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

    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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).
    How the heck is that nationalistic?

    Would you call Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most other non-EU countries in the world nationalistic and selfish?

    You are getting my message wrong, the point of the system is to control immigration and ensure that immigration is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    How the heck is that nationalistic?

    Would you call Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most other non-EU countries in the world nationalistic and selfish?

    You are getting my message wrong, the point of the system is to control immigration and ensure that immigration is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
    Yes, I would, and they are.

    Edit: To be fair, it is not necessarily always a bad thing, but in this case I see it as such.

    Edit: The fact you are shocked at the notion that this is nationalistic, highlights the completely different viewpoint existing on the island versus on the continent. And in fact, I am glad you guys are gone. It's a shame yes, but whiners like you aren't needed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Freedom of movement is fundamental, so you arent going to have access to the single market on current terms without it.

    Why? What you've basically been saying is "I'm right and you're wrong because i said so". Can you explain your points? It's established that freedom of trade is required. Why do you think freedom of movement is also beneficial overall?

    And why would it be impossible to access a single market without it? Because you said so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, I would, and they are.

    Edit: To be fair, it is not necessarily always a bad thing, but in this case I see it as such.

    Edit: The fact you are shocked at the notion that this is nationalistic, highlights the completely different viewpoint existing on the island versus on the continent. And in fact, I am glad you guys are gone. It's a shame yes, but whiners like you aren't needed.
    By that logic you've just accused 80% of the World's population as selfish and nationalistic.

    How about you consider maybe you are taking a moral high ground on something that is perfectly fair and reasonable for both sides?

    And also, selfish to whom? The UK deserves its right as a sovereign nation to control its borders and immigration, and the British public deserves to be able to decide who they let in. I expect the EU to impose the same against us, as it is fair.

    Don't accuse someone of being selfish when you have no logical basis on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They can remain as long as they have a job, if not then they should be told to leave for their own country. Stop any benefits they are taking this will hurry up the process.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    By that logic you've just accused 80% of the World's population as selfish and nationalistic.

    How about you consider maybe you are taking a moral high ground on something that is perfectly fair and reasonable for both sides?

    And also, selfish to whom? The UK deserves its right as a sovereign nation to control its borders and immigration, and the British public deserves to be able to decide who they let in. I expect the EU to impose the same against us, as it is fair.

    Don't accuse someone of being selfish when you have no logical basis on it.
    But you are being selfish.

    All you are saying is that it is justifiable in this instance. That is of course your opinion, and you are entitled to it, all I am pointing out is that there are opposing viewpoints and that maybe the EU is better off without you lot who clearly do not share the same values, and really never have (and I am talking about values, not economic ideas upon which the whole European project started and you did support).

    And yes, humanity is littered with selfishness. Even cooperation is driven by selfishness in most instances.

    Don't talk about logic when you have none.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Free trade itself is a mutually beneficial agreement where both sides benefits equally.
    If that were true it wouldn't take 7-10 years of negotiations to get free trade agreements in place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    If that were true it wouldn't take 7-10 years of negotiations to get free trade agreements in place.
    It is mainly to align the standards and regulations between the two countries in the FTA. With UK's existing framework, it would not take 7 years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But you are being selfish.

    All you are saying is that it is justifiable in this instance. That is of course your opinion, and you are entitled to it, all I am pointing out is that there are opposing viewpoints and that maybe the EU is better off without you lot who clearly do not share the same values, and really never have (and I am talking about values, not economic ideas upon which the whole European project started and you did support).

    And yes, humanity is littered with selfishness. Even cooperation is driven by selfishness in most instances.

    Don't talk about logic when you have none.
    But selfish to whom?

    You are saying this as if selfishness doesn't go both ways. If we favour one side, the other side will disadvantaged. This is simple logic.

    Just think about what you mean by selfish. You are accusing the UK for not being generous by calling us selfish. But aren't you being selfish to expect the UK to be generous to people at the first place?

    Why is it selfish to have a fair system which both sides can consent to, and is mutually beneficial?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    But selfish to whom?

    You are saying this as if selfishness doesn't go both ways. If we favour one side, the other side will disadvantaged. This is simple logic.

    Just think about what you mean by selfish. You are accusing the UK for not being generous by calling us selfish. But aren't you being selfish to expect the UK to be generous to people at the first place?

    Why is it selfish to have a fair system which both sides can consent to, and is mutually beneficial?
    I want movement, but only up to the point that it benefits me and as such I want strict controls on it - Cherish"Freedom" 2016.

    Also, why do you keep repeating fair system? Do you in fact know it is not a fair system and so you have to repeat it to convince yourself and others that it is?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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?
    I think you've misinterpreted being forced out of the market as a desire to leave it. It's difficult for a 16yr old native to compete against a 40yr old immigrant willing to work for the same amount because his family stayed back home and thus his living expenses are tiny.*

    *
    Offline

    3
    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.
    That is wrong
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know if someone mentioned this already, but this was said because the UK wants/ considers that their citizens should be able to live and work freely in other EU countries but do not want to reciprocate the same privileges to those citizens of the EU countries that British people have freedom of movement in, for example it could happen that the UK wants its citizens to be able to freely live in Spain, but not grant Spanish citizens to live without restrictions in the UK. The whole debate is mainly based on reciprocation IMHO.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I want movement, but only up to the point that it benefits me and as such I want strict controls on it - Cherish"Freedom" 2016.

    Also, why do you keep repeating fair system? Do you in fact know it is not a fair system and so you have to repeat it to convince yourself and others that it is?
    No, you are mistaking my view again. I want movement where there is a mutual benefit, and a system which both sides can consent to the arrangement.

    This means for example, a skilled computer programmer being granted UK citizenship because the skill is in demand, and the UK offering state benefits and residency rights in return. The programmer must feel that the UK will benefit him therefore he decides to migrate to the UK. The UK must feel that he is beneficial to our society by granting his citizenship. It is a fair deal and a simple supply and demand scenario.

    It is in fact a systematically fair system, whether you like to admit it or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_mischy)
    I don't know if someone mentioned this already, but this was said because the UK wants/ considers that their citizens should be able to live and work freely in other EU countries but do not want to reciprocate the same privileges to those citizens of the EU countries that British people have freedom of movement in, for example it could happen that the UK wants its citizens to be able to freely live in Spain, but not grant Spanish citizens to live without restrictions in the UK. The whole debate is mainly based on reciprocation IMHO.
    It was made very clear that the UK will allow those already here to remain and also we expect to be excluded from free movement. However what the P4 is saying, is that they would decline all Brexit trade deals unless the UK allows free movement post Brexit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    That is wrong
    It is correct in the context that I was replying to, which was on UK citizen's children.

    To be exact, those who are born in the UK, and whose parents (either one) are either UK citizen or settled in the UK, are granted UK citizenship.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    However what the P4 is saying, is that they would decline all Brexit trade deals unless the UK allows free movement post Brexit.
    I am of course aware we are talking about POST brexit (what's the point otherwise) and the part of your response I quoted is exactly what I meant to bring across in my response. Maybe I should read more carefully.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The freedom of movement enables the countries from which the migrants emigrate from to avoid political instability caused by citizens who are angry because they have a low standard of living.

    The freedom of movement enables the labour market to work better. British workers compete with workers from other EU countries and thus the best economic outcome is achieved.

    These are the two main reasons why it exists.

    Fundamentally, every human being has to work and settle wherever but there are certain environmental factors which determine where people actually live like the ability to earn income and the ability to meet expenditures etc etc.

    The faulty analysis made by right wingers is that migrants are the cause of their plight. They steal jobs and drive down wages. When in reality, capitalism does this. It is a fundamental part of capitalism. In relative terms, a Polish builders living standard increases when working for a low wage in the UK and a British builders living standard decreases when working for a low wage in the UK.

    The only way to solve this problem in the most equitable way is to unify the workers of all nations and develop an economic system that does not promote a hunger games style society. However, people cannot see things in this way because they have been fed the individualist and capitalist propaganda.

    How do I know this? Because as I mentioned before...when people say the immigrants are taking the jobs, this shows a lack of understanding of how society works. The employer chooses the migrant over you because they can earn more money. It's this motivator which needs addressing.

    The chosen method, i.e. controlling immigration is a short term remedy. What will happen is that the migrants won't be able to leave their respective countries and then they will have to engage in politics in order to better their lives. This will shift political instability from the Western countries into the other countries (Eastern Europe and Southern Europe)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    The freedom of movement enables the countries from which the migrants emigrate from to avoid political instability caused by citizens who are angry because they have a low standard of living.

    The freedom of movement enables the labour market to work better. British workers compete with workers from other EU countries and thus the best economic outcome is achieved.

    These are the two main reasons why it exists.

    Fundamentally, every human being has to work and settle wherever but there are certain environmental factors which determine where people actually live like the ability to earn income and the ability to meet expenditures etc etc.

    The faulty analysis made by right wingers is that migrants are the cause of their plight. They steal jobs and drive down wages. When in reality, capitalism does this. It is a fundamental part of capitalism. In relative terms, a Polish builders living standard increases when working for a low wage in the UK and a British builders living standard decreases when working for a low wage in the UK.

    The only way to solve this problem in the most equitable way is to unify the workers of all nations and develop an economic system that does not promote a hunger games style society. However, people cannot see things in this way because they have been fed the individualist and capitalist propaganda.

    How do I know this? Because as I mentioned before...when people say the immigrants are taking the jobs, this shows a lack of understanding of how society works. The employer chooses the migrant over you because they can earn more money. It's this motivator which needs addressing.

    The chosen method, i.e. controlling immigration is a short term remedy. What will happen is that the migrants won't be able to leave their respective countries and then they will have to engage in politics in order to better their lives. This will shift political instability from the Western countries into the other countries (Eastern Europe and Southern Europe)
    I think your view already has the assumption that the immigrants are not welcomed. In fact I actually welcome their contributions as a whole, however we must prevent the minority who comes to the UK for state benefits without intending to contribute. This is why a quota system is fair for both sides. For us, it prevents abuse of immigration, and for them it maintains the quality of the UK's public services and ensure that we have the capacity to accommodate more well-meaning applicants.

    It is also reasonable that the UK wants to have control over its own policies, rather than relying on someone else to decide.

    Therefore it is important that we have an effective system to create an environment where people who wants to work in the UK, can do so and will not be forced to depend on benefits which is harmful to both the UK and to themselves.

    It has nothing to do with blaming the migrants on anything. It is more to do with creating a sustainable system for which both sides can benefit from.
 
 
 
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.