Anyone noticed the "biggest trade deal in history" coming up? (*)
Between the EU and the US.
n.b. That's the EU not the UK.
I wonder what UKIP makes of that?
Do they think that the US will make a special deal just for the UK if we pull out of the EU?
Because I don't ... we'd merely have to dance to the US tune.




(*) Providing they can console each other about the spying row first.

Yes I noticed and it would not surprise me to see Cameron plugging it as a reason to stay in and it would be. I bet he is bricking it that it doesn't collapse over the the spying row.

We've still got the E̶m̶p̶i̶r̶e̶ Commonwealth, why would we need the Old Colonies?

The article does not say ALL rights will be lost. Your post is misleading.

[i'In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years continuous employment'.[/i

Read the entire article. You clearly haven't. It says much more than that.

Yes I have and nowhere does it say ALL rights will be lost as you claim.

And nowhere does it claim what you claimed.

It says that far more rights than just those relating to tribunals would be lost.

What do you mean 'what I claimed' - I haven't claimed anything.

No amount of spin will detract from your post which was misleading sensationalism. Quite ironic considering you are so quick to jump on the 'Wail' when you allege they do the same.

You "claimed" by the use of a specific quote from the article tha you posted.

It suggests that that is the only rights that would be affected.

If you don't mean to 'claim' as much, perhaps you should not just have posted that very selective quote, which does not represent the article as a whole. As you perfectly well know.

I never said it represented the article as a whole. All I had to do was find a right where it is proposed to be limited and not abolished and your statement is proved factually incorrect.

Well done. You're at it again.

Your entire approach is not to engage in a discussion, but to try to find ways of rubbishing things, whether my selective quoting, misquoting or simply shifting the goalposts, without ever trying to contribute to a discussion with ideas about the topic at hand.

Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Why don't you just admit that what you wrote was misleading instead of shifting the goalposts yourself.

You brought this topic back from over a month in the wilderness with a statement which is simply not true.

[my emphasis and my caps on "etc"]



In other words, maternity rights will not longer exist as a right, backed by law, but be optional. It is logical to assume that all other parental rights would be treated in the same way.

Well hello, Mr Transparently-Disingenuous ...
Your spotting of a tiny error in a critique of a large UKIP wishlist which seeks to peel back hard-fought-for employment rights highlights your purpose, which is clearly to shoot the messenger rather than debate the topic ... as per usual.
Tell me, do you agree with it? and, if so, how do you justify such commodification of people?
Or are you going to now disappear as you normally do, having "made your point" when, in fact, all you've done is made yourself look rather petty?

Whilst I don't believe that UKIP will ever be in a position to enact any of this reactionary, ill-thought-out and patently unfair result of bar-room bluster, the danger is that, again, it will appeal to the dimwit amoebae on the right wing of the Conservative party and Cameron won't have the courage to face up to them. He will just package it in with his "re-negotiations" for repatriated powers, rather than come out and say what is wrong with it.

So basically, it's not just Johnny Foreigner that's the problem with this country, it's also all these dolly-birds with the audacity to work for a living?

"they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees" - Nothing other than an endorsement of discrimination in the recruitment process. In fact, bordering on a recommendation.

Why am I put in mind of Harry Enfield's 'Women - Know Your Limits!'?