Like work directives?
Every time you give employees more rights (in the legal sense) you are
restricting the rights of employers to make decisions as to how they run their business. Why do you not think that an employer has the same rights as an employee? Is it because socialists who support this legislation seem to be stuck on the idea that employees are always poor, downtrodden workers being exploited left and right by employers, who must, by virtue of being employers, be rich and powerful lords who regard their employees as mere serfs?
When you make potential employers reluctant to take on an employee because of the difficulty of firing him if things don't work out, or because of the increasing expense to comply with the ever-growing legislative requirements, you are actually damaging the employment prospects for many.
European court of Human Rights?
Not part of the EU.
The European Court of Justice is though, and what exactly is it supposed to have given us that we did not have already by way of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and so on? In fact its decisions often go against Britain, and even against the ECHR as demonstrated below.
May I ask who and when? Just curious, as I am still undecided about where I stand with the EU (having just moved here). Something to read would be great Paul.
In blue to avoid a large block of small, quoted text:
THE European Court of Justice changed the political climate profoundly this week by ruling that the European Union can suppress criticism to protect its reputation. Keith Vaz, the Europe minister, dismissed the matter as a minor staff case involving Bernard Connolly, the British whistleblower, with no implications for ordinary EU citizens. But Mr Vaz mixes up two separate cases. One is a staff case, the other is a free speech case going far beyond the issue of whether Connolly broke his contract at the European Commission by writing The Rotten Heart of Europe. The court ruled that the Commission could restrict criticism that damaged "the institution's image and reputation", and that it could do so by resorting to a legal device used by fascist governments to suppress dissent in the 1920s and 1930s: "the protection of the rights of others".
This ECJ ruling defies half a century of case law by Europe's other court, the non-EU Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as well as resurrecting the ancient offence of "seditious libel" banned by the House of Lords. The Human Rights Court has ruled repeatedly that governing bodies may not restrict criticism in such a way. Specifically, the term "protection of the rights of others" does not apply to public bodies. Last week's ruling shows that the ECJ (despite paying lip-service) does not consider itself bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British lawyers after the Second World War to safeguard liberty in Europe. (Telegraph 10/3/01)
Mr Vaz argues that even your Brussels correspondent "can ply his trade in complete safety". For how long? Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights declares that all freedoms and rights can be restricted to "meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union". The rights that can be thus restricted include not only free speech and the right to life, but also the right not to be punished by retroactive legislation, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the absence of double jeopardy (a provision of which Jack Straw wants to take advantage already). (Letter in Telegraph From: Bernard Connolly: 9 March 2001) About half way down the page:
http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/law_&_order.htmThe
Telegraph article link there is no longer valid, but here's one which is, and which contains a reference to the "akin to blasphemy" issue (which the ECJ did reject):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
