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

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.

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.

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.