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

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    But you did not explain why it is a fundamental principle of the single market. The single market is just a free trade agreement across the EU, to put it simply. Freedom of labour is not an element in and has no place in most free trade agreements.
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    There is an equal basis when both sides agree to trade freely, this is not cherry picking.
    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.


    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    To the point that I was responding to you asked why free movement was important to V4.

    As far as I can tell from the article, the negotiations that are being referred to are the ones that will take place after we formally trigger Article 50. They could also veto any future post-Brexit deal too but that isn't important at this moment in time.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then let me give you another example - Canada and the USA. They have free trade agreement, but no free movement or people.
    Er, because neither Canada or the USA are the EU? It's irrelevant how they wish to conduct their free trade agreements.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    This makes absolutely no sense.

    You've not made any case that free movement is actually detrimental to the UK so ''statistical logic'' and 'fairness' mean nothing. Again, why do we lose from free movement?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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?

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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).



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    US-Canada free trade agreement [/quote]
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    To make it clear - what I am questioning, is why the EU is so adamant that free movement must come with free trade. As I have mentioned, nearly all trade treaties, including the historic ones, has no place or requirement for free movement of labour. You can keep saying it's a founding principle, but what I am looking for is the logic behind it which you are not specifying.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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).
    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that the compliance cost is higher with a FTA?
    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.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.

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



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    Nope from Nepal.

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.

    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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. 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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.

    This is also the case for international trade with non-EU countries.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    Let's be real, we are talking about UK banks here, most of them do have subsidiaries and operate on an international level. 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.

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


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    For EU migrants, we do not have a points system.

    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.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    [/QUOTE]

    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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/Europe...ade_agreements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    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/Europe...ade_agreements
    I have studied the EFTA before the referendum and I briefly supported it.

    However now that the UK seems to be better positioned for a hard Brexit than previously expected, I am more comfortable with a Canaidan style trade treaty. The reason is that the EFTA is an organisation that is within the influence of the EU and will subject to changes in the future. After the referendum result, I feel that the EU will see us as an enemy within if we are to stay under an organisation that is under its influence.

    I think we should detach ourselves now while the referendum's messages are still fresh.

    Our bargaining power will significantly diminish if we are to join the EFTA and leave again in the future.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "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!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterJack)
    "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!
    You do understand that having control of immigration does not mean we are closing the door on all EU citizens? It is right to grant citizenship to those who will be beneficial to our country. If it is indeed the case that EU immigrants are beneficial then they would satisfy the requirement. If you are so sure that they are beneficial to the UK you have nothing to worry about.

    I think you are overly dramatic on your view regarding immigration, and somewhat pessimistic too. If you can't accept people's judgement on issues, and cannot refrain from expressing your opinions in a fact-like manner then I suggest that a debating forum section is probably not for you.

    Also its interesting you are arguing from a moral high ground by implying everyone who disagrees with you as haters. Probably not the best way to present an argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Completely irrelevant.
    not really - the WTO trade rules would apply immediately and no illiberal tariffs would be held against us - unless the EU left the WTO after we did leave, it wouldn't shock me seeing as the EU is a protectionist institution as all hell

    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    ...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.
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Free movement of the workforce is integral to a free market.

    Seems fairly obvious to me, but hey, this is not my area of expertise so...
 
 
 
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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.