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

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    And some how all of this will make the working class's lives better eh...

    I think that all peoples of all nations should band together to guarantee a specific standard of living for all. This battle between nations concept is bs.
    What I was saying are pretty fundamental tbh, it is best to have a system where both sides can consent to and can mutually benefit.

    You can't just force someone to accept something they don't want, and then take a moral high ground by accusing that person being 'not generous enough'. It is very grand and easy for you to say we should guarantee a specific minimum standard of living for all, but when you think about the scale of things, it is very difficult and not everyone is willing. You simply don't speak for everyone. Many people have different judgements on immigration to you, and you have to accept those differences.

    It is not even about competition between nations. The scenario is more fundamental. Imagine you are the PM and you decide to spend everyone's money to a cause that 52% of people disagree with, you'd those people to oppose you because you are in effect spending their money against their will. You can't pretend to be the better person by saying that they are not generous enough, because you are simply trying to force your standard of 'generosity' on others. You might as well take their money and say 'I'll spend it for you because you don't know how to spend it wisely'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    By the current selection mechanisms, I am pretty much certain migrants will make my country worse.
    You're one step away from fascism mate

    (Original post by Observatory)
    If countries were competing with each other then the USA would rule most of the world.
    It does, economically.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Countries are not competing with each other and that is the problem.
    Really since when?

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Corrupt, stupid populations want to live under government of honest, intelligent populations. The best way to do this is imperialism, not mass immigration.
    So British people are smarter than Non-British people?

    There are plenty uneducated people in Britain. Do you want to kick them out too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    What I was saying are pretty fundamental tbh, it is best to have a system where both sides can consent to and can mutually benefit.
    Who are on which sides and who benefits from what?

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You can't just force someone to accept something they don't want, and then take a moral high ground by accusing that person being 'not generous enough'. It is very grand and easy for you to say we should guarantee a specific minimum standard of living for all, but when you think about the scale of things, it is very difficult and not everyone is willing. You simply don't speak for everyone. Many people have different judgements on immigration to you, and you have to accept those differences.
    I'm not forcing you to accept something you don't want.

    I'm just trying to make you understand your position and accept your position. If you are discriminating against people you need to own it. You can't pretend to care about people whilst discriminating against them.

    Own your bias.

    Also, it depends on your values and beliefs. If you don't see every human being as fundamentally equal then I believe that is an inferior position in terms of morality. And again, you have to accept that and the consequences that come with that.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    It is not even about competition between nations. The scenario is more fundamental. Imagine you are the PM and you decide to spend everyone's money to a cause that 52% of people disagree with, you'd those people to oppose you because you are in effect spending their money against their will. You can't pretend to be the better person by saying that they are not generous enough, because you are simply trying to force your standard of 'generosity' on others. You might as well take their money and say 'I'll spend it for you because you don't know how to spend it wisely'.
    It's clear that you don't even care about British people. You are definitely pro individualism and capitalism. I can see it in what you're saying.

    People need to choose to band together and guarantee a certain standard of living for all instead of engaging in battles of nations to use protectionism in order to boost your nation's standard of living.

    If you think that reducing migration alone will make your life better then one of the following applies to you:

    1) you're ill informed
    2) you're uneducated
    3) you're lacking criticial analysis faculties
    4) you've been tricked

    The economic system has been the problem since forever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    You're one step away from fascism mate
    I'm many steps past it. Fascists are 1920s leftists.

    It does, economically.
    The British, French, Russians, and Japanese ruled it through the barrel of the gun.

    This sort of control has been replaced by twinky economic conspiracy theories, that never seem to work on any country that shows actual opposition (Does the US "economic rule" Syria, Iran, NK?).

    Which suggests that the civilised peoples have simply lost control altogether.

    So British people are smarter than Non-British people?
    On aggregate, yes. They are also more honest.

    There are plenty uneducated people in Britain. Do you want to kick them out too?
    Yes, and this was once government policy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Who are on which sides and who benefits from what?
    As I said it is only fair that we have a system which the applicant and receiving country can both consent to. If you deprive either side from consenting, then it is unfair for that side.

    (Original post by saayagain)
    I'm not forcing you to accept something you don't want.

    I'm just trying to make you understand your position and accept your position. If you are discriminating against people you need to own it. You can't pretend to care about people whilst discriminating against them.

    Own your bias.

    Also, it depends on your values and beliefs. If you don't see every human being as fundamentally equal then I believe that is an inferior position in terms of morality. And again, you have to accept that and the consequences that come with that.
    You are completely missing the point, it is not discrimination to have requirement. If you allow any person to gain UK citizen then you are being unfair to the British people, because you are depriving them of control and their say over their immigration system. For example, you can't say that a top 10 university course is discriminating just because it has a high entry requirement. This is something you must get right.

    You also seem to misunderstand the philosophy of equality. Equality applies to the basic human rights and guaranteeing the same treatment (i.e. same standard and requirements) to everyone, but not guaranteeing the same outcome. For example, you will find that you cannot sue Oxbridge for violating the Equality Act by only accepting the best students, because they are imposing the same requirement on everyone, however not everyone will get a place.

    (Original post by saayagain)
    It's clear that you don't even care about British people. You are definitely pro individualism and capitalism. I can see it in what you're saying.

    People need to choose to band together and guarantee a certain standard of living for all instead of engaging in battles of nations to use protectionism in order to boost your nation's standard of living.

    If you think that reducing migration alone will make your life better then one of the following applies to you:

    1) you're ill informed
    2) you're uneducated
    3) you're lacking criticial analysis faculties
    4) you've been tricked

    The economic system has been the problem since forever.
    Can you actually guarantee that everyone wants to band together in support for your idealist utopia? What do you do with those who disagree?

    If anything, I am pro-freedom. I understand that people have different views and I encourage everyone to voice their views. I believe a society which debates freely is a society that can drive change. If the 52% rejects our current immigration system, it must be respected. Now you are also free to have your views on immigration, but what you are crossing the line, is that you are accusing those who have different views as being morally inferior. Just because you refuse to see other's perspectives, doesn't mean they do not exist.

    Also I have mentioned on previous threads and posts that I don't feel affected by EU immigration, because I am not working or middle class. However I respect their perspectives on immigration and I feel that a system in which we can actively control is a good thing.

    It's interesting that you are accusing them of being either:

    1) ill informed
    2) uneducated
    3) lacking criticial analysis faculties
    4) been tricked

    I think even you can tell that you are being pretty biased on this, something you've just accused me of. If the best you can do is to accuse people a list of things which you prescribe, then I would suggest it's not the people that might have to do some soul-searching, it's you. Please try to reply in a debate-like manner and make less personality attacks, you are just avoiding discussions on the real issue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm many steps past it. Fascists are 1920s leftists
    Right...

    (Original post by Observatory)
    The British, French, Russians, and Japanese ruled it through the barrel of the gun.

    This sort of control has been replaced by twinky economic conspiracy theories, that never seem to work on any country that shows actual opposition (Does the US "economic rule" Syria, Iran, NK?).

    Which suggests that the civilised peoples have simply lost control altogether.
    They rule the world. They sanction who they like and prevent, directly and indirectly, development. The dollar is the world reserve currency. etc etc

    (Original post by Observatory)
    On aggregate, yes. They are also more honest.
    What is based on? opinion?

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yes, and this was once government policy.
    Sorry. I was unclear. I meant British people. Should British people be kicked out of Britain or sterilized.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    They rule the world. They sanction who they like and prevent, directly and indirectly, development. The dollar is the world reserve currency. etc etc
    They impose economic penalties on hostile governments that those governments simply ignore, while in the past those governments would have been viceregal proxies of Western countries.

    What is based on? opinion?
    Measurements. IQ tests normalised with the British average of 100 measure world average around 92 (IIRC).

    Sorry. I was unclear. I meant British people. Should British people be kicked out of Britain or sterilized.
    You weren't unclear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said it is only fair that we have a system which the applicant and receiving country can both consent to. If you deprive either side from consenting, then it is unfair for that side.
    People can do what they want but their reasoning is faulty.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You are completely missing the point, it is not discrimination to have requirement. If you allow any person to gain UK citizen then you are being unfair to the British people, because you are depriving them of control and their say over their immigration system. For example, you can't say that a top 10 university course is discriminating just because it has a high entry requirement. This is something you must get right.
    That is a relevant variable. If the top 10 university said that you can only go to it if you're a woman, that is discrimination. That is not a valid demographic or variable to choose between candidates.

    I don't believe in the concept of nations and dividing people by imaginary lines.

    It would be crazy for London to say all you northerners need work permits to come to London to work. It's detrimental for London if any amount of northerners are allowed in. It is immoral to deny Londoners the right to choose. How dumb does that sound?

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You also seem to misunderstand the philosophy of equality. Equality applies to the basic human rights and guaranteeing the same treatment (i.e. same standard and requirements) to everyone, but not guaranteeing the same outcome. For example, you will find that you cannot sue Oxbridge for violating the Equality Act by only accepting the best students, because they are imposing the same requirement on everyone, however not everyone will get a place
    Clearly you believe in individualism. You think that a doctor should have a better life than a cleaner.

    As I said before, if the variable is related to the activity in question it is fine.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Can you actually guarantee that everyone wants to band together in support for your idealist utopia? What do you do with those who disagree?

    If anything, I am pro-freedom. I understand that people have different views and I encourage everyone to voice their views. I believe a society which debates freely is a society that can drive change. If the 52% rejects our current immigration system, it must be respected. Now you are also free to have your views on immigration, but what you are crossing the line, is that you are accusing those who have different views as being morally inferior. Just because you refuse to see other's perspectives, doesn't mean they do not exist
    I am trying to get you to understand your position.

    Morally inferior means that the scope of your morality doesn't cover as much as my morality because I care about all human beings. You don't really care about other peoples' lives (other people = non Brits). But as I said, this lack of care will cause political turmoil in places like Poland, Bulgaria etc.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Also I have mentioned on previous threads and posts that I don't feel affected by EU immigration, because I am not working or middle class. However I respect their perspectives on immigration and I feel that a system in which we can actively control is a good thing.

    It's interesting that you are accusing them of being either:

    1) ill informed
    2) uneducated
    3) lacking criticial analysis faculties
    4) been tricked

    I think even you can tell that you are being pretty biased on this, something you've just accused me of. If the best you can do is to accuse people a list of things which you prescribe, then I would suggest it's not the people that might have to do some soul-searching, it's you. Please try to reply in a debate-like manner and make less personality attacks, you are just avoiding discussions on the real issue.
    How is that a personal attack?

    Tell the people the real reason why they are struggling. That's all I want.

    Don't trick them. Don't feed them false information. As I said.....are you seriously saying that by controlling immigration, peoples' lives will get better? Yes or no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They impose economic penalties on hostile governments that those governments simply ignore, while in the past those governments would have been viceregal proxies of Western countries.
    Hostile? How so? They dare to care about their people instead of US corporations?

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Measurements. IQ tests normalised with the British average of 100 measure world average around 92 (IIRC).
    low IQ's lead to poor countries or poor countries lead to low IQ's? Don't worry. I already know your answer.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    You weren't unclear.
    You don't even like your fellow Brit lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think you ought to look at what you are trying to say.

    Here are a summary of you are saying:

    1. People are free to do whatever they want, but your way is the right way and if they don't believe in the same things as you, they must be wrong.

    2. A cleaner should have the living standard as a doctor.

    3. You think I do not understand my position and that I don't care about people.

    4. You are not making personality attacks by accusing people who disagree with you as ill informed / uneducated / lacking critical analysis faculties / been tricked.

    5. People are being lied to and misled.

    I think by these things you've said it sums you up pretty well. You think society should be a free-for-all, at everyone's expense, whether they want it or not. Let's just say democracy is working well in this country because it is successful in making people like you a minority.

    Btw I am not saying we should specifically limit or increase immigration, I am saying that we should have control of our own immigration system and have our own standard. I have quoted researches on my previous posts if you can be bothered to read them. My stance is that I sympathise with people's reasons even though I do not have the same experience as theirs (I am not working or middle class). If the majority decides to increase or reduce immigration, and I am a minority, I should not say that they are wrong because there is no right or wrong in this issue, just perspectives. You do not know their motivations, and you do not know their backgrounds unless you are them. Assuming yourself as being right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong only makes you a bigot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Hostile? How so? They dare to care about their people instead of US corporations?
    You're wandering from the subject. You think it is bad if the US coerces Iran. Whatever. I have said that the US is not able to coerce Iran, at least not very effectively. That is true. In 1900 Britain could command Iran to do more or less whatever it wanted, and if anyone else had a say in this it was the Russian government, not the Iranian.

    low IQ's lead to poor countries or poor countries lead to low IQ's? Don't worry. I already know your answer.
    Neither necessarily. The PRC is poor but has a higher average IQ than the UK. Dubai has a much lower average IQ than the UK but is richer.

    However unselective immigration will lead to the UK IQ dropping, which is the claim I originally made.

    You don't even like your fellow Brit lol
    As I said, I'm not a [national] socialist. I judge people on their individual merits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You're wandering from the subject. You think it is bad if the US coerces Iran. Whatever. I have said that the US is not able to coerce Iran, at least not very effectively. That is true. In 1900 Britain could command Iran to do more or less whatever it wanted, and if anyone else had a say in this it was the Russian government, not the Iranian.
    I'm not.

    The point was that the US is an economic power like no other

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Neither necessarily. The PRC is poor but has a higher average IQ than the UK. Dubai has a much lower average IQ than the UK but is richer.

    However unselective immigration will lead to the UK IQ dropping, which is the claim I originally made.
    So people who migrate have low IQs?

    (Original post by Observatory)
    As I said, I'm not a [national] socialist. I judge people on their individual merits.
    So why pretend that you care about the country? How does that make sense?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Grunch:

    obviously the main point where OP is wrong is this fantastical assertion that free movement of labour has nothing to do with free trade. That's pretty much an absurd statement to make - labour is a product, and a component in the production of basically all goods and services, as well as in some cases being an end-product in itself (especially with e.g. cleaners and/or babysitters). This is even moreso the case when you compare movement of labour to movement of services (the latter being absolutely fundamental to free trade for the UK).

    I will accept that, on a purely theoretical level, there's no particular reason why free movement of persons need to be coupled with a free trade agreement, but on a practical level, given free movement of labour must be, unless and until we end up with a fully internet-based economy, it's clearly a necessary element.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Grunch:

    obviously the main point where OP is wrong is this fantastical assertion that free movement of labour has nothing to do with free trade. That's pretty much an absurd statement to make - labour is a product, and a component in the production of basically all goods and services, as well as in some cases being an end-product in itself (especially with e.g. cleaners and/or babysitters). This is even moreso the case when you compare movement of labour to movement of services (the latter being absolutely fundamental to free trade for the UK).

    I will accept that, on a purely theoretical level, there's no particular reason why free movement of persons need to be coupled with a free trade agreement, but on a practical level, given free movement of labour must be, unless and until we end up with a fully internet-based economy, it's clearly a necessary element.
    I think you will find that free trade by definition does not include free movement of people. In terms of movement of labour, I understand. A flexible labour market is to me a good thing, however this would be better addressed with working visas and residency requirements (if we wish to grant permanent residence) subjected equally to anyone in the world. What I am highly against is selectively guaranteeing EU citizens their 'right' to live in the UK, even without a job. It has nothing to do with free trade, and their motives are obvious.

    It is wrong for the P4 group to expect to be given the 'rights' to live and work after Brexit. They wouldn't expect the same with Canada, which has a free trade agreement with the EU. This to me have no reasonable basis. It is simply blackmail disguised with grand words like 'freedom' and 'rights'. To me it is merely an arrangement by treaty, and we are correct to control our own immigration.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think you will find that free trade by definition does not include free movement of people. In terms of movement of labour, I understand. A flexible labour market is to me a good thing, however this would be better addressed with working visas and residency requirements (if we wish to grant permanent residence) subjected equally to anyone in the world. What I am highly against is selectively guaranteeing EU citizens their 'right' to live in the UK, even without a job. It has nothing to do with free trade, and their motives are obvious.

    It is wrong for the P4 group to expect to be given the 'rights' to live and work after Brexit. They wouldn't expect the same with Canada, which has a free trade agreement with the EU. This to me have no reasonable basis. It is simply blackmail disguised with grand words like 'freedom' and 'rights'. To me it is merely an arrangement by treaty, and we are correct to control our own immigration.
    Canada does not expect that because their trade deal is not a full 'free trade' deal - it does not extend to services at all, and, IIRC, leaves some tariffs on some categories of goods. If the UK wishes to be able to export services to the EU tariff-free (which, I repeat, is absolutely vital for the UK's economy), the UK must, logically, agree to free movement of labour, that being pragmatically coupled with free movement of people (although the logic does not extend to things like offering benefits to those people, politically that may be necessary, because yes, certain countries in Eastern Europe have motivations - though I should note I don't see why you think that's a bad thing; just as the UK government ought to seek the best result for its citizens, so must the governments of those countries).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Canada does not expect that because their trade deal is not a full 'free trade' deal - it does not extend to services at all, and, IIRC, leaves some tariffs on some categories of goods. If the UK wishes to be able to export services to the EU tariff-free (which, I repeat, is absolutely vital for the UK's economy), the UK must, logically, agree to free movement of labour, that being pragmatically coupled with free movement of people (although the logic does not extend to things like offering benefits to those people, politically that may be necessary, because yes, certain countries in Eastern Europe have motivations - though I should note I don't see why you think that's a bad thing; just as the UK government ought to seek the best result for its citizens, so must the governments of those countries).
    The P4 was saying they will reject all Brexit deals unless the UK maintain their rights to live and work in the UK. This means they will even reject a Canadian-style deal. This is obviously a case of double standard.

    I again reiterate, free movement has nothing to do with free trade. If you are saying it does, then you are making a whole new definition out of the term 'free trade agreement'. Most, if not all FTAs in history, do not involve free movement, especially automatic right to live without employment.

    Another way to put this, is that the P4 is threatening to block off UK-EU trade if we do not maintain their unjustified 'rights' post-Brexit. It is nothing unusual to have a FTA without free movement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The P4 was saying they will reject all Brexit deals unless the UK maintain their rights to live and work in the UK. This means they will even reject a Canadian-style deal. This is obviously a case of double standard.

    I again reiterate, free movement has nothing to do with free trade. If you are saying it does, then you are making a whole new definition out of the term 'free trade agreement'. Most, if not all FTAs in history, do not involve free movement, especially automatic right to live without employment.

    Another way to put this, is that the P4 is threatening to block off UK-EU trade if we do not maintain their unjustified 'rights' post-Brexit. It is nothing unusual to have a FTA without free movement.
    You and I have different understandings of free trade. If an agreement doesn't extend to labour, services etc, it's by definition not a 'free trade agreement' IMO.

    The P4 is acting in their interests. Are you surprised?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You and I have different understandings of free trade. If an agreement doesn't extend to labour, services etc, it's by definition not a 'free trade agreement' IMO.

    The P4 is acting in their interests. Are you surprised?
    I have stated on my original post that I can imagine why they are acting this way and the interests they are defending, which is why we must also defend ours. However I'd like them to be more honest about it, because they obviously have double standards. As I said they are basically threatening to block off UK-EU trade if we do not maintain their unjustified 'rights' post-Brexit. I understand that but don't try to make us feel bad when they are the ones blackmailing the UK.

    Free trade agreements in theory and in practice do not involve free movement. As I said this is shown by most, if not all current and past FTAs in history. If you think free movement typically plays a part in free trade agreements, then you are probably a rare minority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have stated on my original post that I can imagine why they are acting this way and the interests they are defending, which is why we must also defend ours. However I'd like them to be more honest about it, because they obviously have double standards. As I said they are basically threatening to block off UK-EU trade if we do not maintain their unjustified 'rights' post-Brexit. I understand that but don't try to make us feel bad when they are the ones blackmailing the UK.

    Free trade agreements in theory and in practice do not involve free movement. As I said this is shown by most, if not all current and past FTAs in history. If you think free movement typically plays a part in free trade agreements, then you are probably a rare minority.
    Free trade agreements are not what you think they are. If an arrangement is made where two countries no longer impose tariffs on widgets but continue imposing tariffs on everything else, do you think they've made a free trade agreement?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Free trade agreements are not what you think they are. If an arrangement is made where two countries no longer impose tariffs on widgets but continue imposing tariffs on everything else, do you think they've made a free trade agreement?
    Then you are talking about a rather specific issue, because no free trade agreements are entirely 'free'. Even between EU countries, there are still some restrictions which are designed to secure local employment.

    The deal that the UK is aiming for is constantly evolving. What the P4 is saying is that they would reject all deals. For example, let's say we consider a Canadian-style deal as a FTA (it is also formally declared a FTA), the P4 will not even consider that, even though free movement is not within the scope of that agreement.

    To put this more simply, most if not all current and past agreements which are called 'free trade agreements' do not involve free movement. So I don't know where you got that alternative expectation/definition from.
 
 
 
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: October 11, 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
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
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

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