Scottish Independence and the EU

The debate on Scottish independence is heating up: within the last few weeks we’ve gone from emotional appeals to keep Scotland in the UK to declarations that if Scotland leaves the UK it will lose the pound and EU membership. Commission President Barroso made a surprisingly strong intervention into the debate on the Andrew Marr Show, saying that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” for Scotland to be accepted back into the EU.

Although there are some interesting arguments on the legal obligations of the Member States in this area, and the assertion is disputed, it probably will be difficult politically for Scotland to re-join the Union. Still, an agreed referendum on independence is different from a unilateral declaration of independence (which is Spain’s real fear), and it shouldn’t be “impossible” for Scotland to gain membership. The 2016 deadline of the Scottish National Party is another story: Scotland may be up-to-date on EU law, but the negotiations would probably drag on.

What’s strange about the debate is that there’s little discussion about the UK union as a whole. (As noted in The Guardian, 100 years ago the situation was different). The polls on independence may be narrowing, but a vote against is still the likely outcome. But even if Scotland stays in the UK, further devolution of powers is on the cards. Without a debate on how the UK should be run – whether there should be devolution to England or the English regions, and if power should be devolved more equally with the central government holding on to limited and clear powers – there is a sense of drift. If devolution is just about the nations and regions claiming opt outs from the central government, rather than part of a broader discussion about how the UK should be run, then the direction of the political narrative is towards exit: maybe not today, but perhaps tomorrow.

Stripping Citizenship

Last week the UK House of Commons voted on an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would empower the Home Secretary to strip foreign-born terrorist suspects of their UK citizenship, even if it would render them stateless. (Those with dual citizenship can already be stripped of their British citizenship). The amendment reads (p.3):

"(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.”

The decision doesn’t have to be made following a court ruling and it isn’t made by a court – it’s made by the Secretary of State herself. The amendment was proposed by the Home Office Secretary of State, Theresa May, and was reportedly aimed at drawing Tory back-benchers away from an amendment that would have limited criminals up for deportation’s ability to rely on the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. That amendment was defeated with the help of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The vote is another example of how difficult it is for Cameron to control his back bench, which will be worrying for him come the European elections. At the moment the Conservatives are expecting to come behind UKIP in the May poll, but even with that factored into their calculations, the back benches may take the result as a spur to become even more rebellious.

Disappointingly, the anti-immigration rhetoric has meant that the other parties have failed to take a firm stand on the issue of taking away citizenship. On Question Time on Thursday, the Labour and Lib Dem representatives weren’t able to give a clear “yes” or “no” on whether or not they supported the idea. UK politics seems to be stuck on an illiberal course…

No Free Movement Rights for the Working Class?

The debate over the free movement of people is continuing to grow. It's worth remembering that EU citizens currently have the right to reside in another Member State for 3 months to look for work, with no obligation on the host Member State to provide benefits (Citizen's Directive, PDF). They can stay longer than 3 months if they are employed, self-employed, or have the resources to support themselves. When they're a worker (an employee), then they have access to the same social and tax advantages as the host country's nationals (Directive 1612/68).

In the UK, some Tories are calling for a 2 year period before EU citizens will have access to the welfare system. That's 2 years of living, working and contributing in a country without being able to draw on the same support open to other citizens. Given that so many supported by the welfare system are in work (an indication of how wages have stagnated and the worrying necessity to support those in work to ensure that they can actually make a living), such a long period would greatly disadvantage poorer people from exercising their Treaty rights in practice.

Labour appears to be thinking of controlling intra-EU migration for the skill levels of the migrant, as Chuka Umunna said on the BBC's Question Time last Thursday:

"Umunna said the EU should change its rules to prevent citizens from travelling to other member states in search of work, with a focus on banning highly skilled workers from less affluent EU members taking low-skilled jobs in richer member states.
[...]
He said this would revive the spirit of the EU's founding fathers, who wanted to encourage freedom of movement for highly skilled workers to highly skilled jobs."

I'm not sure what founding father he's talking about; he didn't quote any and I can't remember any famous quotes about Europe only being for graduates. Labour's position is very confusing. They seem to be talking about preventing movement to other countries to find work (so you'd already need to have a job before you move), preventing highly skilled workers from the new accession countries from taking lower-skilled jobs in the older Member States (which sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to define and enforce, never mind getting all the Member States to sign off on it), and limiting the free movement rights to the highly skilled.

This last point, which seems to be the most likely, is an odd position for the Labour party. So the highly skilled (presumably also those from more privileged backgrounds) should have these rights but the less well skilled shouldn't (which is hard to define and probably just means "poor")? It's a sad state of affairs when the Labour party is for disenfranchising the poor in Europe rather than opening up more opportunity and creating work and security...

Even the Liberal Democrats have voiced support for limited access to benefits. Perhaps someone can explain the electoral rationale behind this move, because I can't see it. Nobody who wants a tough stance on immigration is going to vote for the Lib Dems over the Tories because of this. The net result is that there's no real political voice that is speaking out in defence of free movement rights.

It's widely reported, and accepted by supporters for tougher immigration controls such as Migration Watch, that EEA migrants claim less than locals, and contribute more to society and the economy than they receive in social welfare. The political weather has changed so much that even the politicians that make this argument are supporting a dilution of free movement rights. This political cowardice just lets the panic over immigration to grow. Without dissenting voices, the political culture as a whole shifts in an ever more anti-immigrant direction - you could say that it's a microcosm of the overall EU debate in the UK.

Political attitudes of the CSU in Germany are also hardening on this, though opinion polls suggest that a majority thinks that Germany has benefited from immigration and that it has benefited from EU membership overall.

Poland says No to watering down Free Movement

The Polish government has made it clear that it will veto changes to the free movement of people in the EU Treaties. Since the EU Treaties can only be changed by unanimity, this is a blow to calls from Cameron's UK government (and from the Bavarian CSU) for changes to the system.

I've written before about how the UK debate seems to frame the single market as the only good thing about the EU when the social elements are such a big part of the bargain. This is desire for the single market to respect national social protections gives rise to a kind of European social contract - a kind of minimum (and from the left's point of view it is very minimum) level of protection that limits the single market in undercutting national welfare and social systems (though the single market has had a big impact on these). But now the debate has shifted to reviewing and limiting one of the fundamental freedoms of the single market.

The fears over EU immigration in the UK (with the ending of the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens) has been the main spark for this, and the idea of being tough on immigration is popular. And because a "market" is seen as just goods you buy in a shop, rather than an economy people live in, the free movement of people is perhaps seen as not really being part of the single market. Despite this, there are polls indicating that Britain would be welcoming of immigrants who play by the rules, so the panic may be more linked to the rhetoric over benefits and the young than might be seen at first glance.

Watering down free movement rights is likely to come up against fierce opposition from many Member States - not just Poland, but also Spain, Ireland, Greece, and other countries afraid to see their citizens treated as second-class EU citizens - so it's unlikely to work. But watering down further the social side of the EU will make everyone more economically insecure and could further undermine support for free movement rights and solidarity in the wealthier Member States, and ultimately support for the single market.

For Cameron to be able to claim victory through renegotiation, he will have to get something big in the area of social policy now that so many other areas are sealed off (the UK is outside of Schengen, the Euro and has an opt in to justice legislation). The undermining of social rules and standards needs to be resisted.

Gove's bashing of "left wing" historians is a sad indication on how he views history

The UK's Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has been in the news lately for complaining about left wing academics and their insufficiently "patriotic" version of the First World War, which feed into a likewise unhappy media image:

"Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.

The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths."

It's interesting that pointing out the failures of the military leadership of the war is equated with denigrating the courage of those who fought - the very phrase lions led by donkeys is meant to highlight their courage in contrast to the leadership - and it almost seems like Gove's definition of "patriotism" is loyalty to the elite. Question the soundness of General Haig's strategy of repeatedly making soldiers walk slowly across open ground towards machine-gun fire? Clearly you have little love for the troops or Britain.

More worrying is the approach taken to academia. Debating the history and the merits of generals or the justness of the war is a good thing - and critical thinking and discussion needs to be encouraged. But using politics as a shorthand to exclude arguments is sloppy and wrong. This is the man responsible for the education system calling academics "left wing" to imply that they and their academic work is untrustworthy and biased. Are papers on history published in academic journals by authors with left wing political views less reliable or worthwhile simply because of their political views? Of course, this "left wing" view of history isn't necessarily reserved to the left. Notably, Oh! What a Lovely War is inspired by a book by a Conservative MP.

If Gove personally distrusts the work of historians simply because it appears to have, in his opinion, a left wing bias or because it finds itself at odds with the government's aims (or the war propaganda at the time), then that's his business. But it's a poor basis for teaching history or commemorating the war.

Which Generation are we saving here?

British Chancellor George Osborne said yesterday that another £25 billion in welfare cuts are needed to close the deficit:

"Do we say: the worst is over; back we go to our bad habits of borrowing and spending and living beyond our means - and let the next generation pay the bill? Or do we say to ourselves: yes, because of our plan, things are getting better. But there is still a long way to go - and there are big, underlying problems we have to fix in our economy."

With the pensions part of the welfare budget protected under the Conservative promise of the triple lock - that pensions will increase in line with average earnings, inflation or by 2.5%, whichever is the largest - and the under-25s the targets of most of the cuts, it's an odd rhetorical direction to take. It's traditional austerity rhetoric to insist that the costs of borrowing mean that the next generation is being weighted down by debt instead of the current generation dealing with their own problems.

But the under=25s are the main target of these austerity policies, be it an end to housing benefits or employment benefits. It's difficult to claim that the generation that finds itself under the 25 year threshold played a part in causing the current deficit or economic crisis. When did they speculate on house prices or recklessly run financial institutions? Are these people not the "Next Generation"? Even if they're not, presumably the benefits will still remain withdrawn for whoever this Next Generation turns out to be until they are 25.

This raises a few questions about what the morals behind the Tories' version of austerity. Why should the under-25s have access to fewer benefits than the rest of the population? At 25 you can vote, serve in the army, pay taxes, are entitled to the full minimum wage... but you can't be trusted with housing benefit? Which implies that you won't be seen as a full citizen in the eyes of the British state until you're over 25, and that you're really expected to live with your parents in tough times.

Protecting pensioners - a key voting group for the Conservatives - might be seen as a cynical political ploy (and to an extent it is), but I think you can see the basis of the Tory view of the state in the targeting of the young to close the deficit. The state, or the welfare part of it, it really a giant insurance vehicle in the Conservative view: benefits should really only be paid out to those who pay in. Pensioners have paid in, so their contribution must be protected; under-25s cannot safely be assumed to have paid much tax yet, so they should not have access to the same range of benefits as other citizens. Taxpayer payment to (or investment in) the state should be prioritised.

The problem with this view is that young people start off with nothing or not-very-much (unless they have a generous family) because they are just starting off in life and have yet to establish themselves in work and the world at large. Generally there is a redistribution of resources to the young (education, etc.) to equip them with the skills to establish themselves (and to give the state higher earning workers who will pay higher taxes). People established in careers are expected to pay not only because they have benefited from the system in the past, but also because they want their children to have a good start in life and they want later generations to continue to be able to pay for the state (including eventually their pensions).

By focusing so much on who pays in as a taxpayer, and that on an individual level they broadly get what they paid in back out in the end, it misses the point that the state acts as an investor. Taxpayers matter more than citizens, so if you can't be assumed to have paid much in, then it's not that big of a deal to withdraw benefits. So if you are in (university) education, you're expected to pay tuition fees and to take on debt to do so because you're investing in yourself, and if you're under 25, you don't deserve access to the same benefits as anyone else because we can't assume that you've paid in yet. Of course this kind of thinking means that the welfare state becomes more about those who can or have been able to pay at some point, leading to more inequality.

This attack on the young is an extremely clear sign that we aren't "all in this together", particularly as youth unemployment remains high.

Ironically it seems to be the "pro-business" Conservatives that don't know much about investment - after all, the Royal Mail was sold off at a bargain basement price while the government guaranteed its returns for a year, and the oldest student debt was sold off at a loss rather than the government even bothering to maximise the returns on even the loan system. No wonder the Tories think the private sector can do it better when they do it so badly.

Free Movement Night's Eve?

"Who cheats, flies", runs the campaign of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria. Fear of an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians seems to be at fever pitch, with Tory activists in the UK petitioning the Prime Minister to use an emergency clause to limit immigration and the new CSU campaign, which has angered its coalition partners (the CSU is part of Merkel's governing coalition). From tomorrow, the transitional restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens from enjoying the full rights of EU citizenship will expire and they will be able to work across the EU under the same conditions as other citizens.

Counter arguments, that Germany and others benefit from migration, that migrants contribute more than they receive in benefits and that the freedom of movement is a two-way street, don't seem to have broken through. However that doesn't mean that anti-immigration arguments and rhetoric are necessarily well-received. The "Go Home" campaign piloted in Britain - where a van pulling a billboard urged illegal immigrants to contact the Home Office and "go home" - was a laughing stock, with people cheekily trying to use the contact number to ask the Home Office to arrange for their trip home across London. Similarly, the "Who cheats, flies" - Wer betruegt, der fliegt! - campaign was mercilessly ridiculed online, with pictures of prominent CSU ministers on planes appearing under the slogan.

And a recent poll in Britain suggests that integration rather than immigration is the crux of the concern, with a majority of people accepting of immigration if people play by the rules. This is probably why the clumsy attempts to tar groups of immigrants - actual or potential - with the same brush has struck such a hollow ring with people. In this day and age scapegoating a group of people is simply not acceptable. The concern is more over pressure on the welfare state, public services and integration into the local community. These are issues - and it's sad that evidence of migrants' contributions haven't had much traction yet - and they also seem to be tied up with the wider debate over the welfare state and who deserves help: the old concept of the deserving poor.

The image of people flying in just to cheat the system may be ridiculous, but in tougher economic times there is a fear of cheaters. Announcements to reduce and cut away at the welfare state are not just about austerity, but also tinged with suspicions that some are milking the system, even as demand for charitable services like food banks rise. But as the welfare system is made tougher, it's made tougher on everyone... The political battles over immigration and welfare will continue into the new year, with parties bidding to be tougher on immigrants and welfare "scroungers". Past experience with populist campaigns may have jaded the public to these stunts, but we are drifting towards a tougher society.

Is Russell Brand the UK's Beppe Grillo?

Last week comedian Russell Brand guest edited the left-wing New Statesman, and called for a revolution in his editorial. In TV interviews he's gained a lot of attention, both supportive and derisive, on his views of political apathy and his message to young people not to vote.

So is Brand the UK version of Beppe Grillo, the Italian comedian that's rocked the Italian political establishment through his blogging and the success of the 5 Star Movement?

No. The answer is no. He's not.

And actually comparing Brand to Grillo should give people pause for thought, because it's in the differences that we can see what Brand's prospects of success are. Supporters say that Brand has made a lot of good points about how ineffectual the current system is, and detractors point out that Brand hasn't got anything to replace the current system with. Brand does make some good points about invested interests and now the left needs to boil its abstract thinking down to real life experiences. But it's the childish focus on revolution where the whole thing unravels.


Vive la révolution?

First thing's first: Brand is actually calling for a revolution. Brand doesn't just assert that apathy is a rational response to a system that has failed to cater to the needs of the population - he urges people to stop voting for the explicit reason that it's a release and that opting out of the electoral system will speed up the growth of tensions leading to revolution.

This point needs to be addressed. While supporters have defended Brand for not coming up with a post-revolution system to work towards (he's been busy editing a magazine), this isn't good enough. A revolution involves the use of force, either in taking lives or injuring people, or by taking away people's political rights. (When Brand says "I take the right!", it should be remembered that a revolution removing a government would negate the political voices of the people who had voted). It's because of this use of force in the context of a democratic system, which is geared towards discussion and majoritarian rule, that people demand to know the alternative before they are supposed to violate the rights of others.

So when Brand says that it's up to those in power to provide answers, he's making a flashy statement and promptly denying responsibility for it. The joke excuse of having a magazine to write is a slap in the face - the point of that opportunity was for him to set out his political stall. He could have just criticised the way politics worked and people would have agreed and left it at that; it's because he called for a revolution that people rightly are asking what would that entail.

Earlier I said it was a childish approach to revolution, and that's because of his attitude to violence:

"At this point I’d attended a few protests and I loved them. At a Liverpool dockers march, the chanting, the bristling, the rippedup paving stones and galloping police horses in Bono glasses flipped a switch in me. I felt connected, on a personal level I was excited by the chaos, a necessary component of transition, I like a bit of chaos however it’s delivered. The disruption of normalcy a vital step in any revolution. Even aesthetically, aside from the ideology, I beam at the spectacle of disruption, even when quite trivial."

Coming from a part of the world where we have riots and protests over political symbols and wouldn't mind a bit of normalcy, I'm not so comfortable with this "bit of a laugh" spin on things. In fact, it starts to sound as if it's the fact that politics bores him, and only this kind of politics entertains him enough to be worthy of the name - which is a very self-obsessed outlook to have on things.


He's no Grillo

While Grillo doesn't seek to be elected to the Italian parliament, his 5 Star Movement has entered parliament with a bang, winning 25.55% of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 23.79% in the Senate elections. They're not in power, but they've made it much harder for a government to be formed (it's a Grand Coalition), and they are able to use this as a campaign for their core issues, including political reform. Grillo and the 5 Start Movement are "anti-politics" in the sense that they're against corrupt politicians and want to see politicians serve the people more, but they haven't rejected the ballot box as a means of change or political activism.

Taking parliamentary seats - and depriving mainstream parties of those seats - is probably the most disruptive political activism of all. It denies the system from ignoring your legitimacy, it disrupts or even prevents the exercise of power by the targeted elites, and it provides the institutional power an positions as a platform for change. As Brand has not formulated an alternative to democracy, I assume that he's not against democracy as a concept and doesn't have much of an argument against this except the "all politicians are corrupt liars" line. Until he comes up with an alternative, then he hasn't explained why people shouldn't use elections to try to change things, and he certainly hasn't put a good case forward for the institutional reasons why the current system could never work (just that these politicians are all in bed with big business).

In truth it would be harder for Brand to achieve the same results in the UK due to the first-past-the-post electoral system. But the point is that this kind of campaigning implies organisation, working with others and, well, lots of work. And I can't see Brand committing himself to that. Waiting for the inevitable revolution (while getting to talk about it in the media, naturally), seems to be more his style.


P.S. Humour and politics

Strangely Brand doesn't seem to get what a good mix of politics and humour could be. Humour spices up a political message if it shows up the opposing argument, highlights the ridiculousness of the current situation, or adds character. But there's also a danger that you just shoot yourself in the foot with it and show up your own message. Brand's own example is this:

"When Ali G, who had joined protesters attempting to prevent a forest being felled to make way for a road, shouted across the barricade, “You may take our trees, but you’ll never take our freedom,” I identified more with Baron Cohen’s amoral trickster than the stern activist who aggressively admonished him: “This is serious, you c***.”"

Humour to deflate, highlight and add character works in politics - humour painting your own side as hopeless kind of stops people from taking it seriously. I can see how an activist might be worried that a celebrity is just using them for a laugh, rather than actually being for that cause (especially if they turned up as a comedy character known for showing people up). It's the difference between having a laugh while doing something, and ending up being the laughingstock. And as a comedian, Brand really should get that...

Who's afraid of the Working Time Directive? - Part 2: NHS

Yesterday I ran through the contents of the Working Time Directive (WTD) and the UK Regulations that implement the law in Britain. With a minimum break of 20 minutes for those who work for 6 hours or longer, and an opt-out-able prohibition on a working week longer than 48 hours (when averaged out over 17 weeks), the rules seem reasonable. In fact, you rarely hear anyone argue against the substance of the Directive in connection with everyday workers. However, the WTD is increasingly linked with the NHS in political debate.

Since the rules apply to doctors, consultants and nurses, concerns have been raised over whether the WTD was impacting on patient care in the National Health Service, with changing doctors breaking the continuity of care and leading to mistakes. Two ECJ rulings – Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública, which held that “on call” time counted as working time whether or not it was spent at the hospital, and Norbert Jaeger (PDF), which defined when compensatory rest should be taken – are key to this debate. It should be noted that health service workers can opt out of the 48 hour week in their contracts too.

The Royal College of Surgeons is one group of medical professionals against the current rules:

“These on-call arrangements have been scrapped in favour of full-shift rotas. The nature of working a full shift pattern is more tiring when compared to an ‘on-call’ system because of doctors working irregular shift patterns which create a working environment that is impairing patient safety by reducing the number of doctors covering patients and increasing the number of patient handovers between staff, correspondingly reducing continuity of care.

[...]

We believe that proposals to classify on-call time differently and the requirements on the timing of compensatory rest will provide a framework to start to address these concerns for surgeons, but we would also encourage the Commission to look in detail at the sectoral problems for doctors in training with a view to allowing a solution of excluding this group of doctors from the scope of the Directive.”

However, the British Medical Association is in favour of the WTD:

"'The BMA opposes further attempts to renegotiate the [EWTD] or to overturn rulings by the ECJ (European Court of Justice).

'Previous attempts to change legislation have taken many years and securing significant improvements to junior doctor training within the parameters of the EWTD must remain the priority,' the association says.

The BMA also stresses that it strongly supports the ECJ rulings that all time on-call, including inactive time, is considered work."

And the BMA’s Juinor Doctors’ Committee chair, Ben Molyneux has said:

"Tired doctors make mistakes, and we must think of the welfare of doctors and the resultant impact fatigue can have on patient care.

'There is a mounting body of evidence to support the move to reduced working hours in terms of patient safety. While flexibility may be appropriate, scrapping the [EWTD] is not.'"

The Royal College of Nurses supports the rules, pointing out the level of skill and preparedness that needs to be maintained for on-call hours, and call for the definition of on-call time to be included in legislation and for the end of the opt-out (PDF):

“The RCN has called for a phasing out of the opt out on health and safety grounds. There is evidence to support the impact of long working hours on safety and the health and wellbeing of nursing staff. A recent study of the health and wellbeing of 11, 000 health care staff in England found a link between long working hours and increased absenteeism. It also found higher rates of presenteeism (with staff attending work when they didn’t feel well enough to be there). Sleep deprivation was identified as a risk factor for wellbeing.

[...]

The same survey [the RCN’s working well survey] found that 58% of nurses working on call or standby did not receive any compensatory rest. The nature of on call work, particularly in the health sector, often means carrying out safety critical procedures in a relatively unsupervised environment. For this reason, it is essential that compensatory rest is timely and adequate. As mentioned earlier there is a real need for clarity from the Commission around the issue of on call and compensatory rest.”

In this debate there seems to be three different, but related, issues: the protection of workers through regulating working time, protecting patients and care continuity, and the number of healthcare staff. As Molyneux remarked, tired doctors make mistakes, so it’s not self-evident that scrapping WTD rules for healthcare workers – effectively saying that they deserve less rights than other employees – would be to the benefit of healthcare workers or patients. Again, when scrapping the WTD is suggested, there is little to no reference to any policy decision – what this means for the mix of healthcare workers’ rights, patient care, and the shape of the healthcare workforce – so seemingly working doctors and nurses longer is the simple answer to these issues.

Notably, the quotes above are taken from the Commission’s consultation with the industry over how to reform the WTD, and from reaction to debates in the UK Parliament.Currently there are on-going talks between the social partners (employers and employees) in this area, and the Commission is likely to try to introduce reforms for the Council and Parliament to consider if the talks fail. So this isn't necessarily a static area of policy, and it shows that there can be continued policy debates in the EU on existing laws.


Conclusion:

So where does that leave us on the WTD and social and employment matters being a part of the single market? Essentially there are two separate issues when it comes to the WTD and legislation like it: (1) is it a topic for valid debate and legislation at a European level? and (2) is the Directive itself any good?

Since the single market covers an economy of around 500 million people, who are employers, employees, and consumers, how the market is run and regulated affects everyone. The single market isn't some sort of alternate dimension that delivers food and drink from France and Italy to supermarket shelves, but an economy that people work and live in, so social and environmental standards are naturally an issue for consideration. The need for minimum European standards in these areas is a valid topic, and, especially as Member States and citizens want to protect their welfare states, actually important to the legitimacy of the single market that it can recognise these issues.

And the WTD? It's clear from these 2 posts that I'm personally in favour of it, but it's more important that the debate when it comes to this kind of legislation has more substance. If a political party thinks that these minimum standards should be scrapped, then that's a pretty radical proposal and deserves a full debate on the alternatives.

Who is afraid of the Working Time Directive? - Part 1

When it comes to renegotiating the UK’s place in the EU and what Cameron wants to be repatriated in terms of powers, there’s very little to go on. So far Cameron’s statements have been about changes for the whole of the EU if possible, but specific opt-outs for the UK if not – though he has no shopping list of powers, and there are only references to "flexibility" to go by. As the UK will probably choose to opt out of the Justice and Home Affairs area of the EU (and "re-opt-in" to a few of the measures in this area), the Working Time Directive seems to be the most prominent piece of legislation that upsets the Tories, so it might be worth taking a closer look at it.

The Working Time Directive is aimed at regulating the rest periods that workers get in order to ensure health and safety at work (Article 1), and covers daily and weekly rest, annual leave and night shift organisation – you can read an overview of the Directive on Wikipedia here.  In the UK the Directive is implemented via the Working Time Regulations (SI 1998/1833). Note that there are separate rules for workers in the transport sector.

The minimum rules the Directive provides include:

- That workers are entitled to a minimum daily rest of 11 hours per 24 hour period (Article 3) – this means that there’s 11 hours where the worker is not at work, including when the worker’s asleep;

- That workers are entitled to a break where the working day is longer than 6 hours (the period is left to collective agreements or national legislation) – Article 4);

- That workers are entitled to a day off for every 7 day period, though there is a derogation to a minimum rest period of 24 hours if there are technical or work organisation conditions that require it (Article 5). The weekly day off is averaged over a fortnight (Article 16(a));

- That workers work no more than an average of 48 hours per week (Article 6) – there is an opt-out, so that employees can sign a contract opting out of the 48 hour limit (Article 22). This is averaged over 4 months or less, depending on the Member State (Article 16(b));

- That workers are entitled to paid annual leave of at least 4 weeks;

- Night workers are treated separately under the Directive, and are entitled to health assessments and 8 hour work days (Articles 8-12);

- Member States can have higher standards if they choose (Article 15), and Article 17 permits derogations for workers in certain sectors.

The UK Working Time Regulations that are based on this Directive provide for the UK that:

- There is a maximum average weekly working time of 48 hours (Regulation 4) – this can be opted out of under an employment contract (Regulation 5). The average is taken by looking at the last 17 weeks of employment;

- Workers will get the 11 hour daily rest and the weekly day off as set out in the Directive (Regulations 10 & 11), with some flexibility over how they’re used;

- Where the daily working time is more than 6 hours, they are entitled to a minimum of a 20 minute break (30 minutes for 15-18 year olds working over 4.5 hours) – Regulation 12;

- Workers are entitled to 28 days paid holiday annually (Regulation 13).

So the UK Regulations stick strictly to the maximum working time permitted by the Directive per week, and employees are able to opt out of the 48 hour average limit (though they should not suffer detriment for not opting out – Regulation 31). On annual leave, the UK Regulations are more generous, providing for 5.6 weeks holiday per year (though obviously you’ve fewer holidays if you haven’t or won’t have worked a full year). For exceptions to the rules and opting out of the 48 hour working week, see the Government’s website here.

Interestingly, if you work more than 6 hours per day, you’re only entitled to a minimum of 20 minutes break under UK law – a bit less than the traditional lunch hour!

As the law currently stands, the UK Regulations mostly stick closely to the Working Time Directive and do little to build on them. Are they really that much of a burden? How much would business really gain from reducing workers' rest breaks (since the headline 48 hour week can be opted out of anyway)? As Narmanda Thiranagama pointed out in her analysis of UKIP's current economic policy (which currently includes scrapping laws such as the WTD), SMEs have put such regulation last on their list of obstacles to growth:

"In 2012, the SME Barometer found that SMEs thought that the biggest obstacle to growth was the economy. Of the 667 directors and owners they interviewsed, 32% believed that the economy was the biggest obstacle, followed by 13% who blamed taxation. "Regulations" languishes at the bottom of the table along with "competition" at 7%."

When it comes to the UK's economic problems and the reality of regulation, it doesn't seem as if there's much that getting rid of this Directive will actually do for the British economy. And are the Tories campaigning with the message that British people don't work long enough hours? Even if they were, there is a debate to be had over longer hours versus productivity within those hours. While I hesitate to simply call a stance ideological - after all political parties are supposed to give us options from ideological viewpoints - it's hard to see where the practical impetus for policy change is coming from here, except that the WTD has become symbolic of EU regulation in the UK.

If you want to have a single market, then there will have to be some minimum social standards: EU Member States all have their own version of the welfare state, and their own idea of a work-life balance. Without some minimum standards, we would be constantly told that we our being out-competed by our neighbours and therefore have to give up the national standards and protections that people have fought for. How long would a single market survive if people were constantly told that it was the reason why they had to give up their working rights? A single market is deeper than free trade and a political project in itself; and if you want countries with welfare states to buy into it, then you will frankly have to expect common minimum social standards unless the political direction of the community changes.

The Tories in their European Conservatives and Reformists can campaign for more liberalisation and deregulation, either alone or with the Euorpean People's Party and others, but if it doesn't, then it shouldn't use renegotiation as a Trojan horse for its own ill-thought out ideological ends.