EU - Increase maternity leave policy

BillBloggs writes another letter.

A letter to Liberal Democrat MEP's Catherine Bearder and Sharon Bowles.

Dear MEPS,

I am appalled!

Here we are in a major recession with major cuts in Government expenditure, half a billion jobs to go in the public sector hence the need to rely on the private sector to create more jobs - and what do the bloom'in EU want to do? Hang another millstone around the necks of both public and private sector employers with increased maternity leave payments!

AND - that is on top of the EU wanting a 6% increase in their budget for which the UK would have to pay nearly a billion pounds a year more towards!

I do hope that neither of you two voted for any of this????!!!!!!

Personally, I would welcome more cuts to child related benefits in the UK, including maternity leave! Why? Because there are 6.8 billion people on this finite planet of ours already.

Many of them in the richer countries are consuming at the rate of 2, some even 3, and a few even at 5 planets! By 2050 there is projected to be 9 -10 billion people on our planet - i.e. 50% more - all of whom will still be seeking to get richer by yet more economic growth - and thus to be able to consume even more limited resources.

Yet, we are also supposed to be cutting CO2 emissions globally by well over 50% by 2050.

Yet, every new human arriving on our planet between now and then will be adding to those emissions...............And those arriving in the wealthier countries, like the UK and the rest of the EU, will consume a lot more and emit a lot more CO2 than those arriving elsewhere.......So, how is this going to work then?

I ask you, arguing from the standpoint of Sustainability and Climate Change alone, should the EU/UK be encouraging childbirth by increasing maternity leave benefits?

Why exactly is it being proposed?

The most common argument I hear in favour is that we need to encourage more children so that they will pay for better pensions for us when we get old That is based on the logic of the madhouse.

They will all grow old and want even better pensions too, so we will need ever more people ad infinitum - which is clearly unsustainable on a finite planet. This is a ponzi scheme.

It is worse than pyramid selling!

When we in the UK are already stressed by an overpopulation problem, caused chiefly by immigration, this argument makes no more sense than to suggest that we need to increase our numbers so that we don't get outnumbered by immigrants!

Perhaps the real reason behind all this is the EU want more new citizens so as to increase their budget still further, and spread their member states national debts upon?!

Arguing from the same standpoint, I would now like to put several questions on child based benefits in general to you;

Should we really be encouraging families in the UK to have more children by offering parents child based benefits that increase with the quantity of their offspring? So, in principal, shouldn't we move towards stopping all child based benefits after the first child?

Clearly this can only be done gradually from where we are now in the UK. The coalition have made a start, thankfully, but have merely scratched the surface! (How many £billions/annum would that save when we finally got there?)

Therefore, apart from helping all parents universally for their first child, it seems to me that (were we able to go back to the beginning again rather than starting from where we are now!) the only absolutely fair, perfectly reasonable and logically sound reason to assist parents financially beyond that is solely on the basis of need. The state should be acting as a taxpayer funded charity organisation, only upon the unexpected loss of employment or unfortunate onset of ill health etc - when and while the parents are struggling to support themselves, let alone more children than their first child. Such assistance should never ever be provided indefinitely except in extreme cases.

Might you agree with this supposition, in principle at least?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these matters!

Yours sincerely,

Bill Bloggs

 

And a very speedy same day reply from Sharon Bowles MEP Office;

Dear Mr Dowling,

Thank you for your email.

Sharon did not support amendments in the Parliament to the Pregnant Workers Directive which sought to provide 20 weeks full time maternity pay. While she supports moves for increased gender equality and for the safeguarding of pregnant women's rights in the workplace, these amendments are just not financially viable to introduce at this time in the economic recovery.

The implementation in the UK alone is estimated to cost close to £2bn. This is not only very costly for the UK, but to impose this stipulation across the European Union is unfair on those Member States who do not have the budgetary resources to support it.

Further to this, implementing this particular amendment during a time of economic constraint may lead to increased discrimination against women securing jobs as maternity leave packages would cost employers more than ever before. Sharon has met with the Federation of Small Businesses on this matter who estimates each pregnancy will cost employers on average £7000.

Thank you once again for contacting Sharon and I hope this response has been of use to you.

Yours sincerely,

Constituency Office Manager

Office of Sharon Bowles MEP, Liberal Democrat Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee Member of the European Parliament for South East England

 

Posted on behalf of Bill Bloggs who is a member of the

www.optimumpopulation.org and Green Peace