Much of the ink spilled in the debate over the 48 hour working week seems to miss the main points.

• Why shouldn't the UK debate and decide, in its own parliament, what is best for its workforce and for the country?

• In 1993 we negotiated an opt-out from this part of the EU Working Time directive, a negotiation between an EU state and the EU. Why is that opt-out now being thrown aside as if the UK is just a naughty child who needs to be told what is best for it?

 And the most important point. As this directive is imposed upon us, no one should now be left who is in any doubt that the EU government is in almost complete control of every major function of government as it affects the UK. Those very few functions remaining, will not do so for much longer. Remember the six, then five red lines?

-------------------------------

From IDS Publications

2. This Directive applies to:
(a) minimum periods of daily rest, weekly rest and annual leave, to breaks and maximum weekly working time; and
(b) certain aspects of night work, shift work and patterns of work.

3. This Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC, without prejudice to Article 17 of this Directive, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training;

Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period.

---------------------------

So standby as the UK becomes even less efficient, even less attractive for foreign investment, even less attractive for firms like Honda to use as a spring board to the EU. Who will suffer? The EU? No. Our competitors? No, Our ability to create wealth, without which we are unable to care for the vulnerable, the needy, the less fortunate etc etc.