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.

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.