Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Cherishing stops as soon as it's someone else's?

    Personally, I am of the opinion, why are you so entitled that you get to live in your country? Because you were born there? Within an area arbitrarily defined by drawing lines on a map?
    Freedom refers to the fundamental liberty of Western societies, belief in equality of treatment within a nation state and the basic rights of its citizens. Freedom of movement is not really a 'freedom' if you think about it, it is merely an arrangement by treaty.

    In terms of geographical terms, of course it wouldn't be important where you live. However when you consider citizenship rights such as benefits entitlement, access to public services and state protection, it gets much more than that. Those born in the UK are of one citizenship - the UK. For EU applicants, they are looking for dual citizenship. On balance, it is only normal to favour those who are born British (and as such of only 1 nationality).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Freedom refers to the fundamental liberty of Western societies, belief in equality of treatment within a nation state and the basic rights of its citizens. Freedom of movement is not really a 'freedom' if you think about it, it is merely an arrangement by treaty.

    In terms of geographical terms, of course it wouldn't be important where you live. However when you consider citizenship rights such as benefits entitlement, access to public services and state protection, it gets much more than that. Those born in the UK are of one citizenship - the UK. For EU applicants, they are looking for dual citizenship. On balance, it is only normal to favour those who are born British (and as such of only 1 nationality).
    I would classify the freedom to go wherever you want despite differing nationalities as the quintessential modern freedom. One that certainly in the past didn't exist.

    What is the problem with dual citizenship?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I would classify the freedom to go wherever you want despite differing nationalities as the quintessential modern freedom. One that certainly in the past didn't exist.

    What is the problem with dual citizenship?
    Then this is not freedom in the classical sense, also known as liberty. Just because some politicians call something freedom doesn't mean it is a freedom by definition. If such 'freedom' can be withdrawn easily by leaving the EU, then I can assure it is not a freedom, more of a right established by treaty.

    As I explained, those born in the UK (or any other countries) are automatically eligible for UK citizenship because it will be the only nationality they have. It is also a citizen's right, for his/her children to be eligible for the country's citizenship upon birth. Non-UK citizens do not carry that right and nor are they born here, also they have citizenship in their home country (they already have somewhere to stay).

    If you are debating why citizenship should be decided by where you born, then this is more of a philosophical question. You may as well ask why people in most parts of Africa are born into poverty and starvation and why aren't they automatically offered UK citizenship.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then this is not freedom in the classical sense, also known as liberty. Just because some politicians call something freedom doesn't mean it is a freedom by definition. If such 'freedom' can be withdrawn easily by leaving the EU, then I can assure it is not a freedom, more of a right established by treaty.

    As I explained, those born in the UK (or any other countries) are automatically eligible for UK citizenship because it will be the only nationality they have. It is also a citizen's right, for his/her children to be eligible for the country's citizenship upon birth. Non-UK citizens do not carry that right and nor are they born here, also they have citizenship in their home country (they already have somewhere to stay).

    If you are debating why citizenship should be decided by where you born, then this is more of a philosophical question. You may as well ask why people in most parts of Africa are born into poverty and starvation and why aren't they automatically offered UK citizenship.
    I am not a politician and I would call it freedom. Just because you have a different idea of what freedom is, doesn't make you right, either.

    I agree, it is a very philosophical and subjective discussion. I for one don't have a problem that other Europeans that share a similar culture, speak the language, come to live and work here. And yet I am much more skeptical of people from other cultures simply coming here. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't know. Maybe it is because I have lived in four different European countries myself that I feel this way. But what is certainly a terrible attitude is that foreigners "steal jobs" and "live off benefits".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I am not a politician and I would call it freedom. Just because you have a different idea of what freedom is, doesn't make you right, either.

    I agree, it is a very philosophical and subjective discussion. I for one don't have a problem that other Europeans that share a similar culture, speak the language, come to live and work here. And yet I am much more skeptical of people from other cultures simply coming here. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't know. Maybe it is because I have lived in four different European countries myself that I feel this way. But what is certainly a terrible attitude is that foreigners "steal jobs" and "live off benefits".
    You can call it anything you want, however I hope you can see that the majority of people would not constitute that as liberty or freedom in their classical definitions. It still doesn't change the fact that the 'freedom' can be removed by leaving the EU.

    I am totally pro-European, however I am against the EU's bureaucratic structure and lack of accountability. As I said on my previous thread posted before the referendum, I don't see any effects of immigration on my life however I acknowledge that cheap EU labour has increased jobs competition and pushed wage slightly down. I believe this is a very neutral view point. I am all for imposing quotas or a point-based system on immigration though for the sake of effective public services planning and to offer an levelled playing field for EU and non-EU applicants for UK citizenship. I believe this is beneficial to the UK and fair to those we admit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You can call it anything you want, however I hope you can see that the majority of people would not constitute that as liberty.

    I am totally pro-European, however I am against the EU's bureaucratic structure and lack of accountability. As I said on my previous thread posted before the referendum, I don't see any effects of immigration on my life however I acknowledge that cheap EU labour has increased jobs competition and pushed wage slightly down. I believe this is a very neutral view point. I am all for imposing quotas or a point-based system on immigration though for the sake of effective public services planning and to offer an levelled playing field for EU and non-EU applicants for UK citizenship. I believe this is beneficial to the UK and fair to those we admit.
    Not sure about that. Maybe in the UK, elsewhere?

    And there is plenty of evidence that a point based system does not work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Not sure about that. Maybe in the UK, elsewhere?

    And there is plenty of evidence that a point based system does not work.
    Fairness goes both ways, while UK citizenship offers a range of benefits and entitlements, it is only fair for the government to expect some sort of return in exchange. It is also only fair to those from non-EU countries that they will be subjected to the same requirements as those from the EU.

    A point-based system is in effect a quota system, if you think about it. A points requirement essentially acts as a quota, if you want the quota to be small, you raise the points requirements to a very high level. If you want to favour a certain skill, you can award more points for the skill relative to others. However I have no objection to a quota system, the end result is the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Fairness goes both ways, while UK citizenship offers a range of benefits and entitlements, it is only fair for the government to expect some sort of return in exchange. It is also only fair to those from non-EU countries that they will be subjected to the same requirements as those from the EU.

    A point-based system is in effect a quota system, if you think about it. A points requirement essentially acts as a quota, if you want the quota to be small, you raise the points requirements to a very high level. If you want to favour a certain skill, you can award more points for the skill relative to others. However I have no objection to a quota system, the end result is the same.
    Why though?

    And who decides on the quota?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Why though?

    And who decides on the quota?
    The end result is that you can control the quantity and quality of immigration.

    The quota will be decided by the elected government which will have a mandate to increase or decrease immigration, just like any other non-EU counties really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The end result is that you can control the quantity and quality of immigration.

    The quota will be decided by the elected government which will have a mandate to increase or decrease immigration, just like any other non-EU counties really.
    Good luck with that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Good luck with that.
    Thanks, and nice to have your blessing for the UK to control its immigration.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    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.
    If you again read carefully, I did not question why they think free movement is important to V4. I can actually imagine what their reasons are, which are pretty obvious. I was questioning why they feel like they have a 'right' to free movement even after Brexit, which has been mentioned on the article.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Er, because neither Canada or the USA are the EU? It's irrelevant how they wish to conduct their free trade agreements.
    I am questioning the fundamental requirement of free movement to free trade. As demonstrated by these non EU trade deals, and the deal between the EU and Canada, it is obvious that these two 'principles' are not intertwined. It's just an EU ideology.

    In simpler terms, I am implying that the EU is being inflexible. Plenty of countries are in free trade agreement because it benefits both sides, but without free movement of people. The fact that they wish to push free movement into the negotiation (which we both know has a one-sided effect on the UK) means that there is an ideological motive behind their position, rather than an intention to form a mutually beneficial agreement.

    The P4 is willing to trade with Canada on freer terms than the UK. Both the UK and Canada do not want free movement. The question is, why the preference?

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    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?

    There is research that that immigration has an overall downward drag on those working 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%.

    On an ideological standpoint, we are not asking to stop immigration. What Brexit stands for, is control of immigration for which you can impose requirements and quota on the quality on quantity of migrants according to the UK's needs and skill gap. Applicants will offer their skills in exchange for the benefits of UK citizenship, a mutually beneficial agreement which both sides can consent. We will fully and happily expect the EU to impose the same system on us as it is a fair system.

    Also to apply Murphy's Law, even if EU immigration has no effect or beneficial effect on the UK, if you allow an uncontrolled system to go wrong, it will go wrong. A point based or quota system allows us to proactively ensure that immigration is beneficial to us.

    What is your disagreement with this system?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If you again read carefully, I did not question why they think free movement is important to V4. I can actually imagine what their reasons are, which are pretty obvious. I was questioning why they feel like they have a 'right' to free movement even after Brexit, which has been mentioned on the article.



    I am questioning the fundamental requirement of free movement to free trade. As demonstrated by these non EU trade deals, and the deal between the EU and Canada, it is obvious that these two 'principles' are not intertwined. It's just an EU ideology.

    In simpler terms, I am implying that the EU is being inflexible. Plenty of countries are in free trade agreement because it benefits both sides, but without free movement of people. The fact that they wish to push free movement into the negotiation (which we both know has a one-sided effect on the UK) means that there is an ideological motive behind their position, rather than an intention to form a mutually beneficial agreement.

    The P4 is willing to trade with Canada on freer terms than the UK. Both the UK and Canada do not want free movement. The question is, why the preference?




    There is research that that immigration has an overall downward drag on those working 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%.

    On an ideological standpoint, we are not asking to stop immigration. What Brexit stands for, is control of immigration for which you can impose requirements and quota on the quality on quantity of migrants according to the UK's needs and skill gap. Applicants will offer their skills in exchange for the benefits of UK citizenship, a mutually beneficial agreement which both sides can consent. We will fully and happily expect the EU to impose the same system on us as it is a fair system.

    Also to apply Murphy's Law, even if EU immigration has no effect or beneficial effect on the UK, if you allow an uncontrolled system to go wrong, it will go wrong. A point based or quota system allows us to proactively ensure that immigration is beneficial to us.

    What is your disagreement with this system?
    While I am all for the scientific analysis of things, this is pretty straightforward logic, no? What you have to ask yourself is who will do all the menial jobs that the foreigners are doing now? The British sure as hell don't want to. And the low prices you enjoy, do you think they will continue when wages rise? You earn more, you pay more, the overall effect will be very difficult to accurately determine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    While I am all for the scientific analysis of things, this is pretty straightforward logic, no? What you have to ask yourself is who will do all the menial jobs that the foreigners are doing now? The British sure as hell don't want to. And the low prices you enjoy, do you think they will continue when wages rise? You earn more, you pay more, the overall effect will be very difficult to accurately determine.
    If we want people do the menial job, then we make quotas for that. You simply can't deny that it is better to have control of your immigration and to be able to control the quotas according to our needs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If we want people do the menial job, then we make quotas for that. You simply can't deny that it is better to have control of your immigration and to be able to control the quotas according to our needs.
    Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy.

    And I do deny it. In fact I think the attitude and ideas you display with this statement are appalling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    While I am all for the scientific analysis of things, this is pretty straightforward logic, no? What you have to ask yourself is who will do all the menial jobs that the foreigners are doing now? The British sure as hell don't want to. And the low prices you enjoy, do you think they will continue when wages rise? You earn more, you pay more, the overall effect will be very difficult to accurately determine.
    I suspect you will be to young to remember however I can assure you that there was not a huge shortage of staff in menial jobs back before the era of mass uncontrolled immigration.

    Please stop spouting the lies that the British are entirely unable and unwilling to do minimum wage jobs.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I suspect you will be to young to remember however I can assure you that there was not a huge shortage of staff in menial jobs back before the era of mass uncontrolled immigration.

    Please stop spouting the lies that the British are entirely unable and unwilling to do minimum wage jobs.*
    As soon as they didn't have to anymore, they didn't. Speaks volumes, no?

    And if they have to do it again they will, if no other jobs are available, but how happy will they be about it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Any deal between independent states, which is what the UK and rEU will be, has to be on the basis of trading value for value rather than adherence to fixed principles.

    The UK benefits much less than rEU from mutual freedom of movement and reciprocation of education subsidies. Therefore, rEU should give the UK some payment if it wishes to keep these privileges. Although freedom of trade benefits both parties, it's not clear to me that the UK benefits more than rEU from freedom of trade. The EU is implying that freedom of trade is what they will give in exchange but I do not think that freedom of trade is an adequate payment.

    Currently freedom of movement heavily subsidises Southern Europe which is dumping its unemployed on the UK and heavily subsidises Eastern Europe whose low living standards are propped up by remittances from their citizens working in the UK. If the EU wishes to continue to be subsidised by the UK in this way then it should make a substantial contribution to the UK budget.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy.

    And I do deny it. In fact I think the attitude and ideas you display with this statement are appalling.
    It really isn't a lot of bureaucracy, it is simply a matter of setting the requirement and the rest of the work is down to the applicant to meet it.

    Also any administration costs will be worth it and considered into the criteria, as we are asking for the applicant to offer their skills in return for citizenship. In simpler terms we are asking for something in exchange for the citizenship, and rights and benefits it brings.

    The system is entirely fair, to both sides. My statement was entirely appropriate, I don't see why you would find that appalling in any way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    It really isn't a lot of bureaucracy, it is simply a matter of setting the requirement and the rest of the work is down to the applicant to meet it.

    Also any administration costs will be worth it and considered into the criteria, as we are asking for the applicant to offer their skills in return for citizenship. In simpler terms we are asking for something in exchange for the citizenship, and rights and benefits it brings.

    The system is entirely fair, to both sides. My statement was entirely appropriate, I don't see why you would find that appalling in any way.
    It is a nationalistic, selfish attitude. One that I fully oppose (note, that does not imply I propose let anyone in and live off your benefits).
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
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.