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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how about this: we can allow all former UK nationals to return if the respective EU state, in all of their liberal wisdom, decides that they don't want them there anymore. in terms of the EU citizens that are already in the UK, let them stay, so long as they came here before the referendum. unless they're criminals obviously.

    how is that a difficult issue to deal with?
    Effectively granting UK citizenship to 3.3 million EU nationals living in the UK isn't a difficult issue? The complications of that are enormous, let alone the costs. Having thousands of expats flood back into the country won't help either, or deciding that they are no longer officially UK citizens, depending on what happens.

    Also yay for more instability, that's always fun.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Effectively granting UK citizenship to 3.3 million EU nationals living in the UK isn't a difficult issue? The complications of that are enormous, let alone the costs. Having thousands of expats flood back into the country won't help either, or deciding that they are no longer officially UK citizens, depending on what happens.

    Also yay for more instability, that's always fun.
    oh my god, costs? really? you means there's going to be actual costs after brexit? oh me oh my, oh my oh dear...you don't say?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh my god, costs? really? you means there's going to be actual costs after brexit? oh me oh my, oh my oh dear...you don't say?
    Er, sure, but wouldn't we want to make our exit as swift and as easy as possible?

    It's not in our interests to make things overly complicated, expensive and chaotic for ourselves. Your grand and wise solution of 'just leave' may sound strong minded and tough but in reality it's ****.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    We are not asking to stay in the single market, we are looking to form a free trade agreement with the EU. This is what is proposed on the UK's side on the table, however the EU is looking to make free movement a compulsory requirement.

    The Canada-EU agreement is a FTA and allows access to the single market but this does not mean they are inside the single market.
    They don't have full access to the Single Market, dummkopf.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what do you think the world trade organisation does, sweety?
    Services isn't included, "sweetie".


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asmuse123)
    Services isn't included, "sweetie".


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    oh gee, what ever are we to do...?
    if we have no deal between another state or institution, then they can impose whatever tariff they want, but equally we can impose whatever tariff we want onto them. if they charge too much, they'll lose business and money. so it's their call I guess. they're just like any other state. and yes, I'm saying "state" because there's no way the EU isn't one at this stage in political history. the only thing they lack is their own executive branch (not government - executive). but that's nothing, seeing as the EU is a suzerain.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because liberty. Freedom of movement of labour is as fundamental as freedom of movement of goods (free trade). Especially for service-based economies.

    Also, we want Eastern European girls in the UK. ****ing gorgeous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh gee, what ever are we to do...?
    if we have no deal between another state or institution, then they can impose whatever tariff they want, but equally we can impose whatever tariff we want onto them. if they charge too much, they'll lose business and money. so it's their call I guess. they're just like any other state. and yes, I'm saying "state" because there's no way the EU isn't one at this stage in political history. the only thing they lack is their own executive branch (not government - executive). but that's nothing, seeing as the EU is a suzerain.
    I know right? It's not like our economy depends upon the service sector. :facepalm:

    Tariffs aren't the main issue. Non-tariff barriers are also applied to services. Single market access removes these barriers which (amongst other things) is why we want to retain access. Our service, particularly financial, sector will suffer otherwise. For example you've probably heard of banks being able to get 'passports' which cut the costs of running banks abroad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I know right? It's not like our economy depends upon the service sector. :facepalm:

    Tariffs aren't the main issue. Non-tariff barriers are also applied to services. Single market access removes these barriers which (amongst other things) is why we want to retain access. Our service, particularly financial, sector will suffer otherwise. For example you've probably heard of banks being able to get 'passports' which cut the costs of running banks abroad.
    Ignore @sleepsnooze

    I bet he/she thinks that the British Empire still exists and the EU is some puny nation to be conquered!
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think you are starting to tell me what people on my side, including myself are asking for. The position of the government is that they want access to the single market but no free movement.
    Not you, the government, and the industries clamoring for access to the single market - former has no idea what it wants to do, and latter certainly doesn't mean 'FTA for goods is okay'.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I personally would fully support a Canadian style free trade agreement, but then again you are ignoring that because you believe it is not what we are asking for.
    1. I've not seen UK government saying they'd like something similar to CETA, do link it if you have.
    2. CETA, even if agreed doesn't cover services making it terrible deal by itself, it doesn't even cover all the tariffs, or regulations. If that's all you're asking EU for, I doubt they'll have a lot of problem.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This is what trade agreements are for, to agree on a common standard in which both sides can trade. Also by being within the single market, we are prevented from establishing trade agreements with non-EU states which would open up more trade opportunities.
    If we were so awesome at having our own long distance free trade deals, why did we join the EU in the first place? We attempted to establish our own free trade area, and negotiate our own free trade deals; that wasn't a massive success and there's no reason to imagine it'd be a success now either because fundamental issue hasn't changed - UK market of 60 million is less valuable to country than a European market of 700 million people; therefore latter will have much higher bargaining power than the former.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This would also mean that those non-EU countries do not need to comply with EU standard but a standard that is agreed with the UK.
    So we're going to have different regulations; which any company operating from here and selling to EU (about half of our industries) will need to abide by?


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This is not always the case. For example if the UK is to have a looser regulation on a certain good, and the EU has a higher level regulation, you will find that the total compliance cost is lower. Some products sold here in the UK can be designed and complied cheaper, which means it could be produced cheaper.
    Only if you're not then selling same good to EU, which half of our companies do - otherwise you're running two production line instead of one. If UK economy was established in such a way that minimal amount of product was being sold to EU, then sure this'd make sense - except that's not the case.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This is also the case for international trade with non-EU countries.
    Which we'd be able to negotiate better representing 700 million customers rather than representing 60 million customers.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Let's be real, we are talking about UK banks here, most of them do have subsidiaries and operate on an international level.
    5,500 companies in UK are reliant on passporting; ie. they don't have subsidiary - merely a branch because that makes more sense than subsidiary since that means you don't need as much money to qualify for same thing; same with moving money if branch is at a loss - I'd be surprised if any significant proportion have subsidiary in UK and another EU state except when thats beneficial for tax reasons (Ireland for some).


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Even in the rare exception that a bank does not have a subsidiary, it is not at all difficult for such a large corporation to establish a subsidiary if it wants to do business there.
    That is the problem; so a company establishes new subsidiary in Frankfurt which will require some minimum capital etc to be set up; it does that and now it has exact same operation it has in UK running in EU. This is wasteful since there's duplication going on, and now you've Euro handling division in Europe there's no need to have them in UK; so those people can be moved out of London. We just lost tax base.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The ongoing cost sustain a licence with the EU state will be paid by someone eventually. It is either the state or the bank, someone has to pay. As for non-tariff barriers outside the single market but under a FTA, I have explained already that there is an increased flexibility for businesses to reduce compliance cost and to also explore more trading opportunities.
    Flexibility to do what? Most of our exports are going to EU so most companies will need to comply with those regulations anyways; and UK ones. If UK is inferior to EU's then one line works, but if its just different (washing chicken with chlorine vs not washing with chlorine) then you need two parallel processes to comply two standards.
    The cost to sustain licence with EU wouldn't have to be paid by anyone if we're in single market, it's just same licence as one needed to trade in UK. Easy and same cost.





    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    We are talking about flexibility vs simplicity here. While there is high efficiency with simplicity, flexibility offers more opportunities and potential to lower regulations for domestic and non-EU international trades. You choose which version you want, but I am glad that the government is opting for flexibility.
    It is? Because last I heard government doesn't know what its supposed to be doing wrt Brexit.



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    One thing to note is that net migration from the EU had increased dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis, reaching a record high in the latest figures.

    Consider that if an industry in the service sector employs 15% EU workers, this would mean a 7.5% drop in wage. You simply cannot dismiss this is a minor effect.
    That'd require 15% increase of in one year; for reference from 1993 to 2014 the total increase has been of 7%; year on year that represents 0.16% loss of wage for the worse affected. Or to say if everyone born abroad regardless of if they're from EU, and if they're now citizens left in the same year (and this didn't instantly implode the economy) then unskilled and semi-skilled sector workers on would get raise of 8.35% or about 2.5k on 30k salary. Migrants are practically speaking doing nothing to the wage.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    For EU migrants, we do not have a points system.
    Yes which makes them perfect control group; contrasting the contribution made by EU migrant (no point based) to non EU migrant (points based).

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As for the contribution figure quoted on your link, the page specifically mentioned that the research does not present the whole picture of their costs and contribution.

    Nevertheless it is not good to talk about the result (especially when the result isn't regarded as accurate), when you know that the system can be improved. It is always good to have requirements and control over who can successfully apply for citizenship.
    Point wasn't to compare that as absolute figure, but to use same standard measure for migrants from non EU and EU country; so while there may be other considerations since same considerations are being applied to both groups it works - given non points based system at the moment doesn't give that much worse result to points based system (or by some measure better results); where's benefit of using points based on EU?

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    It is entirely your opinion what constitutes the UK 'shooting itself on the foot'. I am happy with the government's current position and that it seems to be supporting the principle and benefits of free trade without free movement.
    Government doesn't have a position. David Davis ruled out common market, may corrected him saying that was his opinion, then may blabbed on about how she was going to be ambitious without outlying anything, Hammond thinks everything on the table and that we're unlikely to get single market but banks will still be in single market.
    Offline

    1
    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?
    This operates on three different levels. First, European businesses are absolutely determined that free movement of labour shall continue. It creates what Marx called a "reserve army of labour"; a population of itinerant workers who will move to wherever there is work, thus putting permanent downward pressure on wages, terms and conditions.

    The European Commission, which is wholly in the pocket of corporate lobbyists, know that if Europeans see that there can be free trade in goods and services without free movement of labour, then a huge proportion of them will demand that. The European bureaucrats and corporate chiefs cannot allow that to happen; they cannot allow the more conservative Europeans to see that there is no inherent reason why free movement must be attached to free trade (which is how free trade works in the rest of the world).

    It works on a second level; for many Europeans the EU is a massive part of their identity. For many mainland Europeans they have suffered various humiliations; they had their empires taken away, their attempt to become a world power (in Germany's case) resulted in their being smashed by the Anglosphere and the Russians. In other cases they have experienced a long-decline from being major players and the centre of world affairs to being marginal players (for countries like Spain and Italy, both their national decline, and Europe's increasing irrelevance). So banding together as part of the EU makes them feel powerful again; it mitigates the frustration they feel at America's prosperity and dominance. Most Europeans are painfully ignorant of Asia and many barely realise, in any meaningful way, that it exists. But they do sense Europe's relative decline, and they don't like it.

    Thus, many Europeans are very pro-EU, and in their mind being pro-EU means being in favour of everything the EU asserts is fundamental to it. The reality is that the vast majority of European citizens will never exercise treaty rights to live and work in another country, but they are told it is hugely important (and told that without it they wouldn't be able to travel to other European countries) so they favour it. It also allows them to feel superior to the Anglo-Saxons, as if there is something morally wrong with Britons deciding it is not for them.

    Finally, a considerable proportion of Europeans are quite ignorant, parochial, xenophobic and racist. Just as many lower-middle class Britons (who have never travelled outside the EU or been anywhere that requires you to get a visa or visa waiver) believe being pro-EU somehow makes them sophisticated and worldly, equally many Europeans who are not particularly cultured or sophisticated adopt the same view. Many Britons think all Europeans are as sophisticated, fashionable and cosmopolitan as Parisians or Berliners or the Milanese, because these Britons have never been outside major European cities (and city centres, at that).

    These Britons have never been to places like suburban Naples, or Charleroi, or Mannheim. There are a lot of Europeans in Europe who aren't particularly sophisticated or fashionable or cosmopolitan, and these Europeans are just as parochial as you'd expect them to be. They've usually not been outside the EU or travelled anywhere that requires a visa or visa waiver. And so the idea that the world of the visa/visa waiver is coming to them is a scary prospect. Their European passport allows them to feel just a little bit worldly without actually having to be so.

    In my experience these people, both in the UK and on mainland Europe, are often the most fanatical, the most arrogant, the most snide, EU advocates.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Not you, the government, and the industries clamoring for access to the single market - former has no idea what it wants to do, and latter certainly doesn't mean 'FTA for goods is okay'.
    If you read what you are typing, you are once again trying to tell me and other people what we are looking for. This is simply no way to argue your point. However if you want sources to prove that the government position is to form a free trade agreement with the EU, I can quote you a handful.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    1. I've not seen UK government saying they'd like something similar to CETA, do link it if you have.
    2. CETA, even if agreed doesn't cover services making it terrible deal by itself, it doesn't even cover all the tariffs, or regulations. If that's all you're asking EU for, I doubt they'll have a lot of problem.
    I have made myself very clear.

    It is the government's stance that they would like a free trade agreement with the EU.

    It is my stance that I would like a Canadian style free trade agreement.

    I am sure the Canada-EU trade deal is so terrible that both sides agreed to sign it without any opposition.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    If we were so awesome at having our own long distance free trade deals, why did we join the EU in the first place? We attempted to establish our own free trade area, and negotiate our own free trade deals; that wasn't a massive success and there's no reason to imagine it'd be a success now either because fundamental issue hasn't changed - UK market of 60 million is less valuable to country than a European market of 700 million people; therefore latter will have much higher bargaining power than the former.
    The EU started as the EEC in 1958, an economic union between European countries after WW2. This was seen as important to unite Europe economically as the two world wars had devastated much of Europe's economies and European relations. It really has nothing to do with Britain not being able to successfully trade freely under normal circumstances, in fact the UK was one the the world's most economies before the first World War.

    Also what are you trying to use market size to bargain for, that is relevant to having free trade agreement or not? It is a simple economic principle that businesses make products that fulfils the market's demand, not the other way round. I think you will also find that Canada has a good free trade agreement with the EU, despite a population of only 36m.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    So we're going to have different regulations; which any company operating from here and selling to EU (about half of our industries) will need to abide by?
    This does not mean that the regulations are entirely different and it is certain that there are many areas that will be kept the same. Also if the UK is to adopt looser regulations it is actually cheaper for businesses to comply and adapt their products to that framework.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Only if you're not then selling same good to EU, which half of our companies do - otherwise you're running two production line instead of one. If UK economy was established in such a way that minimal amount of product was being sold to EU, then sure this'd make sense - except that's not the case.
    44% of UK export goes to the EU, in real term this is lower when factoring the Rotterdam effect. The remaining 56% is to non-EU countries. So in actual fact the majority of UK export goes to non-EU economies. By being able to have a flexible regulatory framework depending on the product's destination country, UK exports can be more cost-efficient and competitively priced with domestic competitions in other countries.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Which we'd be able to negotiate better representing 700 million customers rather than representing 60 million customers.
    As I said, this is not the case when you consider many trade agreements in the world with large countries, such as the free trade agreements signed between the USA and smaller countries like Canada and Korea.

    The ideal outcome for me is a Candadian-style trade agreement with the EU, and Canada has a population of just over half of the UK.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    5,500 companies in UK are reliant on passporting; ie. they don't have subsidiary - merely a branch because that makes more sense than subsidiary since that means you don't need as much money to qualify for same thing; same with moving money if branch is at a loss - I'd be surprised if any significant proportion have subsidiary in UK and another EU state except when thats beneficial for tax reasons (Ireland for some).
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    That is the problem; so a company establishes new subsidiary in Frankfurt which will require some minimum capital etc to be set up; it does that and now it has exact same operation it has in UK running in EU. This is wasteful since there's duplication going on, and now you've Euro handling division in Europe there's no need to have them in UK; so those people can be moved out of London. We just lost tax base.

    Most financial services firms in the UK already have subsidiaries. For those that doesn't it is a simple procedure of setting up an office in any EU state, and complying with EU regulations which all do as they already conduct business in the UK (still a EU state before Brexit). In simpler terms it is a simple procedure registering a subsidiary at a EU address, mirroring its existing UK framework and obtaining a licence. The administration cost is very minor and can certainly be done during the Article 50's 2 years transition time frame.

    The minor cost can easily be outweighed by the increased flexibility of regulations in the UK domestic market and towards non-EU services trade.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Flexibility to do what? Most of our exports are going to EU so most companies will need to comply with those regulations anyways; and UK ones. If UK is inferior to EU's then one line works, but if its just different (washing chicken with chlorine vs not washing with chlorine) then you need two parallel processes to comply two standards.
    The cost to sustain licence with EU wouldn't have to be paid by anyone if we're in single market, it's just same licence as one needed to trade in UK. Easy and same cost.
    You are incorrect. Most of our exports go to non-EU countries. It is a good thing to have the flexibility to only have to comply to the regulation in the country which the product will be sold.

    It will be pointless if the UK is to throw away all its current regulatory framework because there is no doubt that some of them are essential. It isn't going to be completely different, but it will be more suited for our market and domestic standard.

    This is the flexibility I am talking about. What you want is simplicity at the expense of flexibility.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    It is? Because last I heard government doesn't know what its supposed to be doing wrt Brexit.
    Then I suggest you read further because I think you know full well our understanding of the government's current position is different. It is commonly understood that the government is looking for a trade deal in which the UK can trade tariff-free with EU states without free movement of people.

    Also it is only natural that the government will not reveal publicly their bargaining position, just as you would not want to let a seller know the maximum price you will accept when bargaining.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    That'd require 15% increase of in one year; for reference from 1993 to 2014 the total increase has been of 7%; year on year that represents 0.16% loss of wage for the worse affected. Or to say if everyone born abroad regardless of if they're from EU, and if they're now citizens left in the same year (and this didn't instantly implode the economy) then unskilled and semi-skilled sector workers on would get raise of 8.35% or about 2.5k on 30k salary. Migrants are practically speaking doing nothing to the wage.
    The figure is on the overall downward effect of EU workers in real terms, therefore no it would not be limited to 1 year. The fact is that this will have a 7.5% downward drag on low earner's wages in that example. Also your example is not realistic, you are adding and subtracting things which is not how economy works. You cannot have a sudden outflow of workforce and then use reverse calculation and say it would increase average low earner's wage like that. Who is going to replace them in so little time, how will that affect volume?

    Also another thing I want to point out, which you seemed to have made an extreme assumption, is that both the PM and myself believes that current and previous EU immigrants should be granted citizenship under our obligations within the EU.

    '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.'

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Yes which makes them perfect control group; contrasting the contribution made by EU migrant (no point based) to non EU migrant (points based).
    Which means I am correct in the fact that there is no points based system for EU immigrants. In simpler term, there is no citizenship requirement whatsoever.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Point wasn't to compare that as absolute figure, but to use same standard measure for migrants from non EU and EU country; so while there may be other considerations since same considerations are being applied to both groups it works - given non points based system at the moment doesn't give that much worse result to points based system (or by some measure better results); where's benefit of using points based on EU?
    Which is a very long-winded way of saying my statistic is not accurate but I am going to make a unsubstantiated point anyway.

    The purpose of a point-based/ quota system, is that both EU and non-EU applicants are treated equally by being subjected to the same equivalent requirements.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Government doesn't have a position. David Davis ruled out common market, may corrected him saying that was his opinion, then may blabbed on about how she was going to be ambitious without outlying anything, Hammond thinks everything on the table and that we're unlikely to get single market but banks will still be in single market.
    The government does have a position, it is just that they are not precise in the specifics. As I said above, it would be foolish to list out all our bargaining positions for the other side to see. The general position is that we are leaving the EU, we are looking to trade tariff-free with the EU and that we are not going to accept the free movement of labour.

    To be frank, I think this is more of a case of the government's official plan not being specific enough to satisfy your curiosity, while I understand the nature of negotiation and the need to keep our bargaining position secret.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    We are not asking to stay in the single market, we are looking to form a free trade agreement with the EU. This is what is proposed on the UK's side on the table, however the EU is looking to make free movement a compulsory requirement.
    No one has confirmed it is not UK government policy to remain within the single market in one way or another. Neither is free movement an absolute. Until now, we have often treated it as free movement of people, despite it being the free movement of workers. There are additional limitations that can be established without violating that principle.

    The Canada-EU agreement is a FTA and allows access to the single market but this does not mean they are inside the single market.
    There's no absolute distinction there, it is about levels of access to the single market rather than some notion of membership. These can be, and are, varied.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No one has confirmed it is not UK government policy to remain within the single market in one way or another. Neither is free movement an absolute. Until now, we have often treated it as free movement of people, despite it being the free movement of workers. There are additional limitations that can be established without violating that principle.
    As I said, it is not possible to trade independently with non-EU countries without being outside of the single market. The PM has made it very clear that free trade will be on her agenda. Unless the EU suddenly allows the UK to negotiate its own trade agreements with non-EU countries while still being inside the single market, there is very little chance the UK will remain in it at least in technical term. The government's current position is to negotiate a trade deal with the EU without free movement.

    (Original post by L i b)
    There's no absolute distinction there, it is about levels of access to the single market rather than some notion of membership. These can be, and are, varied.
    There is a clear distinction there, unless you can find any reputable source that says Canada is inside the single market.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    because it's about more economic opportuity and cheaper labour. trade is about win-win, and this is about that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)

    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.
    If you're not European (using the term loosely here) you cannot understand what it means being part of something like that. It's not a sense of entitlement, it's a sense of communality in the greater sense, if you like. I was born after the EEC was formed and I always took it for granted. Brexit was such a shock for me that I wish I had the money to leave and go to live elsewhere.
    As a dual citizen, I also had to satisfy requirements to become a British citizen, it's not like the citizenship is for sale at the local market ;-)
    Please inform yourself correctly before getting angry about something that doesn't even exist.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simo72MC)
    If you're not European (using the term loosely here) you cannot understand what it means being part of something like that. It's not a sense of entitlement, it's a sense of communality in the greater sense, if you like. I was born after the EEC was formed and I always took it for granted. Brexit was such a shock for me that I wish I had the money to leave and go to live elsewhere.
    As a dual citizen, I also had to satisfy requirements to become a British citizen, it's not like the citizenship is for sale at the local market ;-)
    Please inform yourself correctly before getting angry about something that doesn't even exist.
    I'm not at all angry about it to be honest, we voted for Brexit and won. If anyone is to be angry, it would be you. So please don't play the 'emotion' card in a debate forum.

    So tell me we what is the requirement for EU nationals to live or work in the UK at the moment? There isn't any. As for citizenship, the main requirement is to have lived here for 5 years, for which the EU 'rights' to live and work make it easy to fulfill. The requirement is not skill based. With respect, the requirements you were subjected to were very low.

    As for the sense of community, you can only speak for yourself. So please don't tell me what I understand or not, assumptions do not belong to a debate forum. Brexit has been largely a debate on soveignty, democracy and accountability. Most voted Brexit due to these issues, not because they feel any less of an European than you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I'm not at all angry about it to be honest, we voted for Brexit and won. If anyone is to be angry, it would be you. So please don't play the 'emotion' card in a debate forum.

    So tell me we what is the requirement for EU nationals to live or work in the UK at the moment? There isn't any. As for citizenship, the main requirement is to have lived here for 5 years, for which the EU 'rights' to live and work make it easy to fulfill. The requirement is not skill based. With respect, the requirements you were subjected to were very low.

    As for the sense of community, you can only speak for yourself. So please don't tell me what I understand or not, assumptions do not belong to a debate forum. Brexit has been largely a debate on soveignty, democracy and accountability. Most voted Brexit due to these issues, not because they feel any less of an European than you.
    I see, time wasted to inform someone like you, you already know it all. I'll leave it at that.

    I've not lost anything because I'm still a European citizen, by virtue of one citizenship, and a British citizen. Who lost and what again?I've still the same freedom as I had before, sorry for breaking it to you.Nope, you need a PR card to get citizenship and its requirements are the same for any non EU citizen (except the visa part).
    Get informed before spouting non-sense.
    Given that I've been granted visas for other non Eu country too, low requirements to whom? Bye.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simo72MC)
    I see, time wasted to inform someone like you, you already know it all. I'll leave it at that.

    I've not lost anything because I'm still a European citizen, by virtue of one citizenship, and a British citizen. Who lost and what again?I've still the same freedom as I had before, sorry for breaking it to you.Nope, you need a PR card to get citizenship and its requirements are the same for any non EU citizen (except the visa part).
    Get informed before spouting non-sense.
    Given that I've been granted visas for other non Eu country too, low requirements to whom? Bye.
    I think accusing someone narrow-minded shows more about you than me.

    What you said is exactly what I implied, the EU's 'right' to live and work makes it much easier to fulfil the requirements. There is not a leveled playing field vs. non-EU applicants.

    It's good to hear you've been granted visa for non-EU countries despite admitting not being able to afford moving abroad. The requirements must be sky high.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Cherishing stops as soon as it's someone else's?

    Personally, I am of the opinion, why are you so entitled that you get to live in your country? Because you were born there? Within an area arbitrarily defined by drawing lines on a map?
 
 
 
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 30, 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.