It depends on how much tread is left on them, I suppose. As a FWD Golf, you'll probably have used a bit more tread on the fronts, so I'd put those onto the back axle to even out wear. However, that approach means that when you need to replace tyres, you'll have worn all 4 down evenly, so larger outlay in one go.

Alternatively, if you keep fronts on the front, then those tyres will wear out a lot sooner, but the back tyres will go on for a lot longer.

Yes i too judge the wear and fit accordingly, and prefer to replace all four together.

Can't say as i'm that bothered about the new to rear trend (another one size fits all solution), when its been two new tyres they have always gone on the drive axle.

The link you give is to a US site and refers to a Michelin test on a flooded, curved track.

On a surface flooded to a depth sufficient to cause aquaplaning the results are exactly what one would expect. If a road is that wet, it would make sense to slow down to a speed at which aquaplaning won't occur.

In a straight line, as the rears follow in the track of the fronts, the fronts will have dispersed most of the water so less for them to shift.

Some of us are old enough to remember the days when there was NO legal minimum tread depth, so it was legal to drive smooth treaded tyres and as most cars then were rear wheel drive, we soon learned that the rear wheels would break away with anything but gentle acceleration on wet or even damp roads.

(And in those days there was no such thing as stability control or antilock brakes)

Can I commend ahxcjb for using British spelling "tyres" and not US variant "tires"

Winter tyres are more likely than not directional and so can only be swapped front to back if they are on their own rims.