a classic example when the client - and the lawyer advising them - should be asking themselves not "Can I do this?". But "Should I?"
Indeed the desire for tarriff protection is a much more legitimate reason for Brexit. Do the people of Scunthorpe want protective steel tarriffs or redundancy?
The largest single market in the world is the USA. Do you seek to be a member state of the USA?
Do I smell some Minfordesque gravity-schmavity? Let them eat services?
The fact you equate the Commission President with the PM shows only that you do not understand what the Commission President does or the actual powers he/she has.
Actually re-read the thread it was DougSeal who contrasted the Commission President with the PM and the entire chain quoted since that you have responded to have been a back and forth between us from his equating them.
Indeed the desire for tarriff protection is a much more legitimate reason for Brexit. Do the people of Scunthorpe want protective steel tarriffs or redundancy?
The largest single market in the world is the USA. Do you seek to be a member state of the USA?
Do I smell some Minfordesque gravity-schmavity? Let them eat services?
Foxy claimed "the largest single market in the world".
"The largest single market in the world" is the USA: True or False.
I don't understand this myth being perpetuated by Europhiles that the EU is the largest single market in the world when it quite clearly isn't. On real or nominal values it is the USA, by PPP it is China. There is no metric to which the EU deserves the claim to be the largest single market in the world.
If you want to claim "gravity" as a factor then yes the EU is the largest single market in Europe.
Carter-F**k hoping to get an injunction against the programme?
Retaliating against whistleblowers is an absolute no-no. An NDA cannot stop you blowing the whistle when you are doing so in the public interest.
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
That’s not quite true. Under PIDA a disclosure is “protected” if it shows, or tends to show, a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions. In this case, I would say the disclosures would go to the Labour Party’s failure to comply with legal obligations in the form of the Equality Act, or maybe the H&S of its employees, so the whistleblowers are protected, but Carter-Ruck will likely argue otherwise.
Any decent employer should have a proper whistleblowing procedure and an essential element of such a procedure is that employees should not fear or face retaliation for speaking up, even if it turns out that there is no substance to their claims.
Genuine question - does that ever work? The fact a procedure is needed promising that demonstrates that people will have the desire to punish, and that desire will remain even if a procedure in place says they won't act on that desire. The cynic in me cannot help but wonder given that, but presumably at least some are worth the paper they are written on.
A procedure is never effective unless there is the right culture behind it and there is trust. Too many firms focus on having a procedure and forget that the reality is what matters: do employees trust that their allegations will be taken seriously, will be properly investigated and will be acted on if found to be true? So trust is what is needed. That is hard. Lots of firms with brilliant procedures - on paper, anyway - fail because they don't focus on this aspect - they don't have a proper investigative process staffed by people with integrity and courage, they don't understand the need to learn from their mistakes and they treat people at the top of their organisation as indispensable.
Can you explain how my company was able to build the majority of its business outside Europe while the UK was in the EU?
By embracing the world, same as many companies post-Brexit could build the majority of its business inside Europe while the UK is out of the EU.
It isn't all or nothing.
Interesting. UK's export to China is £25bn or so. Germany's €75bn or so. Both are in the EU. Surely, it didn't stop Germany becoming an exporting powerhouse. Maybe, it has something to do with products and quality of products.
That's exactly what it has to do with. And that's why we don't need to be in the single market.
German industry views the single market as the foundation of their export success - because it secures them an efficient supply chain. Which is why they have prioritised the integrity of the single market during the Brexit negotiations even though they fear the damage that a hard Brexit will do.
Now you're just confusing the argument with facts!
You want facts?
In the area covered by the single market, that is trade in goods, the UK recorded a £95 billion annual trade deficit with the EU in 2017. In 1999, 61% of all UK goods exports were to the EU; by 2017 this had fallen to 48%. By contrast, the proportion of UK goods imports being sourced from the EU has remained fairly consistent since 1999. Hence our trade deficit has spiralled.
In terms of overall trade including services, Germany has a £21 billion annual trade surplus with the UK.
Yes I can see why the EU and German industry has a lot to lose and wants to preserve the status quo. So why not put them under some significant pressure to make concessions to achieve that end, in the knowledge that they have offered nothing to date to a UK government that had previously been prepared to effectively cave in to whatever they demanded.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
Hammond, Liddington, Gauke, Clarke, Wright, Stewart, Lewis, Mundell all said to be facing the axe, even Fox not safe
Fox is definitely not safe given he's strayed from the true path for too long. And for a lot of those, it's not even unreasonable of course- how could many of them serve under Boris given what they think of what he may do, even if he insists he has other plans?
Stewart is not waiting to be axed. He has already made it clear that he would not want to serve in a Boris government. Gauke knows he is on his way out. His speech earlier this week was a pretty brutal attack on Boris and politicians like him.
They should all resign en masse the minute the result is announced and make it clear that they do not want to serve under him rather than him deciding he doesn't want to have them. If they want to keep their dignity and self-respect.
Then he can appoint such geniuses as IDS, Patel, Truss and Francois to the Cabinet. They might even make Grayling look good!
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
Well, it is not as though the EU generally is averse to fudging things and kicking them into the long grass so it is not an outright crazy idea, but I think if they were going to go for that idea they would have suggested it by now. Whether it is a good idea for them to do so or not, they have decided to stake it all on not bending on that point.
To date they haven't needed to bend and with May as PM, Hammond as Chancellor and Cabinet ministers like Gauke etc it has been clear the government never intended to actually exit without its beloved precious deal.
With a clearout of these Cabinet ministers following May's exit the EU will be looking at a very different British government. At that point a big block of Eurofudge may be tastier than going to the wire and seeing if Britain really is serious or not.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
Well, it is not as though the EU generally is averse to fudging things and kicking them into the long grass so it is not an outright crazy idea, but I think if they were going to go for that idea they would have suggested it by now. Whether it is a good idea for them to do so or not, they have decided to stake it all on not bending on that point.
They have already baulked at no deal twice. My guess is that they will again, fearing a hole in their budget. It remains in both sides interest to keep this going until the end of the current budget cycle. They get their handouts, we get free, unlimited access.
The problem for both sides really kicks in from January 2021.
Their budget needs to be approved, no British PM can be seen to sign up to it. Meanwhile, the UK parties who favour remain have to explain why we should give £45bn-£200bn over the next parliament to the EU, rather than £10bn under leave. And then the same again compared to £1bn for leave in the parliament after.
Just a 5% lead for Remain over No Deal, the hardest of Brexits, is really not something diehard Remainers should feel that comfortable with
Just 37% support No Deal. That’s the significant number.
It's a very significant number. By coincidence it is the same percentage Cameron won his overall majority with in 2015, which led to Brexit. It is more than he entered Downing Street with in 2010.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
Well, it is not as though the EU generally is averse to fudging things and kicking them into the long grass so it is not an outright crazy idea, but I think if they were going to go for that idea they would have suggested it by now. Whether it is a good idea for them to do so or not, they have decided to stake it all on not bending on that point.
To date they haven't needed to bend and with May as PM, Hammond as Chancellor and Cabinet ministers like Gauke etc it has been clear the government never intended to actually exit without its beloved precious deal.
With a clearout of these Cabinet ministers following May's exit the EU will be looking at a very different British government. At that point a big block of Eurofudge may be tastier than going to the wire and seeing if Britain really is serious or not.
Yeah: the EU will be looking at a government with even less grasp of reality than the one we have currently.
Honestly, do people not realise that the EU is quite capable of reading the papers here and following what is going in British politics and making their own assessment of the strategic and political nous of people like IDS, Boris and others?
The EU has been preparing for some time now for a No Deal exit. It's what they expect.
That's been my proposal all along. Kick the Irish border issue into the long grass and deal with it in the future relationship negotiations where it rightfully belongs.
And, why would the EU play along with this cunning plan ? Oh, I forgot, we are so important...…...
Well, it is not as though the EU generally is averse to fudging things and kicking them into the long grass so it is not an outright crazy idea, but I think if they were going to go for that idea they would have suggested it by now. Whether it is a good idea for them to do so or not, they have decided to stake it all on not bending on that point.
They have already baulked at no deal twice. My guess is that they will again, fearing a hole in their budget. It remains in both sides interest to keep this going until the end of the current budget cycle. They get their handouts, we get free, unlimited access.
The problem for both sides really kicks in from January 2021.
Their budget needs to be approved, no British PM can be seen to sign up to it. Meanwhile, the UK parties who favour remain have to explain why we should give £45bn-£200bn over the next parliament to the EU, rather than £10bn under leave. And then the same again compared to £1bn for leave in the parliament after.
The public won't buy it.
That's why my/Boris's proposal is the right solution. Enter a standstill transition but with Britain out of the EU (and the EU's decision making process) but still following EU rules while we negotiate a new deal.
Relative to the risk of No Deal The EU gains: billions in funding, continuity of trade, the Irish issue is dealt with for now, the pesky Brits are gone from decision making.
The Brits pay billions but gain continuity of trade, time to negotiate the future and the Irish issue is dealt with for now.
Comments
If Boris becomes PM and reaches a General Election he continue that 100% trend.
If Boris becomes PM but falls before a General Election he will be the first PM since Neville Chamberlain not to have faced a General Election. Since the start of the 20th century only Chamberlain and Balfour were never elected or held to account by the voters at an election.
TNS-Reid
ComGov
YouRes
Popinium
Opulus
Ipsos-HARI
Morris
BCM
IMG
Kanelbase
Pantar
If you don't like that, blame the voters. However the voters will hold Boris to account at the next election, as they've held to account EVERY post-war PM one way or another. When will von der Leyen be held to account? How many of her predecessors were?
The EU just yawn at these no deal threats.
Harold Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives sacked half that number: seven ministers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-18829174/harold-macmillan-s-night-of-long-knives-50-year-on
For those with more time to kill:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
Labour seem to have absolutely no clue about basic employment law.
I was hoping that Indian fans would send their Edgbaston semi-final tickets back to the official website, but they haven't started appearing on there yet.
So apart from everything you say above being the exact opposite of reality, you are absolutely spot on.
There are pros and cons to being in the EU.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want a deal, prepare for no deal.
Both Hunt and Bozos Brexit plan is nonsense .
So yes we are better.
The British know the PM can change during a Parliamentary session and if that happens they can pass judgement at the next election, as we did when we ejected Gordon Brown from Downing Street.
https://twitter.com/mos_politics/status/1147614480253276161?s=21
Personally, I am in favour of whistle-blowing . But then people should not agree to NDAs.
I was in charge of whistleblowing investigations as well as other internal investigations leading to disciplinaries. Hell, I even wrote many of the reports which led to disciplinary action. So this is one of my areas of expertise. The way Labour is behaving - in relation to its internal investigations, its treatment of whistleblowers, its disciplinary process - breaks pretty much all the rules and best practice on investigations, on disciplinary proceedings and on how to have a proper whistleblowing process and culture. And if I wanted advice about how to treat whistleblowers properly Carter-Ruck would be nowhere on my list of firms with expertise.
On the other hand, if I wanted an expensive firm to write a pompous letter hoping that it would scare the other side off Carter-Ruck would be my first choice.
The option 26% said was the most pressing was actually "Resolving Brexit", which for many of the 26% could mean finding a way to stay.
May announced before MV2 (and without any votes forcing her to do so) that she'd give Parliament a vote on no deal and a vote on an extension, and she made both free votes.
Yes, that statutory cap on unfair dismissal is removed in a whistleblowing case, but if you were not fired for that reason, or just left of your own accord, your prospects for recovery are limited so you realistically have no choice but to sign. It’s a hot topic in employment law circles right now.
Doesn't this leave us having a period of 21 months between March 2019 and December 2020 outside the EU experiencing inferior access whilst paying in full? So..if we drag leaving out until December 2020 - don't we get better access for the same price compared to the deal May negotiated?
What's the bill from 1st January 2021 under Leave, and what is it under Remain?
The scope is still pretty wide.
(*Thanks to @DougSeal for the definition.)
What is in the public interest is another matter but a private agreement cannot, for obvious reasons, prevent someone from saying something when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Nor should it. Ultimately the courts would decide but it is a brave employer who would seek to argue that the court should take action against someone revealing bad behaviour on the part of the employer, even if there were some agreement in place. The court would be well within its rights to say that to do so would be inequitable.
Every single Prime Minister without fail since WWII has faced a General Election. The last Prime Minister excluding WWII (when elections were suspended) not to face a General Election was Balfour over a century ago.
How many Commission Presidents have been elected at a General Election and how many have gone into an election seeking re-election?
Juncker arguably was. Who else?
Of course a political party may consider itself too grand to have something which is now de rigeur everywhere else. But it is nonetheless shockingly bad practice on their part.
With the Tories busy chasing unicorns, looks like some few in Labour at least are realising the stable doors need closing long after the actual horses bolted from it. Not that the Tories should be let off the hook in the slightest for how they have behaved, but maybe the Kinnocks of this world should have not played partisan games with the last MV. It would be hilarious if enough Lab MPs publicly said they would now vote for it and May faced pressure to bring it back in the few weeks she still has left. Won't happen of course, not least because both her potential successors could not reasonably back it given they argue they can improve it, but it would be funny.
While polling companies are coming up with consistently different house effects, the trend in the polls published in the last couple of weeks seems consistent - a limited recovery of the Conservative position v Labour.
They have a very high opinion of themselves. It is not an opinion widely shared by those who have been lawyers for decades for anything other than media work.
The fact that Labour have chosen a firm whose expertise is the media is very revealing about what Labour's real priority is.
Hence the small number of agreements that Liam Fox has partially rolled over
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/deu/show/all/2017/
66% of German exports go to the single market. Personally i do not consider these exports, it is like Trump saying California is great exporter to Florida.
Here is the UK.
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/show/all/2017/
56% to EUland. So are we a much better exporter to the RoW than Germany?
(But Mull is better....)
It has also backfired. There are any number of tweets pointing to various Labour worthies praising whistleblowers: Shami and McDonnell, for instance. Oh, the irony!
And at least one Labour MP has offered to repeat the allegations made by the whistleblowers in the Commons.
But when they are challenged their limitations become apparent.
This is a classic example when the client - and the lawyer advising them - should be asking themselves not "Can I do this?". But "Should I?"
"The largest single market in the world" is the USA: True or False.
I don't understand this myth being perpetuated by Europhiles that the EU is the largest single market in the world when it quite clearly isn't. On real or nominal values it is the USA, by PPP it is China. There is no metric to which the EU deserves the claim to be the largest single market in the world.
If you want to claim "gravity" as a factor then yes the EU is the largest single market in Europe.
A procedure is never effective unless there is the right culture behind it and there is trust. Too many firms focus on having a procedure and forget that the reality is what matters: do employees trust that their allegations will be taken seriously, will be properly investigated and will be acted on if found to be true? So trust is what is needed. That is hard. Lots of firms with brilliant procedures - on paper, anyway - fail because they don't focus on this aspect - they don't have a proper investigative process staffed by people with integrity and courage, they don't understand the need to learn from their mistakes and they treat people at the top of their organisation as indispensable.
A procedure is necessary but never sufficient.
It was a leak to the Mail which triggered Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives, and that was only seven ministers. 14 is incredible.
In the area covered by the single market, that is trade in goods, the UK recorded a £95 billion annual trade deficit with the EU in 2017. In 1999, 61% of all UK goods exports were to the EU; by 2017 this had fallen to 48%. By contrast, the proportion of UK goods imports being sourced from the EU has remained fairly consistent since 1999. Hence our trade deficit has spiralled.
In terms of overall trade including services, Germany has a £21 billion annual trade surplus with the UK.
Yes I can see why the EU and German industry has a lot to lose and wants to preserve the status quo. So why not put them under some significant pressure to make concessions to achieve that end, in the knowledge that they have offered nothing to date to a UK government that had previously been prepared to effectively cave in to whatever they demanded.
They should all resign en masse the minute the result is announced and make it clear that they do not want to serve under him rather than him deciding he doesn't want to have them. If they want to keep their dignity and self-respect.
Then he can appoint such geniuses as IDS, Patel, Truss and Francois to the Cabinet. They might even make Grayling look good!
With a clearout of these Cabinet ministers following May's exit the EU will be looking at a very different British government. At that point a big block of Eurofudge may be tastier than going to the wire and seeing if Britain really is serious or not.
The problem for both sides really kicks in from January 2021.
Their budget needs to be approved, no British PM can be seen to sign up to it. Meanwhile, the UK parties who favour remain have to explain why we should give £45bn-£200bn over the next parliament to the EU, rather than £10bn under leave. And then the same again compared to £1bn for leave in the parliament after.
The public won't buy it.
Honestly, do people not realise that the EU is quite capable of reading the papers here and following what is going in British politics and making their own assessment of the strategic and political nous of people like IDS, Boris and others?
The EU has been preparing for some time now for a No Deal exit. It's what they expect.
https://twitter.com/Jamessteel2008/status/1147610576362844160?s=19
Relative to the risk of No Deal The EU gains: billions in funding, continuity of trade, the Irish issue is dealt with for now, the pesky Brits are gone from decision making.
The Brits pay billions but gain continuity of trade, time to negotiate the future and the Irish issue is dealt with for now.