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 2016Britain could slash environmental and safety regulations on imported products after it leaves the EU, a Tory MP has suggested.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards.

The idea, floated at a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee, was immediately rejected by an economist, who said such a move would likely cause “quite considerable” difficulties.

“We could, if we wanted, accept emissions standards from India, America, and Europe. There’d be no contradiction with that,” Mr Rees-Mogg said.

“We could say, if it’s good enough in India, it’s good enough for here. There’s nothing to stop that.

“We could take it a very long way. American emission standards are fine – probably in some cases higher.'"

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

rlhttps://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