Ah, the race card card.

Making this a race card card card post, I suppose.

So, Boris, rather than have the new deal scrutinised through Parliament, is now looking to see if he can circumvent the system to force through "no deal" and that is, after managing to have his deal voted through.
I wonder why he didn't want the new deal scrutinised or amended - something to hide or just political manoeuvring to try and ensure a majority in the next election ?
Mind you, Nigel isn't happy, so, we may end up with the Brexit Party and Tories splitting the "leave" vote.

We have been talking about Brexit for >3 years, you could review this bill for another 3 years and the SNP and LibDems would vote against it so its disingenuous that they are asking for more time. Labour want to fundamentally change the WA to include a customs union - i.e. give the EU back control of trade policy and a referendum i.e. hope remain wins. All the opposition just don't want to leave and will do anything to avoid it.

This isn't about scrutiny as you well know its about leave or remain and delivery the democratic vote - something the MPs simply do not want to do.

Sorry Sal but, whilst I partially agree with you,(regarding some MP's wanting to "remain", it's absolutely right that Boris's new bill goes through Parliament properly, rather than being railroaded.
There is a reason that the impact assessments and text were held back - to avoid scrutiny and it's disgraceful that the workers and citizens rights are now seen as optional rather than legal requirements.

On the plus side, at least he hasn't lost every vote. Every cloud ……….

I would agree if the scrutiny were being done in good faith and we all know it is about party point scoring than it is about getting a good deal. There is no way the EU are going to give us a great deal if they did every other nation in the EU would want the same. What I would say is the EU have acted in good faith and given our demands come up with the best they can. Its a trade off short term pain for longer term gain. Any impact statement will be a huge guess and as such needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt

I fail to see how this deal impacts workers rights - give me one employment right that has been worsened by this deal? What it does do is give the UK an opportunity to improve workers rights and environmental protections etc. Do you seriously think any party that reduces workers rights is going to stay in power long. All the Tories want is a reduction in the administration of these rights and anybody who runs a business would agree with that. Finding good people is tough do you think having less benefits than a competing business gives you more or less chance of recruiting talent?

Sal, the workers and citizens rights have not been changed by the deal as it stands but, most importantly, they have not been protected in law.
This would be just about ok it our current government and leader could be trusted with issues but, they cannot be trusted on anything.
We have a Trump style leader who has a poor record on keeping his word and if we exit the EU with the current format, I certainly wouldn't want to be a UK national living abroad or an EU national living here.
Their rights to healthcare, pension provision etc can be changed on the whim of the ruling party and with the likelihood of the ecconomy shrinking, they become ever more vulnerable.
As for workers rights, where do you want to start ?

And here's the big lie - which you've swallowed, probably wilfully; because as EU members, we already have the ability to *improve* workers rights and environmental standards. What we don't have the ability to do, is *reduce* them - because the EU regs are a set of minimum standards, beneath which member states are not permitted to fall.

The Johnson deal seeks to remove the [ilegal protections [/iof workers right, environmental standards etc - therefore enabling future administrations to reduce them; which is the pathway to a deregulated economy that many hard Brexiteers want, and that many people, quite rightly, fear.

Precisely - so it all scaremongering. Do you seriously trust any MP with anything - Labour said it would facilitate the democratic vote - now they want to remain who can be trusted - none of them.

Boris has had to go back on his word because he has been forced to - he didn't want to write to EU for an extension but what choice did he have? The bill was brought in to embarrass him - end of - by remain MPs such as Letwin and Benn and the 70% of MPs that want to remain.

The cost saving of changing rights for UK citizens abroad wouldn't be worth the effort. I fail to understand why you think the Tories will simply slash all workers rights - how is that a strategy for remaining in power? They also need to keep the EU on side until a trade deal is agreed - again slashing their rights seems counter-productive to me.

Everybody is fixated by Trump - why - most likely he will not be there in 2020 if the Democrats put any kind of reasonable candidate up against him.

That's just rubbish.
If the government was happy to build on and improve those rights, it would have been very easy to legally protect them but, Boris didn't do that and the logical conclusion is that he wants to have the ability to slash and burn.
The bottom line is that the Tories dont need or rely on the vote of those at the bottom of the pile and it is those, less well off, that need the protection the most - it's not rocket science.
We've already seen with the Austerity cuts that, some Tories are happy to squeeze the life out of those who most need help and only a fool would believe that those same people would be safe if cuts in public spending are deemed necessary again

He is trying to get away from EU rules and regulations so why would he tie anything to their edict - that's the whole essence of leaving - its the trade off more control, more use of the £9bn against the short term economic hit.

He said on Saturday rights would not get worse - surely it is in the governments interest if it wants to remain in power to improve the working situation for those who are going to vote for them. At the last election 13.6m people voted for the Tories are you seriously suggesting - especially given that London is predominantly Labour - that the vast majority of these people are not mr/mrs average - really!! The Tories have reduced the increases in the minimum wage nor have they halted the increases in personal allowances - why do you think they are suddenly going to reverse all that? These are really popular policies

Austerity was forced on the Tories by what they inherited from the last Labour government - do you think if they had a choice they would have continued with just to grind the whole population down - honestly? I know Labour are going to buy everything, repeal TU legislation, refund student loans increase minimum/living wage, put workers in charge of huge corporations - did Corbyn spend time with Mugabe!! Its a receipe for economic chaos.

Actually I do. I genuinely believe that at the core of the Tory party is an inherited hatred of what they perceive as the lower class, especially the organised working class. From voting against the formation of the NHS over 20 times to Banning strikes at GCHQ, Opting out of the Social Charter, Opposing the National Minimum Wage, Red Tape Challenge, Employment tribunal fees, Trade Union Bill the Tories have shown their true colours.
There were & continue to be alternatives. Progressive taxation & investing in all people's capabilities to stimulate local economies would be a start.
Are you incapable of posting an argument without pathetic, childish Daily Mail cliches? How does Scandinavia manage to adopt those strategies so successfully for so long, while being the most happy & content nations on earth?

Is this the same Tory party who opposed the minimum wage for donkeys years telling hs how it would hurt business (and their pals)?

And you call me childish - what evidence do you have of a claim that Tories have an inherent hatred of the lower classes - straight out of the Socialist worker!!. They couldn't win an election without the support of the working classes.

You only have to look at what happened when the unions had full powers - it brought down the Callaghan government. The NUM could bring the country to a halt at a whim and it did - something had to be done. The union idea is great in theory sadly in practise it is less good. You get the ludicrous situation where an agreeable solution cannot be agreed by one chapel because it might impact another chapel at a later date. Ineos showed how to deal with unions that get too big for their boots - McClusky thought he could hold the company to ransom - he soon found out who was in control - and it wasn't him.

Show me a Socialist state on anything like the scale of the UK that actually works? Sweden works because it encourages the private sector to generate the wealth - something Labour don't seem to want to encourage. It also has good natural resources inc. timber, metals etc. Where Sweden is very good is in skilling the workforce again I don't see any emphasis from Labour on this either. No wealth generation no progress.

Oh dear


So you rip up the legislation and start over, which just happens to mean no protection for workers rights etc.

You realise that, assuming that we leave, we wouldn't be under EU derestriction for future improvements in the workers/citizens rights. they just protect what is currently there - you know, so that those people cannot be abused or taken advantage of or, it the case of citizens, shipped "home" - which would apply to UK citizens in Spain etc.

I know that on occasion you like to argue for the sake of it but, you've lost the plot (again).

This, from a report about a Treasury Select Committee meeting in 2016:



That's the aim of the hard Brexiteer - reduce the cost of doing business in a way that negatively impacts workers, the environment and safety standards; playing very much to their base of the very wealthy, who want to get even more wealthy, and bollox to the consequences.

You have yet to show me one piece of workers legislation that has been negatively impacted with the WA as it is. You are simply assuming the worst with no evidence whatsoever - project fear all over. Do you genuinely believe us leaving the EU would result in mass repatriation of all citizens living in the EU - are you for real? If you think the EU is capable of that why are you keen to be closely aligned to such an organisation.

We see in France and latterly in Spain how they treat demonstrators - is that the standards you wish to maintain on abuse of citizens?

Of course I dont believe that there will be mass repatriation in both directions.
However, if the ecconomy starts to go south and the right wing of the Tory party, once again egged on by Farage (or worse), there could be a situation where the UK says "get out" and if you dont think this is possible, why wouldn't you want to just give those people on both sides, just a little comfort and security, why ?
There is only one reason and thet is to literally leave the door open and turn people into some kind of future bargaining chip.
It was there as a legally binding agreement, which Boris has moved into the "maybe" column. Again, WHY ?

I heard an interesting discussion about the EU Settlement Scheme on R4 yesterday; it was suggested that there are 3.5 million people who will need to apply, and that no scheme in history has ever had the level of sign-up that would be required to settle the status of that many people, in the timescale available.

The conclusion was that you are essentially writing the next Windrush scandal, into the statute book. Yay.

That cant be right because Gove says "we're ready"


Just like business being ready - I've never seen so much paperwork ! and that's before we've moved anything under the proposed new rules (or on WTO terms).
Clearly there should be a transition period (and a customs union would help) but the bravado displayed by those "running the country" is schoolyard stuff.

Here's a link for anyone with 10 minutes to spare.

I left the UK a decade ago and Brexit will have little impact on my now as I have just severed the last of my fiscal ties, but I'd be keen to hear the arguments against any of the issues stated in this piece. As I say, it's about a 10 minute read and it deals with the backstory, the evolution of the will to leave, the campaigns, the result and then the sudden realisation that maybe you weren't given all of the facts and reasons until it was too late. It also explains why May was jettisoned and why the glove puppet Boris was selected.

Sal Pareadise. I am particularly looking forward to your arguments on each points, but try and steer clear of your undoubted hatred of Trade Unions and concentrate on the real reason behind Brexit, Tax Avoidance

[urlhttps://www.quora.com/Why-are-Remainers-so-convinced-that-staying-in-the-European-Union-is-what-is-best-for-the-UK/answer/Barry-McGuinness-1?ch=1&share=a9239dc8&srid=AbYfT&fbclid=IwAR1vbZ3ylLF28V2QM_3UY_khe04M7XmJFORS5ms7GPc7tlAoWE46VGyR-Cg[/url

That's a fairly decent piece, even if its angle is (obviously) pro-remain.

however, it lost my attention when it blamed the leave vote on austerity and because the unpopular (although recently re-elected) David Cameron backed remain. It ignores many key points:

- People have seen their communities change enormously and rapidly with the influx of migrants, both EU and non-EU, and it hasn't always been good (you should check out central Leigh for a good example of acute problems with EU migrants). If you're a Europhile you probably think the locals are all racist and should just put up with it. I say why should communities have this change forced upon them?

- Population growth. Net migration HAS to come down. We simply cannot absorb everyone wanting to come here (which incidentally is probably in the tens of millions). Furthermore, migrants tend to have far higher birth rates than Brits and our elderly population is growing year on year. Unless we build new towns at an impossible rate, our towns and cities will be gridlocked within a few decades and unless we spend many billions more than planned, public services will collapse.

- However you angle it, we are governed by Brussels. I don't care if some of the lower tiers are elected and the upper tiers are kind of nominated in a questionable process - those at the top are too distant and frankly unnecessary. How many layers of government does anyone think we need?

- The ultimate EU goal. From those who first wrote of a united Europe to the Ventotene Manifesto to Jean Monnet and his 'Federation of Europe' and others who wrote post-WW2 of a super European state or United States of Europe - the goal is gradual erosion of the nation-state and absolute centralised power in Brussels. I want nothing of that ideology. The Eurozone, Schengen, centralised power base, even an EU anthem...any idea where this is going? No EU army yet, but Verhofstadt and von der Leyen - amongst others - have spoken openly of their desire for an EU armed force.

If the UK government is terrible they get voted out every few years. If the heads of the EU are terrible they...erm, anyone know?

- Worker's Rights. A total red herring. The UK has led the way in many worker's rights (granted, trade unions played a huge part). For example (stolen from various sources):
UK statutory paid holiday entitlement 28 days; EU 20 days.
UK National Minimum Wage Act 1998 – there is no EU minimum wage law (although individual countries have their own laws).
Maternity leave – UK: up to 52 weeks, EU: 14 weeks.
“Protection against sex, race and disability discrimination" in the UK pre-dates EU law.
Women’s rights: the Equal Pay Act, Abortion Act and Divorce Reform Act: all passed before the UK even joined the EU.
Sex Discrimination Act, Domestic Violence Act, Employment Protection Act, Race Relations Act – no EU involvement.
The EU has no NHS-style healthcare requirement. Of course many countries offer some similar systems but most people pay top-up private insurance.
In France, Germany and Ireland (and possibly others) you pay upfront to see your GP, and in other countries you pay for medical care upfront and get only partially reimbursed later.
- In fact the vast majority of EU laws are being written directly into UK law. This entire argument is moot.

And let's not forget the disastrous concept of the Eurozone has seen unemployment rocket - on average you’re twice as likely to be out of work in the Eurozone. Youth unemployment has been as high as 50% at times and is still devastating communities across Europe - part of the reason we see so many seeking to come to the UK.

I've always admitted we will be worse off upon leaving the EU - at first. To what degree depends on the agreements reached. However - life goes on, business will always find a way and while remainers might scoff, there are indeed opportunities outside the EU once out. Meanwhile of course we'll still deal with the EU as our closest trading partner both geographically and economically. That said, UK-EU imports and exports have been falling for decades in favour of emerging markets, and that will only continue.

As usual, Cronus, a well put argument and it was indeed an interesting 10 minute read on the link.

Where we fundamentally differ in our views, is the future on the outside of the EU.
Acknowledging that there will be some pain and loss of GDP (in the short term) our collective prosperity, following the initial backward step is far from certain and my personal opinion, still remains that without the EU, we will, as a single nation, be far, far weaker in the world.

We have little choice other than to cosy up to the USA and we will effectively become their "pet", having to jump when they shout and carry out even more of their dirty work.

We've all seen the way in which Trump operates and without any backing from the stronger partners in the EU, we become vulnerable and of course, the withdrawal agreement is only the first small hurdle in our departure.

The much coveted free trade deal would take heaps of pressure off our trading relationship and help the Irish situation immensely but, there is no guarantee of this happening and with Boris in charge, just like Trump, he is likely to burn bridges, rather than mend them.

Lets be clear, just like many politicians, Johnson, is bothered only about Johnson and he would sell his granny if there was some personal benefit for him.
Not a leader that I wish to follow (mind you, neither is Corbyn).

The key thing about migration, at a purely dispassionate level, is that we get a supply of well educated, typically motivated workers who fill our demographic and skills gaps. Their home countries have educated them but we get the economic benefit. And yes they have kids at a higher rate, filling the hole created by our own low birth rate. Who do people think are going to work in the care homes and hospitals of the future to cater for our otherwise ageing population?

Now of course these changes are hard for society to digest but EU migrants are such a huge net economic positive for our country that we need to be wary of what will fill that gap when they are gone.

Genuine question. how many of these hard won rights did the Tories initially oppose?