So, the referendum should be made null and void?

You live in very strange world - why do you think the Socialist care more about their constituents than the Tories - there are plenty of chancers in the Labour party - David Lammy has claim £1.3m in expenses in the last 7 years and he is not alone, a Labour MP earning £80k a year stood up in parliament and requested payment for child care for having to work on a Saturday. The labour party have a property company that hasn't paid CT for years etc. Unite a big sponsor of Labour have a final salary pension scheme in place for its hierarchy such as McClusky. They are all as bad as each other

I wonder why Sal has chosen to single out David Lammy for his parliamentary office running costs (not "expenses claims"icon_wink.gif?

I wonder what it could be that makes him stand out from all the other MPs to be chosen for this little trope?

Has it made the headlines in one of his favourite newspapers ?

Thatcher was hurtling towards oblivion until the Argentinians got restless. After the Might of the empire swept that aside (it wasn't even deemed a war, but a simple "conflict" at the time), she pressed ahead with flogging off the family jewels and sacking disgruntled workers from various walks of life. This mess was picked up by Blair et al, who in true animal farm mode, had become what they hated........but there is a HUGE difference between thatcher and this current mob.
Thatcher, for all her despicable traits, believed that the things she did were in the interests of Britain, whilst the current shower of you have only their own interests at heart.

No idea. Why don't you tell us.

I'm sure Sal will be along soon enough to tell us why he selected Lammy rather than the MPs with constituencies all around Lammy's who spent similar or more on paying the rent for and employing the staff who run their constituency offices.

Go on, you're itching to.

Seven of hearts?

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.