With a common language and shared values and a President elected by voters not seven Presidents voted for by no one.

The EU as a concept is so outdated - an uncompetitive, over regulated, declining protectionist trade block that makes its people pay more for goods and food by putting up tariffs and trade barriers to the rest of the world to protect special interests.

Who wants to be tied to a corpse - when the 84 per cent of the worlds GDP outside the EU has much more potential.

Er, then there's NO SAVINGS!

Read it again:

My bolding because you missed it first time.

Developing countries are developing shocker!

Or just do both.

Excise men? How utterly sexist Andy. Are there no Excise women? And what extra NHS money are you refrerring to?

Really. How'd you work that one out?

As I've said many times, it's not just developing countries that are increasing their share of world trade.

Well, what trading blocks are you comparing the EU with?

You've not read the article properly, it's saying we can save money by having fewer regulations protecting workers and consumers.

I'd like to think you do, yet you seem remarkably blase about getting rid of it and you don't seem to understand that other blocks all contain developing countries that are, well, developing. So I'm not sure what your finance role is but it hasn't taught you much about finance.

Yes I have. You've not comprehended what I was saying in purpose.

Yes, points 3 and 5 of the post you implied was "needless" were to do with workers rights.

Are there zero non developing countries in the world with an increasing share of world trade?

Which ones? I said needless. I never once said workers rights are needless. The original post refers to 100 regulations. Are they all regarding workers rights?

I have understood what you were saying, it was ignoring the subject of this thread which was saving to be made by, inter alia, removing workers rights.

You were talking about "blocks". Do you have an example of a developed country with an increasing share of world trade that you think the UK should be emulating?

Er, what part of "points 3 and 5" is not precise enough for you?!!

What part of post number 1 mentions workers rights?

That's not the post you replied to with your "needless" though, was it. That was the post that listed the top 5 regulations mentioned in the article the thread is all about, two of which were about removing workers' rights.

Sorry to interrupt the petty squabbling but....








No response?

Australia had a major change in its employment laws about 12 years back - before that, it had very pro-employee laws that were pretty much forced on the Government by the unions. They went too far in the direction of the employee. Then they swung in the other direction, so much so that even my old boss cringed at the implications.

Canada is an odd one - there are basic Federal protections but most of the employee protection laws are decided at the province level. Its managed to look after employee rights because it's basically the right thing to do.

However...this is all shear whataboutery on your part. Based on past behaviour, all the indications from both major parties in the UK are that they would abolish much of the EU framework such as the WTD without any replacement. It doesn't really matter what other countries do - it's all about what the UK will do without the EU enforcing some basic fairness upon it.

Based on the past, it does look rather grim for the average British worker who is on an hourly wage or a zero-hours contract.

I'll note (with some amusement) that you've not included the U.S. in your list of countries when discussing employee rights. That shining beacon of democracy (as you have claimed it to be in other posts) has pitiful record for employee rights, and I can see why you wouldn't want to use it as an example.

Treating the Brexit referendum as a referendum on EU freedom of movement is akin to using a 10kg sledgehammer to crack open a peanut - the issue was scarcely even given a mention by anyone in the 2010 General Election, now it's the greatest crisis affecting Britain apparently.

Funny when the latest immigration figures show that net non EU migration, that was promised May would get into "tens of thousands", is greater than the EU figure.

By how much? I can't wait for you to tell us the massive difference.

It's not much of a difference, but it was supposed to be a huge difference, remember? Why do people think voting out of the EU will make a difference to immigration when the "tens of thousands" promised for non EU immigration wasn't delivered by May?

Now, why don't you answer any of the questions I've asked you?

No I wasn't supposed to be a huge difference. And the answer is, once we leave, all immigrants can be treated equally, so that a Barista from Vilnius cannot just waltz in at their leisure where a doctor from New Delhi that we actually need has to spend months filling in forms to get here.