Just one sec...
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

What is with the fixation on 'right to live and work' in the EU

Announcements Posted on
Take our short survey, £100 of Amazon vouchers to be won! 23-09-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-to-live-in-uk

    Apparently Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are preparing to 'veto' all Brexit deals unless the UK can guarantee its citizens their rights to live and work in the UK.

    Naturally I'm not surprised by their stance, as they seem to be the net beneficiaries of the free movement principle and the EU budget.

    However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

    What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

    Why do they feel that they are entitled to live wherever they want in the EU?

    In my opinion this sense of entitlement is partly what corrupts the EU. Its citizens and politicians have no sense of duty to contribute and act in the interest of their nation. When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits. Just look at countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There is a lack of motivation for politicians to act in their country's interest as most of them considers the EU as their final career destination, and many had already landed a safe job in the EU. Many of their citizens now moving to richer EU states for better prospects. While their motives are understandable, this exodus of workforce and brain drain will only exacerbate their country's economy. Countries like Greece and Spain are now economic wasteland because of this lack of discipline from both ends.

    I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market. Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally. The fact that the EU wants to add free movement to the negotiation table makes it clear that fairness is not what the EU is aiming for.

    For reasons I mentioned above, in my opinion the UK must not accept or compromise on free movement, even if it means trading with tariffs under WTO.

    Just as the V4 group is perfectly entitled to their stance, we must also be ready to defend our stance on this important issue.
    Online

    3
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-to-live-in-uk

    Apparently Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are preparing to 'veto' all Brexit deals unless the UK can guarantee its citizens their rights to live and work in the UK.

    Naturally I'm not surprised by their stance, as they seem to be the net beneficiaries of the free movement principle and the EU budget.

    However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

    What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

    Why do they feel that they are entitled to live wherever they want in the EU?

    In my opinion this sense of entitlement is partly what corrupts the EU. Its citizens and politicians have no sense of duty to contribute and act in the interest of their nation. When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits. Just look at countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There is a lack of motivation for politicians to act in their country's interest as most of them considers the EU as their final career destination, and many had already landed a safe job in the EU. Many of their citizens now moving to richer EU states for better prospects. While their motives are understandable, this exodus of workforce and brain drain will only exacerbate their country's economy. Countries like Greece and Spain are now economic wasteland because of this lack of discipline from both ends.

    I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market. Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally. The fact that the EU wants to add free movement to the negotiation table makes it clear that fairness is not what the EU is aiming for.

    For reasons I mentioned above, in my opinion the UK must not accept or compromise on free movement, even if it means trading with tariffs under WTO.

    Just as the V4 group is perfectly entitled to their stance, we must also be ready to defend our stance on this important issue.

    A lot of nonsense by you. It goes both ways so that any Brexit deal which presumablt uncludes terms favourable to the UK, will not be accepted if existing EU citizens living in the UK (not future ones) are prejudiced.

    You clearly dont understand that free movement is a fundamental principle of the single market. That will be prety much take it or leave it. They can decide that because its their market. The UK can take it or leave it, it cnat cherry pick all the nice bits it wants.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    A lot of nonsense by you. It goes both ways so that any Brexit deal which presumablt uncludes terms favourable to the UK, will not be accepted if existing EU citizens living in the UK (not future ones) are prejudiced.

    You clearly dont understand that free movement is a fundamental principle of the single market. That will be prety much take it or leave it. They can decide that because its their market. The UK can take it or leave it, it cnat cherry pick all the nice bits it wants.
    But you did not explain why it is a fundamental principle of the single market. The single market is just a free trade agreement across the EU, to put it simply. Freedom of labour is not an element in and has no place in most free trade agreements.

    There is an equal basis when both sides agree to trade freely, this is not cherry picking.

    As a Hong Kong immigrant qualified for British citizenship under the British Nationality Selection scheme, free movement is extremely unprincipled to me. My family had to satisfy a point-based and quota system in order to become British citizens, and I expect the same from others.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also I must clarify that I fully support maintaining the rights of all EU immigrants currently in the UK, including UK citizenship. The UK has made a commitment to them under pre-Bexit terms and it is only right for us to fulfil that.

    My original post applies to post-Brexit EU.
    Online

    3
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    But you did not explain why it is a fundamental principle of the single market. The single market is just a free trade agreement across the EU, to put it simply. Freedom of labour is not an element in and has no place in most free trade agreements.

    There is an equal basis when both sides agree to trade freely, this is not cherry picking.

    As a Hong Kong immigrant qualified for British citizenship under the British Nationality Selection scheme, free movement is extremely unprincipled to me. My family had to satisfy a point-based and quota system in order to become British citizens, and I expect the same from others.
    Think you will find free movement of workers is one of the four fundamental principles enshrined in the European Treaty.

    So you are 100% wrong and you might wish to go away and do some research.

    There are four freedoms for the single market which include

    Free movement of goods, free movement of workers, right of establishment of services and free movement of capital.

    Have you studied much EU law, becayse you really dont seem to have a clue about the single market.

    Treaty Chapter 1 Article 45
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...2E/TXT&from=EN



    As one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by European Union (EU) Law, freedom of movement for workers, pursuant to Article 45 TFEU (ex. Article 39 ECT), guarantees every EU citizen the right to move freely, to stay and to work in another member state. Some exceptions can only be made in the public sector. This freedom applies to all member states' citizens regadless of nationality as well as to the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). In relation to free access to labour market, this chapter considers nondiscriminatory treatment of workers who are legally employed in a country other than their country of origin. It means that discrimination on the basis of nationality, residence and/or language is not permissible and it also includes equal treatment in basic employment conditions, remuneration, dismissal and the receipt of social advantages.
    Furthermore, certain rights are also extended to family members of the worker. Implications and concept of this freedom have been further interpreted and developed by the case-law of the ECJ, including the notion of worker itself. Provisions related to supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the EU are also included in the general principles of freedom of movement for workers.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Think you will find free movement of workers is one of the four fundamental principles enshrined in the European Treaty.

    So you are 100% wrong and you might wish to go away and do some research.

    There are four freedoms for the single market which include

    Free movement of goods, free movement of workers, right of establishment of services and free movement of capital.

    Have you studied much EU law, becayse you really dont seem to have a clue about the single market.

    Treaty Chapter 1 Article 45
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...2E/TXT&from=EN
    I know it is a fundamental principle, I have mentioned that on my original thread.

    I know full well what the EU stands for and its structure, but you might want to re-read my original thread is on the relevancy of the two 'principles' and the fairness in question.

    To make it clear - what I am questioning, is why the EU is so adamant that free movement must come with free trade. As I have mentioned, nearly all trade treaties, including the historic ones, has no place or requirement for free movement of labour. You can keep saying it's a founding principle, but what I am looking for is the logic behind it which you are not specifying.

    Also on the basis of fairness and equality, let me just analyse to you further.

    Free movement is unfair because there is no equal basis when it comes to its diminishing effects on incentive to self-help for its poorer member states. It also means that citizens from poorer countries are entitled automatically for the jobs and benefits of richer countries. One side will be the beneficial end, and the other is not.

    Free trade is fair as there is an equal basis when it comes to trading voluntarily between member states, you can simply choose to trade or not trade even under a free trade agreement - neither side is forced to trade.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is why for a fair negotiation, if fairness is what the EU is aiming for - there should be free trade but not free movement due to the balance of equality and fairness within these two policies.
    Online

    3
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This is why for a fair negotiation, if fairness is what the EU is aiming for - there should be free trade but not free movement due to the balance of equality and fairness within these two policies.
    You really dont know what you are talking about. They have already said no access equivalent to whta we have now without free movement. Its their market and they cna decide what they like.

    As you wrongly tried to correct me and arent big enough to admit. Freedom of movement is fundamental, so you arent going to have access to the single market on current terms without it. That means you can have access to the markets as an outsider based upon whatever is negotiated.

    Quite why you think allowing the UK to ignore freedom of movement, but enjoy the benefits of the single market, when all the other member states have to abide by it is bizarre.

    Neither side is interested in equality and fairness. You are in fantasy land. Both sides want the best deal they can get for their respective parties. That should mean something which is mutually beneficial, but they arent going to do the other side any favours at their own expense.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You really dont know what you are talking about. They have already said no access equivalent to whta we have now without free movement. Its their market and they cna decide what they like.

    As you wrongly tried to correct me and arent big enough to admit. Freedom of movement is fundamental, so you arent going to have access to the single market on current terms without it. That means you can have access to the markets as an outsider based upon whatever is negotiated.

    Quite why you think allowing the UK to ignore freedom of movement, but enjoy the benefits of the single market, when all the other member states have to abide by it is bizarre.

    Neither side is interested in equality and fairness. You are in fantasy land. Both sides want the best deal they can get for their respective parties. That should mean something which is mutually beneficial, but they arent going to do the other side any favours at their own expense.
    As I said, you are not debating the logic behind why these two policies are intertwined and interdependent.

    The single market as I said, is a free trade agreement under tariff free terms. Free trade agreements has an element of fairness - which is what I am pushing for. Both sides benefit in free trade. For free movement, only 1 side benefits - unless there is an extremely rare case of 0 net movement and net effect.

    This is why I am calling for a no compromise approach on the negotiation regarding free movement. It is something that I will not accept and I am urging those who shares my overall view to not compromise on their views. Even if it means trading under the average 2.3% MFN tariff under WTO, we still must not accept free movement.

    Also with regards to your tone, if you know what I am referring to - it shows more about you than me. You can debate (this is why I'm here) but please don't be rude.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of movement is definitely an EU obsession that most of the rest of the world has little interest in. I think bi-lateral freedom of movement policies, like that used between the UK & Eire, Australia & New Zealand etc make sense but with those on the scale of the EU, especially when you consider the gap between the wealth & general living standards between Western & Eastern Europe, the deal causes more problems than it solves.

    Plenty of other nations have economic agreements without freedom of movement, such as the USA, Canada & Mexico.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Freedom of movement is definitely an EU obsession that most of the rest of the world has little interest in. I think bi-lateral freedom of movement policies, like that used between the UK & Eire, Australia & New Zealand etc make sense but with those on the scale of the EU, especially when you consider the gap between the wealth & general living standards between Western & Eastern Europe, the deal causes more problems than it solves.

    Plenty of other nations have economic agreements without freedom of movement, such as the USA, Canada & Mexico.
    Agreed. EE countries benefit from the EU more than the UK does TBH. Not surprised they are moaning about it.

    I live in a place with lots of Polish people. Some of them have been settled for years but supported Brexit, the younger low skilled ones are entitled though as OP said CherishFreedom
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because it is an important principle of the EU in regarding greater harmonisation between member states. This principle is supported by the elected leaders of the member states.

    'Plenty of other countries' are not in Europe, are not European and have not had the history that Europe has had.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Because it is an important principle of the EU in regarding greater harmonisation between member states. This principle is supported by the elected leaders of the member states.

    'Plenty of other countries' are not in Europe, are not European and have not had the history that Europe has had.
    Then under your explanation, what the EU is now suggesting is that they'd go for the most inharmonious route of no free trade and no free movement, as opposed to free trade with no free movement.

    I personally do not think there is any harmony within the principle with free movement. As I stated before, unlike free trade where both sides benefits and can still trade voluntarily, with free movement one side loses while the other side wins, unless we have a rare case of zero net movement or net effects.

    I agree with 999tigger's view that the EU is not aiming for deal with fairness in mind. This is a case of the EU making a fairness argument on something that is actually unfair, and the UK demanding a fair settlement of a free trade agreement which is mutually beneficial.

    Whether you favour Brexit or not, I think we can both agree that control on free movement is the bottom line for Brexit's argument. This is not something that the UK will (and in my opinion, should) compromise on. What we are looking at now, is either a softening on the EU stance or the prospect of a 'hard' Brexit.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think that some of the hypocrisy within nations like Hungary in relation to the migration crisis & EU freedom of movement is ridiculous; at the moment, there is a referendum campaign going on in Hungary on the topic of accepting EU sponsored migrates/refugees.

    The President of Hungary, Viktor Orbán has made it crystal clear he doesn't want his country to accept any yet his government also demand that the UK must keep freedom of movement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    However what I find strange is that many people in the EU feel that they have a birthright to live and work in the EU, even after a member nation had left the union.

    What happened to obtaining a working visa or satisfying citizenship requirement, like most other countries in the World?

    Why do they feel that they are entitled to live wherever they want in the EU?

    Because getting a visa and aquiring citizenship in another country are both harder and less accessible than simply walking across a border and applying for a job. That's why people want to keep freedom of movement.

    It's got nothing to do with a perception of what is/isn't a ''birthright'' or what people feel ''entitled'' to, it is simply beneficial. As you've said before, Eastern European countries benefit from it which is why they want to keep it. Same reason I want free movement to remain, so that if I want to travel and work in an EU country I can do so with ease.

    The UK hasn't left yet either.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    In my opinion this sense of entitlement is partly what corrupts the EU. Its citizens and politicians have no sense of duty to contribute and act in the interest of their nation. When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits. Just look at countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There is a lack of motivation for politicians to act in their country's interest as most of them considers the EU as their final career destination, and many had already landed a safe job in the EU. Many of their citizens now moving to richer EU states for better prospects. While their motives are understandable, this exodus of workforce and brain drain will only exacerbate their country's economy. Countries like Greece and Spain are now economic wasteland because of this lack of discipline from both ends.
    ...and to also send money back to their home country which improves the economy. Poland is a good example of this.



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market. Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally. The fact that the EU wants to add free movement to the negotiation table makes it clear that fairness is not what the EU is aiming for.
    Because it makes trade easier between countries, be it through the physical transport of goods or through the movement of services, which often require people who do work. Adding border guards and checkpoints to this slows it down and doesn't encourage trade.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    For reasons I mentioned above, in my opinion the UK must not accept or compromise on free movement, even if it means trading with tariffs under WTO.
    What reasons? All you have said is that free movement has a negative impact on other EU countries and that you don't understand it's necessity. That's all. What has this got to do with whether we should keep it?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Because getting a visa and aquiring citizenship in another country are both harder and less accessible than simply walking across a border and applying for a job. That's why people want to keep freedom of movement.

    It's got nothing to do with a perception of what is/isn't a ''birthright'' or what people feel ''entitled'' to, it is simply beneficial. As you've said before, Eastern European countries benefit from it which is why they want to keep it. Same reason I want free movement to remain, so that if I want to travel and work in an EU country I can do so with ease.

    The UK hasn't left yet either.
    As I said, there isn't an overall beneficial effect to both sides when it comes to free movement, therefore it cannot be compared to free trade on the same basis of equality and fairness. It is also only natural for a country to have its own immigration control in the form of having its requirements for citizenship and working visas.

    I also am aware that the UK hasn't left yet, but the V4 group is discussing post-Brexit free movement which is for the period after we left the EU.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    ...and to also send money back to their home country which improves the economy. Poland is a good example of this.
    The majority of immigrants work and live here permanently, so there is a draw of labour out of these countries which is not a good thing. You simply cannot ignore the high net migration figure to the UK, and try to distract from the issue by saying that a small minority work here but sends money home.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Because it makes trade easier between countries, be it through the physical transport of goods or through the movement of services, which often require people who do work. Adding border guards and checkpoints to this slows it down and doesn't encourage trade.
    You will find that Canada actually have a free trade agreement with the EU without having to agree to free movement, as do many other countries in the rest of the world. As I said you'll find that almost all free trade agreements in the past do not involve any free movement of people. Easier passage for hauliers is not a reason for free movement of people which guarantees the right to live, work and entitlement to state benefits.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    What reasons? All you have said is that free movement has a negative impact on other EU countries and that you don't understand it's necessity. That's all. What has this got to do with whether we should keep it?
    My point, if you read my original post carefully, is that free movement should not be a compulsory element of free trade. This is because if we are to reach a mutually beneficial deal, free movement is not fair for one side as the other side is favoured. One side loses as the other side gains. Free trade is fair by its own merits because neither side is forced to trade even if there is a trade agreement, transaction happens because both sides are willing to trade for mutual benefits.

    In simpler terms, we should not accept terms which are unfair to us, as a compulsory element to a free trade agreement which already is fair on its own.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    The President of Hungary, Viktor Orbán has made it crystal clear he doesn't want his country to accept any yet his government also demand that the UK must keep freedom of movement.
    I think you are crossing your wires. If we want access to the single market, we must accept free market. But that is not to say some form of watered down deal couldn't be brokered. My feeling is that the big issue is with allowing those already here to remain here. And that goes for UK Expats too. It isn't in anyone's interest to see hundreds of thousands of people turfed out of their homes and sent to a country they no longer have any contact with. And that goes for the 1+ million UK expats. If they had to come home, they would make the EU immigration we have been experiencing over the last few years look like small fry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, there isn't an overall beneficial effect to both sides when it comes to free movement, therefore it cannot be compared to free trade on the same basis of equality and fairness. It is also only natural for a country to have its own immigration control in the form of having its requirements for citizenship and working visas.

    I also am aware that the UK hasn't left yet, but the V4 group is discussing post-Brexit free movement which is for the period after we left the EU.
    I really don't see how any of this is relavent. You've asked why free movement is important to these countries and I've given you reasons why. It's got nothing to do with how mutually beneficial or 'natural' it is.

    V4 aren't discussing post-Brexit free movement. They are discussing the Brexit deal, IE the terms of our exit. They will vote against any deal which doesn't include free movement.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You will find that Canada actually have a free trade agreement with the EU without having to agree to free movement, as do many other countries in the rest of the world. As I said you'll find that almost all free trade agreements in the past do not involve any free movement of people. Easier passage for hauliers is not a reason for free movement of people which guarantees the right to live, work and entitlement to state benefits.
    Sure, but if you were to somehow push Canada 4000 miles in the direction of Europe there would probably be more talk about free movement between the two. There's no point in including the right to live, work, etc, in a deal like that since, realistically, it's probably not going to benefit that many people. Movement between countries in close proximity will happen much more often, as we all know. For the sake of convinience you break down barriers at that point.

    The EU-Canada agreement doesn't include full market access either. It's generally limitless over agricultural and industrial goods but for services, notably financial ones, there are limits.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    My point, if you read my original post carefully, is that free movement should not be a compulsory element of free trade. This is because if we are to reach a mutually beneficial deal, free movement is not fair for one side as the other side is favoured. One side loses as the other side gains. Free trade is fair by its own merits because neither side is forced to trade even if there is a trade agreement, transaction happens because both sides are willing to trade for mutual benefits.

    In simpler terms, we should not accept terms which are unfair to us, as a compulsory element to a free trade agreement which already is fair on its own.
    I don't think that we ''lose'' from free movement, so personally I don't agree that the current deal isn't mutually beneficial. You've not made that case yet, you're just assuming it.

    A deal being fair (equal) and a deal being mutually beneficial are also not the same thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I really don't see how any of this is relavent. You've asked why free movement is important to these countries and I've given you reasons why. It's got nothing to do with how mutually beneficial or 'natural' it is.

    V4 aren't discussing post-Brexit free movement. They are discussing the Brexit deal, IE the terms of our exit. They will vote against any deal which doesn't include free movement.
    I have asked why free movement must be a compulsory requirement for free trade, it may be important to them for their reasons but this is something I do not care.

    V4 is actually discussing the term of free movement after we leave the EU (post-Brexit). I've been very precise on that.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Sure, but if you were to somehow push Canada 4000 miles in the direction of Europe there would probably be more talk about free movement between the two. There's no point in including the right to live, work, etc, in a deal like that since, realistically, it's probably not going to benefit that many people. Movement between countries in close proximity will happen much more often, as we all know. For the sake of convinience you break down barriers at that point.

    The EU-Canada agreement doesn't include full market access either. It's generally limitless over agricultural and industrial goods but for services, notably financial ones, there are limits.
    Then let me give you another example - Canada and the USA. They have free trade agreement, but no free movement or people.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I don't think that we ''lose'' from free movement, so personally I don't agree that the current deal isn't mutually beneficial. You've not made that case yet, you're just assuming it.

    A deal being fair (equal) and a deal being mutually beneficial are also not the same thing.
    It is a simple statistical logic that unless in the extremely rare case that there is zero net movement or zero net effect of migration, one side will gain overall and the other loses. Therefore as I said, the EU cannot put that on the table and call it fair and mutually beneficial, because it simply isn't logically and statistically.

    I am not asking the EU to change its stance, they are perfectly entitled to make this as unfair or favourable to them as possible. My original post is to urge people in the UK to resist any attempt by the EU to bring free movement in the negotiation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    why are even going to "negotiate" if these sinkhole countries are just going to block our very expected demands? why can't we just leave and leave it at that? who will stop us? god? sure, we'll have a lot of legislation to repeal or put into place, but it's not going to take forever withou the EU
 
 
 
Write a reply…

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 28, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Who will be the next permanent England boss?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22

Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.