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

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.

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.

Then let me give you another example - Canada and the USA. They have free trade agreement, but no free movement or people.

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.

Except... that's not what single market is, like at all.
Free trade agreements are minor issues, which do take some negotiations but worse case its few percentage so not a big deal - they generally remove tariffs on goods but main cost comes from non tariff barriers which isn't included in free trade agreements but is in a single market. With FTA medicine sold by UK based company to EU will be say 5% cheaper than without one, which is nice, but they still need to spend millions ensuring its tested and certified in EU, as well as spending another millions ensuring it is tested and certified in UK. Or they can say "yeah spending that million to get certified in UK isn't worth it, lets just move our production to Denmark and we only spend once for certification".

Single market means its as easy to trade between EU as it is trade between London and Wales. A London based company doesn't need to do anything else so it can trade in Wales; just as it doesn't need to do anything else to sell in France or Poland and vice versa. So a new medicine company in UK makes a cool drug, gets it certified by UK and it can now sell to 500 million people instantly. That does require law regularization - all countries in EU must have roughly same standards because it wouldn't work if say vitamin supplements can be called 'medicine' in UK but not in Germany.

Single market is leaps and bounds ahead of free trade agreement, and it by definition requires freedom of movement. Its not EU being obtuse, its literally a requirement for being single market.

Except single market without freedom of movement is terrible, terrible idea which benefits no one but large companies who're able to shop around and locate in an area with lowest wage without worrying about things like tariffs or even about standardization.
Plus it is an entirely silly idea, imagine if Welsh people had to get approval to work in London, or Texans had to get visa to work in New York.

Using that argument why should British citizens have automatic right to be in UK, without qualifying for the same point scheme. its not entirely fair across the world but we have neither the ability nor the capital to establish common market across the world - since that'd require all countries to have same standards for various stuff, so one for EU is still a step in right direction.

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

But we are not asking to be in the single market, we are asking for free trade. As for non- trade tariffs, these are from costs incurred by European standard compliance, which we have always complied with and will continue to comply as expected.

Through a free trade agreement, compliance will be conducted on the front end whereas in the single market compliance is at the back end. It is the same for both case and companies would still have to add compliance costs with or without the single market.

As I said we are not aiming to be in the single market. A free trade agreement similar to the USA-Canada agreement has been beneficial to both sides without free movement.

Also I think you will also find that large companies shopping around for lost cost labour has been the case due to our free movement. It has pushed wages down by employing a high number of EU workers.

British citizens has a birthright to live and work in the UK, this is the very idea of citizenship and sovereignty. You cannot compare this with non-British citizens.

As much as you might want to assume that we are, we are not world citizens. You will find that if you are to apply for citizenship in the rest of the world except the EU, you will need to fulfill their individual citizenship requirement. Same applies to working visa and residency.

No we're asking to be in single market (atleast some are, government hasn't got a clue what it wants); how are you sure we'll continue to comply with various EU laws - wasn't one of the points in leave campaign "taking back control of laws"?
Even if we do comply with all EU laws, EU countries will need to agree we're enforcing them properly, for every industry and for every regulation. You're talking about literal department of lawyers worth of work on both sides just to ensure the equivalence is kept instead of UK parliament saying "oh all of our laws do have to be consistent with EU", then people challenging it in court if they think there's a problem. Why'd anyone want to do all that work for the former?

The cost of compliance in single market is significantly lower than with FTA. Take banks in London, since this is an actual concern if we leave single market - at the moment to trade Euros they need to registered and certified by UK and they can do business with everyone in the EU because single market. If UK doesn't have access to single market, they'll need to either move their Euro operations to a EU country, or get certified in UK and in the 27 countries - and that certification needs to be renewed so its an ongoing cost. Essentially companies based in UK who'd have to comply with one rule with single market have to comply with at least two (or all 27 depending on the issue and company structure).

To export from US to Canada, you still need to ensure you meet American and Canadian standards and ensure that you've undergone the process to get your product certified in Canada as well as US vs you get something certified in UK and now can sell to anyone in EU.

There's no evidence that is happening in any meaningful way; and even if it were happening government can always increase the minimum wage should it feel so inclined.

I have fulfilled citizenship requirements when I moved to UK; doesn't change my position. If your position is that everyone must fulfill same conditions to live and work in UK, it stands to reason same standards be applied to those born in the country - after all the concept of country is no more natural than concept of European Union, whose citizens have birthright to live and work in all European nation states. You're merely choosing to, rather arbitrarily limit the said 'birthright' at nationstate.

I think you're confusing free trade with a single market relationship here. Free trade - that is, trade without tariffs - would, I suspect, be pretty easy to secure without free movement. However in a single market, free movement of labour is an implicit part. Once you drill down into it, labour isn't all that different from goods and services in market terms.

Again I must repeat we are not asking to be in the single market, we are asking for a free trade agreement for access to the single market. Same as Canada, of course they would be required to meet European standards however you cannot say that they are in the single market by being able to trade tariff free.

If we leave the EU and have a free trade agreement with them, it would be up to the individual companies to comply with EU standards, otherwise their goods cannot be sold to EU states. This is front end compliance. What we are doing right now, under the EU membership is back end compliance which companies are required to meet those standards regardless of whether they are selling to EU states or not. The result is the same, however one difference is the added flexibility of front end compliance because goods sold to non-EU states does not have to comply with EU standards.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the compliance cost is higher with a FTA?

For the banking industry, passporting refers to whether a bank is required to have a subsidiary in the EU state in order to do business there. Most banks already have subsidiaries in other EU states, so we would be looking at a small number of small banks, if any, that will be affected in their operations.

I must also say, the ongoing cost you mentioned has been absorbed by the EU membership fee, it is not free but is passed down to the banking institutions where it should be.

What is so unusual about that? It is only normal for each countries to have their own standards on goods and expect their imports to meet those standards. If the UK is to trade with the EU under a FTA, then it would not be a hassle to continue their existing compliance framework. The only difference would be the added flexible of being able to establish trade agreement with other non-EU countries.

The general research consensus is that EU immigration has pushed down the wages of the working class and benefited the wages of the medium and high waged earners. This is the case of corporations being able to shop around for the cheapest workers, benefiting their executives and stake holders which are mainly the middle and upper classes.

Assuming you are a EU immigrant I would assume your requirement is limited due to free movement of people. Don't get me wrong, I am fully supportive of anyone who had fulfilled their requirement and immigrated prior to Brexit, however low or high the requirement is.

What I am saying, is that since we are to control immigration by having our own quota and point based system after Brexit, it would be right to expect future applicants to meet the new requirements. I feel that it is a fair exchange, for the UK to offer citizen in return for skilled labour.

Europeans member states are in fact sovereign states, whether you'd like to admit it or not. This right of live and work only apply to people within the EU, since the UK is to leave the EU, the V4 has no place to demand the right to live and work after Brexit. This 'right' is only extended to as far as EU law applies to them, it is not a lifelong entitlement, it is merely an arrangement by EU law.

No one who says "full access to single market" means having FTA with EU, access to single market means having common set of regulation and regulatory equivalence as well as all other things including being member of single market. Canada doesn't have full access to single market, it has possible slightly stronger than normal free trade deal; which still hasn't been ratified by EU states.
UK will likely quite easily get a goods access except that's not what anyone's asking for.

The net result isn't the same. By having 'back end compliance' the companies don't have to re certify within EU; once they get okay from UK, they're all good - whereas without that they require dual certification with double costs.

Basic maths...
Cost of testing/certifying for UK (1) = x
Cost of testing for EU (2) = y
If (1) is subset/certifying of (2): total cost = y
else: total cost = x + y
x+y > y

When you duplicate regulations, and require companies to deal with two jurisdictions you increase the cost than dealing with one. Even if no change has to be made on the products, you still need to spend time and money to get it approved in different jurisdiction.

Not all of them have subsidiary in other EU countries, they have branches - nevertheless point is the operations will be affected since stuff the UK subsidiary was responsible for as far as Euro operations goes needs to be transferred out of UK to a country within single market.

EU membership fee is a minor fee which in no way covers the cost to the private sector even non-tariff barriers would impose.

Currently A levels are one exam and everyone gets a grade which is universally understood, and accepted. A school in Wales decides it doesn't want to do that, and comes up with its own test which isn't accepted on face value by all universities; instead they need to sit a separate test to get into the university. Is latter (student having to sit a school test then a university test) better than the former (student sitting one test which is accepted by the university)?
It is natural for countries to have their own standards, there was a time when we used to measure length by ruling king's hands, we got rid of it for globally understood system of measure. Its about reducing barriers, by ensuring all 27 countries have same standards, you no longer have to go through 27 tests possibly requiring lawyer in that country to manage proceedings, go through one in your home country, personally represent yourself and you can trade everywhere in EU - increasing efficiency of trade.

Read further down at the actual numbers:
During 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5%.
You're talking about drop of £150 a year for a person earning £30k; that's less than cup of coffee once a week.

We already have a points system, net result from which compared to EU isn't that impressive. It's fundamentally an ineffective solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

They're perfectly entitled to demand whatever they want arising from the fact that any deal will need to be ratified by all European nations (unless its very basic FTA dealing only with goods). Whether UK government decides to agree or shoot itself in the foot is upto British government's judgement.

@CherishFreedom

You can join the single market without joining the customs union as the EFTA states have, which allows you to conduct your own trade deals outside of it and not be subject to the CAP and CFP. It also frees up business from being subject to EU regulations if they don't trade with the EU, as opposed to currently all companies having to comply with them irrespective of whether they operate within Europe or not. The downside being you don't get a seat at the table. Realistically though I doubt we're going to get free access for services(which is what really matters for the UK) without accepting free movement of people.

The EU also has 53 trade deals with non-EU states so the idea that they shut us of from dealing with the world is a myth peddled by the leave campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

"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."
We also benefit: we get a young work force that has been born, raised and educated for us, and would contribute in taxes to the functions of the NHS, etc., without having to use it as much as our burdgeoning older generation. It

"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."
Many Brits feel the same; to live and work in the EU. It's not a one way street, I'm sure you know of many Brits that have moved abroad (maybe for retirement) to some sunny Portuguese or Spanish villa of sorts because it's simply too expensive (or unpleasant) to do it in England.

"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."
You do realise that this sense of entitlement goes BOTH WAYS, right?

"When the economy is bad, they can simply migrate to richer EU states to either get a job or claim benefits."
Being willing to move away from your culture, your family, your home, so you can WORK? That is the kind of character we should feel proud of seeing come to the country, these guys have the mentality a lot of Brits simply lack. And if they're moving to a RICHER EU state, well, as long as the state is RICHER it shouldn't be a problem, should it? As for claiming benefits- this is not an EU issue but mostly a UK/national one.

"I also do not understand why freedom of movement is a compulsory element for free trade or the single market."
- Birthing a child requires healthcare (mostly state funded)
- Raising that child requires some form of assistance (maybe state assisted)
- Educating that child, some countries allow FREE UNIVERISTY-level education also costs the state significant money

When you incorporate an EU worker (i.e. from Sweden or Poland), you're indirectly taking ECONOMIC or FINANCIAL advantage of the country that invested in them in the first place. SOME of the earned money goes towards your economy/government, some of it goes towards their country.

These issues are highly complex and thousands of things have to be taken into consideration which is why it's an utter joke that the average person was able to vote on such issues without having gone through some kind of test or vetting procedure showing they understand the gravity of what they'd be voting for or against. Instead, we have this hopeless impression that a large chunk of the populace are infatuated with a simpleton's view of "immigrants bad, nationalism good" binary positions.

Ah, elitism of course! Whatever, I'd still take the doctor's advice over the wild-eyed witch any day of the week.

Don't worry, the moment we leave the EU we'll get our borders back again, unemployment will decline and the NHS will no longer have those dreaded waiting times. The golden era will begin, make Britain hate again!

Because there still needs to be some agreed relationship between the UK and the EU once we have left. Unless we simply just isolate ourselves and never speak to them again there will have to be some deal agreed.

Welcome to the globalised world.

what do you think the world trade organisation does, sweety?

Completely irrelevant.

You can't say ''lol bye'' to a system we've been integrated into for the last 30-40 years. There's more the the EU than just trade.

yes we can though. literally, legally, we could do that very easily. well, "easily" in the sense of execution. sure, I'm inclined to imagine you're talking about the complexities between the UK and EU, then again, if it's simply a matter of us not having the regulations anymore, and having a standard tariff, then it wouldn't be unworkable. it's just something that we and the EU are going to have to deal with. and righht now, the EU doesn't want to deal at all. so I don't see just throwing our arms up and leaving immediately as a bad idea at all.

...and that there are millions of EU nationals in the UK and millions of UK nationals in the EU who would be suddenly thrown into limbo if we decided ''Goodbye'' without some kind of agreed deal on what their legal status and rights would be.

I'm not thinking about trade.