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?

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.