Thursday, 6 November 2008

What price Labour's 'red lines' and 'opt outs'?

As a young student I worked weekends and holidays in a local hotel. 'Casual' wages - cash, no tax or NI in those days - offered advantages for the hotel in being able to vary labour to meet demands. Sometimes they'd want me to start at breakfast, work though lunch, do afternoon teas and then dinner service. I didn't mind - paid by the hour I'd take all the hours on offer. And more hours meant more tips, too. Sometimes I worked nearly a hundred hours a week, and the manager would grumble I was making more than him as he paid me out. I didn't mention the cash tips that accumulated until my pockets were as fat as saddlebags and I had to change into notes at the bar three times a day. When you're young and with stamina, you just take it in your stride.

I don't think there were many holiday weeks when I worked fewer than 48 hours. Now, of course, the European Parliament has decided to ride roughshod over Labour's much heralded 'opt out' over the working week directive, and restrict British workers to just this limit. And they will do the same to all the rest of the 'red lines' and 'opt outs' that Labour have lyingly promised the nation will be maintained.

Labour must surely have known with absolute certainty that this would be the case. Which makes their commitment to the European Constitution an act of the most breathtaking hypocritical arrogance. An utter failure of government, unfit for office. Until the political class opens its ears to the people of Britain, the scorn and vituperation of the blogosphere will fall upon their heads. Whatever Hazel wishes.

2 comments:

Yokel said...

an act of the most breathtaking hypocritical arrogance.

So? It got them elected, didn't it?

Alfred said...

Need i say more?

On Monday June 18th 2007, before the Brussels summit, Tony Blair told a panel of MPs

"First we will not accept a treaty that allows the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way.
"Second, we will not agree to something that displaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister.
"Thirdly, we will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system.
"And fourthly, we will not agree to anything that moves to qualified-majority voting, something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefits system.
"Those are four major changes, obviously, in what was agreed before and that is the position we will set out and if people want an agreement I'm afraid we are going to have to agree on that."
"If we achieve those four objectives, I defy people to say what it is that is supposed to be so fundamental it would require a referendum.