Why is there this complete and almost blind acceptance of
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
all edicts emanating from Brussels, whether they be incorporated immediately or post-dated?
Like many of your correspondents, I applauded such moves towards licensing of managers by certificates and tachographs as a logical step in the evolution of transport control, economically speaking.
I enthused for the rapid introduction of increased carrying weights, again for sensible economic reasons, to allay and offset some of 2he increased costs at present being felt by operators.
But why should we agree to the mileage limitation? It is a sop to the inefficient railway systems of Europe.
Take another point, namely the eight-hour shift. Nothing is more likely to sabotage, hamper and delay our recovery than this piece of legislation.
On these points. I would say "no" to European co-operation. Asa sovereign State, bounded as we are by water, I would suggest that the present system of, nationally, ten hours and, internationally, eight should remain, as we encroach on no-one, nor hinder their progress. These hours give impetus to our own efforts in competition with worldwide markets — perhaps this is why the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels have conceived this devious law.
However, having registered my solo protest, may I add: "United we stand, divided we fall."
The R HA, FTA, etc should couple their efforts to those in all stations of the industry to bring about everyone's survival at this time. Individual strike action in protest will only bring the collapse of segments of the industry.
"AUCHTERARDER," Tayside (Name and address supplied)