The hard-left argument for leaving the EU, espoused by Frank Field and others is interesting. He certainly has a point about government underfunding. However, studies, such as last year's one by the Centre for Economic Performance, have consistently shown that immigration has not had a negative impact on wages, even in low and unskilled areas, although there was a slight impact on unemployment in low and unskilled sectors in some areas with high levels of immigration, although this was considered to be extremely small. I suppose it's all about perception though.
The EU is by no means a bastion of social justice, but is true that there has been an increase in regulation in this area since we signed up to the social chapter. IMO this doesn't go nearly far enough, but it certainly exceeds any laws we had in this area previously. The same could be said of environmental regulations.
I remain to be convinced that Brexit will mean that, free from the shackles of the EU, the government will implement lots of policies to reduce inequality and improve social justice. We will, after all, continue to be governed for the foreseeable future by a pretty right -wing Tory bunch who are far more likely to favour less regulation and lower working conditions.
Just musing, I suppose if the fundamental reason behind the Brexit vote is, as oft-reported, a protest vote from a swathe of the population who have felt ignored by successive governments, to my mind the best solution might be a soft Brexit that minimises damage to the economy (and real people's wages and living standards) alongside a concerted effort by the government to make policy decisions that actually benefit the less well-off. I'm not sure how to square it all with the negative perception of immigration though. If all the data and statistics show that immigration benefits us economically, but people don't feel this, what do you do?
Wow, after typing all that it's made me really glad that I'm not in charge of managing Brexit!