As was your response. Isn't it refreshing to have a discussion without the usual "gubbin's that often accompanies it"

In terms of Workers rights and the UK v EU. The issue isn't the rights that workers enjoy now, but more about the rights that they will enjoy in the future. Trade Unions do not carry the same gravitas as they used to and those at the top of the food chain do desire us to adopt an American view on such matters, meaning that once an environment of unemployment is created (or a risk of unemployment) workers are more amenable to bending to the will of their bosses. Strike action, unless in a key area such as health, fire, police or underground is fairly rare now, whilst 0 hours contracts are rife.
In terms of Healthcare, the UK may well need to look at charging for certain services, especially to foreign nationals, but for UK citizens, it should be an absolute free service. The fact that the Right Wing are licking their lips at the cash to be made by flogging access to this goldmine should be setting of alarm bells.
In terms of Immigration, the article admits that numbers were underestimated in regards to eastern Europeans, but nearly 1,000,000 poles have since returned home since the vote, so whilst poor areas (you mention Leigh, Ealing Broadway was full of polish a decade ago) have seen an influx, it is the impact on an already stretched infrastructure dealing with benefit claimants that has seen tipping point, meaning there was an issue with Leigh before Ivan and his mates moved in, but it was easier for Boris et al to blame the immigrants, rather than the problems created by the Tories bailing out the banks and targeting the poor to pay for it.

It is an interesting article - written by someone with a strong desire to remain in the EU and as such its bias needs to be considered.

The idea that anyone country has a veto simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny - Cameron vetoed the Treaty, they simply ignored him and went ahead. The Poles voted in a Law and Justice party to get rid of a corrupt blocking legal system. What happen the EU simply said if you carry out the policies you were voted in on we will stop your money and we will curtail your voting rights. Hungary didn't want a load of Syrian refugees - EU simply said take them or we will invoke Article 7 and take away your rights. Italy's 5 star was castigated for wanting to introduce a basic living wage - and Corbyn et al are so supportive of EU labour rights - it would be funny if it weren't so serious. Austria were warned in they vote in a government the EU didn't like it would face EU censure. The less said about the way the EU has treated Greece the better.

The idea that we can get rid of the likes of Junker and Tusk is delusional - we can't. These third rate politicians could run a bbq. Junker was a disaster in a microscopic country yet here he is running the costliest ineffective organisations on the planet - when he is not ed that is. The Poles don't want Tusk anywhere near their political scene again - but with his huge EU pension he will not have a need thankfully. At citizens we have no influence on the top table of the EU.

Workers rights issue has been exposed on here for the fiction they are - we have far better rights than the EU norm. As has the environmental - these are just feeble Labour attempts to block an exit.

The elderly have been attacked for depriving the young of their future - the elderly voted for a trading bloc, what they didn't vote for was an EU super state where they dictated the laws - no wonder they voted out it wasn't what was promised.

Leaving the EU will be tough but it will not be the calamity that many suggest. Business is agile it has to be to survive and it will find a way to prosper outside of the EU

I fail to see where this fear of the Tories reducing workers rights comes from. The Tories have been in power for many years in that time have they removed any workers rights? Why should this start now - surely economically we will not worse than we were during the banking crisis? Is reducing workers rights a vote winner - definitely not so why do it?

In terms of the NHS it will always be free to use even for those who don't pay in - Foreign nationals outside of the EU if we are still in should pay to use it - they don't pay in so why should they get it for free. The NHS already has a mechanism to outsource - waiting lists. These are often so prohibitively long that it forces some people to seek an alternative remedy.

The Conservatives are the party of capital, with a long history of prioritising its interests ahead of labour rights. While the Conservatives have been in government since 2010, their ability to de-regulate the labour market and change workers’ rights has been constrained by EU law. Leaving the EU is why this may start now. The fear (or hope, I suppose) is even greater because the One Nation wing of the party is in retreat and Johnson’s cabinet is further to the economic right than Cameron’s or May’s. However, it will only happen with a democratic mandate - if people vote to keep people like Dominic Raab and JRM in power, then they are willing to accept lighter regulation and different (i’m trying to avoid emotive or overly biased language, but realistically I mean ‘lower’) standards, and that is their choice.

Why would many people, who rely on selling their labour, do that... why might it be a vote winner? Well, that is a question based on the assumption that we live in a democracy. And we do, both legally and to a large extent in reality. But it isn’t a pure democracy - such a thing would be hugely difficult to achieve and maintain. To some degree the UK is a de facto plutocracy. The Conservatives particularly rely on the support of plutocrats to gain and hold power, and therefore tend to prioritise their interests ahead of those of workers.

I'll cut the rest of this misinformed (being polite rant) to just mention that we can add an understanding of Polish politics and corruption to the things Sal pontificates on but doesn't actually know about.

Does Johnson even know how many kids he’s got. Although with him being a Tory i should say “does Johnson know how many piglets he’s got”. Pigs & Tories seem to be quite close to one another.

Are you saying what I said is not true? I would suggest your clueless understanding of anything has once again been exposed for what it is - any kind of basic comprehension and you are the classic oxymoron

As has been already pointed out the UK could reduce workers rights and still offer better conditions than are available across the EU. I ask again would reducing workers rights lead to more voters backing them? Of course not so why do it - its project fear all over.

Come on without the votes of the working class the Tories cannot get into and stay in power. We have a one person one vote this is not like the Labour party whereby the unions hold all the power. It appears that is the kind of democracy you like i.e. a few telling the majority what to do.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"As has been already pointed out the UK could reduce workers rights and still offer better conditions than are available across the EU. I ask again would reducing workers rights lead to more voters backing them? Of course not so why do it - its project fear all over. Come on without the votes of the working class the Tories cannot get into and stay in power. We have a one person one vote this is not like the Labour party whereby the unions hold all the power. It appears that is the kind of democracy you like i.e. a few telling the majority what to do.'" Yeah, that’s kinda the opposite of what I intended to say. I assume your response is deliberate misrepresentation, but let me know if you just misunderstood my point. We are very fortunate. According to the EIU, we are among the just 4.5% of the world’s population who live in a full democracy, and the UK is ranked the 14th most democratic of 167 countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index However, the one person, one vote characterisation is somewhat naive. the Conservatives won’t call it ‘reducing workers’ rights’, because that clearly wouldn’t win votes, you’re right. It’d be sold as ‘building an agile modern economy’ reflecting the ‘flexibility of today’s workplaces’, ‘allowing Britain to exploit fully opportunities for growth’ or some such. On page 18 of their manifesto, ideally.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"As has been already pointed out the UK could reduce workers rights and still offer better conditions than are available across the EU. I ask again would reducing workers rights lead to more voters backing them? Of course not so why do it - its project fear all over. Come on without the votes of the working class the Tories cannot get into and stay in power. We have a one person one vote this is not like the Labour party whereby the unions hold all the power. It appears that is the kind of democracy you like i.e. a few telling the majority what to do.'" Yeah, that’s kinda the opposite of what I intended to say. I assume your response is deliberate misrepresentation, but let me know if you just misunderstood my point. We are very fortunate. According to the EIU, we are among the just 4.5% of the world’s population who live in a full democracy, and the UK is ranked the 14th most democratic of 167 countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index However, the one person, one vote characterisation is somewhat naive. the Conservatives won’t call it ‘reducing workers’ rights’, because that clearly wouldn’t win votes, you’re right. It’d be sold as ‘building an agile modern economy’ reflecting the ‘flexibility of today’s workplaces’, ‘allowing Britain to exploit fully opportunities for growth’ or some such. On page 18 of their manifesto, ideally.

If you are so confident that there will be no reduction in workers rights etc, how do you explain why this was moved from "guaranteed" to "maybe" in the withdrawal agreement.
Surely, a party so committed

to protecting citizens and workers rights, would want them to be secured in law and yet, your beloved leader chose to move these down the list, quelle surprise.

The document that was leaked over the weekend, and forced Kwasi Kwarteng to scurry onto the news media to defend, makes this argument moot; workers rights and protections were *deliberately* removed from the legal element of the deal, which makes them fair game in a post-Brexit situation. And anyone who does not see the creeping US style gig economy that we have now as being accelerated by that, is either wilfully dishonest, or thick.

We still come back to the point of why would any party reduce workers rights - these are the very people they rely on to keep them in power. It makes no sense. The idea was to enable to UK to make its own laws - why everyone is focusing on this is simply to have a go at the Tories over a fictitious threat.

Then why remove it from the text that was legally protected?

It has long been said that the more swivel-eyed Brexiteers, of the Rees-Mogg and Francois variety, were interested in a bonfire of regulations; Rees-Mogg is on record as suggesting it in a Treasury Select Committee meeting. Now that the swivel-eyed have taken over the Tory party, it's entirely reasonable to assume that Boris Johnson is being held hostage by their extreme version of Brexit.

Do you really think that the average Uber driver or worker in Sports Direct or Amazon warehouses, usually votes Tory ?
There is a move to make our workforce less secure and while it may be easier to move jobs, it will also be equally simple for companies to off load staff. Great, if you are wanting to make your company more profitable but, less good if you have a mortgage or rent to pay.

I think a lot of workers on minimum wage vote Tory - they would get 13m+ votes without them. We still come back to the issue of how do you attract staff - if things are really bad nobody will go there to work - as we have seen with the crop picking - according to labour tonnes of food has been left rotting in the ground because the farmers couldn't get migrant labour - they also couldn't get uk labour either.

Simple solution pay more and that is the reality of most businesses including mine - I have to be competitive or I will not attract the quality of people I need to move my business forward. Its not rocket science.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"I think a lot of workers on minimum wage vote Tory - they would get 13m+ votes without them. We still come back to the issue of how do you attract staff - if things are really bad nobody will go there to work - as we have seen with the crop picking - according to labour tonnes of food has been left rotting in the ground because the farmers couldn't get migrant labour - they also couldn't get uk labour either. Simple solution pay more and that is the reality of most businesses including mine - I have to be competitive or I will not attract the quality of people I need to move my business forward. Its not rocket science.'" There’s more to it than just pay though. Also, if companies can undercut competitors by moving their priorities toward profits and clients, then workers good options are likely to become fewer. It is a difficult balancing act, because profits and clients are the whole point businesses exist. And in many industries, companies are competing globally. Unless there is a shortage of labour of the right type, workers rights, conditions, and pay will tend to be squeezed in a capitalist system by competing capitalists. Supply and demand and all that. People like Raab, for example, want that competition to be more aggressive and restraints on the capitalist system to be reduced. My concern, and that of many others, is that will damage people’s quality of life and our society as a whole. You keep implying they won’t do things that are unpopular with the electorate, but if they can get in off the back of Brexit and a poorly led labour party, then they’re going indulge some of their pet projects - why go into politics if you can’t do some of the things you believe in? And a de-regulated economy, following the model of some Asian countries is exactly the sort of thing our Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Minister for International Trade believe in. They even wrote it down in a book, for avoidance of doubt. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19300051 Why would they do it? Because they want to and they can. You and I and most of the rest of the country might agree it is a bad and unpopular idea. However, I don’t agree that democracy is going to protect us from it.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"I think a lot of workers on minimum wage vote Tory - they would get 13m+ votes without them. We still come back to the issue of how do you attract staff - if things are really bad nobody will go there to work - as we have seen with the crop picking - according to labour tonnes of food has been left rotting in the ground because the farmers couldn't get migrant labour - they also couldn't get uk labour either. Simple solution pay more and that is the reality of most businesses including mine - I have to be competitive or I will not attract the quality of people I need to move my business forward. Its not rocket science.'" There’s more to it than just pay though. Also, if companies can undercut competitors by moving their priorities toward profits and clients, then workers good options are likely to become fewer. It is a difficult balancing act, because profits and clients are the whole point businesses exist. And in many industries, companies are competing globally. Unless there is a shortage of labour of the right type, workers rights, conditions, and pay will tend to be squeezed in a capitalist system by competing capitalists. Supply and demand and all that. People like Raab, for example, want that competition to be more aggressive and restraints on the capitalist system to be reduced. My concern, and that of many others, is that will damage people’s quality of life and our society as a whole. You keep implying they won’t do things that are unpopular with the electorate, but if they can get in off the back of Brexit and a poorly led labour party, then they’re going indulge some of their pet projects - why go into politics if you can’t do some of the things you believe in? And a de-regulated economy, following the model of some Asian countries is exactly the sort of thing our Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Minister for International Trade believe in. They even wrote it down in a book, for avoidance of doubt. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19300051 Why would they do it? Because they want to and they can. You and I and most of the rest of the country might agree it is a bad and unpopular idea. However, I don’t agree that democracy is going to protect us from it.

And ironically, the increase in hourly rates, has brought with it more and more zero hours contracts and in the "delivery" sector, a move to increased numbers of "self employed" drivers, who are in everything but name, agency drivers, serving just one paymaster.
Back in the day, they would have been employed full time on a "proper" contract and entitled to sick pay and paid holidays.

Some of these people like being their own boss but, dont kid yourself that its progress. The same goes for Uber and many of the large employers, who now have a vast array of part time staff, to avoid the expense of NI and sick pay.

So, ask the question about "why" the government would want to lose employees protection from the deal ??

I would never employ anyone on a zero hours contract - I don't think it is correct but it does suit some people. I need take Uber prefer Amber in Leeds although I think they are pretty much self employed.

I employ 170 drivers none on zero hour contracts I do have a big demand from self-employed drivers and lose drivers to it - IR35 will put a stop to that.

Employee protection was part of a whole raft of items that moved from the EU control to the UK Parliament as part of Boris' WA - Labour just highlighted it as an easy target - when they have no evidence whatsoever that the Tories will do anything and there is no evidence to base it on. Just Labour grasping at straws - project fear.

Because these are the sorts of socialist interventions into the free market which you have been warning us about? I'd have thought you'd be manning the barricades to get rid of them; or does your forceful bluster about Marxism and Socialism waver when it comes to actual details?

Boris Johnson said he’d rather be dead in a ditch than extend the Brexit deadline beyond 31st October

Once again he’s been shown to be a proven liar, you can’t trust a single word he says

Never trust any politician. You will always end up disappointed.

Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson is the least trustworthy of them all

As you don't actually employ anybody you wouldn't understand how competitive it is to find and recruit talented people - offering worse terms than a rival is hardly going to help your recruitment position and the overall competitiveness of your business - take it from someone who employs 300+ people. This is not some free market think tank this is the reality in the trenches - you should try it some time!!

You're ignoring, probably wilfully, the fact that in a bonfire of regulations, the recruits you currently have to fight for, won't have better options; hence why it is often referred to as a race to the bottom.

And before you start rattling on about your business empire - yes, I employ people, in large number.

Of course you do - but it wont be your money at risk or your business!! - there will always be a scramble for talent business is a game played by people simple. Good employers will always compete for the best people its how business grow and prosper its the quality of the human capital that people invest in. The only way this changes is if you nationalise everything and then you will a reduction in quality opportunities.