I've hummed and harred over whether I should vote in of out of the EU for the UK.
My only real reason for voting out is that the structure of the EU organisation. The leaders in the EU are appointed, not elected and are therefore largely unaccountable. They seem to be old political leaders that have lost their positions in their own country's democratic structure and are given jobs as a form of pension.
Even if they were good and have a "lot of experiance" they have probably lost their drive, ambition, vision and energy to fight for anything the inertia of the EU bureaucracy would resist.
However even worse than this is that many are corrupt, or at least complacent, to value for money in EU expenditure. They have country loyalties and loyalties to colleagues in their old governments that manifests as a bias in the decisions and spending, especially of low profile projects.
And all this means that if they do a very bad job, as unelected officials they cant get kicked out. I'm also concerned with TTIP and the way the EU is negotiating it.
On the other hand the reason to vote to stay in is the moderating effect of the EU on an increasingly right wing and rich elite, which seems to want to subjugate ordinary working people to the lowest possible income while they take the maximum income and blame all the ills of the country on the poor. The junior doctors dispute is a prime example where these workers are being asked to do more for less. Yet when they fight back they are painted as the bad guys for not doing as they are told.
Another example is this article in the Daily Telegraph 10 Dec 2015
Apparently workers getting paid for their drive to their first job of the day is going to increase business cost. This is so surprising that the British Government has to issue a warning for those business leader who are not paying attention...!
You don't see the same warnings when CEO salaries or bonuses go up, or when they get some massive pay off and pension package. Apparently these costs to the business don't count. No warning is needed as all the business leaders are paying attention, it means they can get more next year.
However there is another reason why paying people while they travel to their first job is justified. When companies first had vehicles for employees they would be parked in the company car park (motor transport) over night. People would travel to work in their own time and at their own cost pick up their vehicles and travel to their first job. At the end of the day they would leave their last job and park the vehicle in the company car park before making their way home.
This was to do with company insurance (so they said) and what the tax man saw as a taxable perk if people took vehicles home. Plus vehicles were expensive and often formed a pool so that several drivers might use the vehicle over a week.
In the 80's this started to change. The cost of insurance wasn't an inhibition any more. Pool vehicles gave way to allocated vehicles as cost came down. The car parks were valuable land to be used or sold off and there wasn't the loss of productivity as people tokk vehcels to and from the company car park. The parking cost were lost to the business and become a public cost as vehicles were parked on the road. Where thieves might break into a fleet of vehicles in a car park and work undetected (steeling all the batteries, tools etc) in a dispersed home parking model this attractive target was removed.
In conclusion the businesses had the reward of allowing people to park at home. Have used that money or forgotten it and now want the workers to be unpaid while they get to their first job. The EU saw through this ruse and stopped it
While I doubt there will be any radical changes in the EU there will be no adverse right wing changes and since Scotland has ousted Labour, there may not be a Labour government for some time. So to keep the Tories (and other right wing views) in check I think (not certain) I'm going to vote to stay in.
My only real reason for voting out is that the structure of the EU organisation. The leaders in the EU are appointed, not elected and are therefore largely unaccountable. They seem to be old political leaders that have lost their positions in their own country's democratic structure and are given jobs as a form of pension.
Even if they were good and have a "lot of experiance" they have probably lost their drive, ambition, vision and energy to fight for anything the inertia of the EU bureaucracy would resist.
However even worse than this is that many are corrupt, or at least complacent, to value for money in EU expenditure. They have country loyalties and loyalties to colleagues in their old governments that manifests as a bias in the decisions and spending, especially of low profile projects.
And all this means that if they do a very bad job, as unelected officials they cant get kicked out. I'm also concerned with TTIP and the way the EU is negotiating it.
On the other hand the reason to vote to stay in is the moderating effect of the EU on an increasingly right wing and rich elite, which seems to want to subjugate ordinary working people to the lowest possible income while they take the maximum income and blame all the ills of the country on the poor. The junior doctors dispute is a prime example where these workers are being asked to do more for less. Yet when they fight back they are painted as the bad guys for not doing as they are told.
Another example is this article in the Daily Telegraph 10 Dec 2015
Apparently workers getting paid for their drive to their first job of the day is going to increase business cost. This is so surprising that the British Government has to issue a warning for those business leader who are not paying attention...!
You don't see the same warnings when CEO salaries or bonuses go up, or when they get some massive pay off and pension package. Apparently these costs to the business don't count. No warning is needed as all the business leaders are paying attention, it means they can get more next year.
However there is another reason why paying people while they travel to their first job is justified. When companies first had vehicles for employees they would be parked in the company car park (motor transport) over night. People would travel to work in their own time and at their own cost pick up their vehicles and travel to their first job. At the end of the day they would leave their last job and park the vehicle in the company car park before making their way home.
This was to do with company insurance (so they said) and what the tax man saw as a taxable perk if people took vehicles home. Plus vehicles were expensive and often formed a pool so that several drivers might use the vehicle over a week.
In the 80's this started to change. The cost of insurance wasn't an inhibition any more. Pool vehicles gave way to allocated vehicles as cost came down. The car parks were valuable land to be used or sold off and there wasn't the loss of productivity as people tokk vehcels to and from the company car park. The parking cost were lost to the business and become a public cost as vehicles were parked on the road. Where thieves might break into a fleet of vehicles in a car park and work undetected (steeling all the batteries, tools etc) in a dispersed home parking model this attractive target was removed.
In conclusion the businesses had the reward of allowing people to park at home. Have used that money or forgotten it and now want the workers to be unpaid while they get to their first job. The EU saw through this ruse and stopped it
While I doubt there will be any radical changes in the EU there will be no adverse right wing changes and since Scotland has ousted Labour, there may not be a Labour government for some time. So to keep the Tories (and other right wing views) in check I think (not certain) I'm going to vote to stay in.
No comments:
Post a Comment