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 CherishFreedom)
    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.
    But why do you need to control it? Why can't firms just hire whomever they want, regardless of quotas? If a firm wants to hire someone, surely it is beneficial to the country. It is ****ing ironic that you talk about demand and supply and then go talking about quotas. :facepalm:

    I work in Switzerland, I can tell you that HR will be seriously unhappy about anyone you want to hire who is non-EU much less someone from a country that does not even have visa-free access to the EU (say some S.A. countries).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But why do you need to control it? Why can't firms just hire whomever they want, regardless of quotas? If a firm wants to hire someone, surely it is beneficial to the country. It is ****ing ironic that you talk about demand and supply and then go talking about quotas. :facepalm:

    I work in Switzerland, I can tell you that HR will be seriously unhappy about anyone you want to hire who is non-EU much less someone from a country that does not even have visa-free access to the EU (say some S.A. countries).
    Because the quota we are talking about is not just for working, but also for living and entitlement to UK state benefits and public services.

    If this is a pure employment scenario then demand and supply would control it on its own, however it is not. Those who fail to gain employment in over-supplied trades (but still come here because they know they will be able to live on state benefits) will not be able to get a job, and will therefore rely on the state. In this scenario it is not good for both the migrant and the UK, especially to the UK taxpayers.

    It is important that we minimise this scenario from happening by having a system which we can control and plan our resources accordingly. It is also to ensure that the UK can have the capacity to accommodate more immigrants by having a sustainable system.
    Offline

    3
    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.
    And why do those countries have low standard of living? Could it be something to do with the choices made by those people who are living there?

    This will shift political instability from the Western countries into the other countries (Eastern Europe and Southern Europe)
    Exactly. I don't want political instability in my country.

    I think you are also overestimating what proportion of the world lives in a well governed country. Swamping the few well-governed countries with the rest of the world won't dilute the rest of the world's dysfunction. It will make the entire world badly governed as people with broken ideas and lifestyles take over the small outposts of sanity.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Because the quota we are talking about is not just for working, but also for living and entitlement to UK state benefits and public services.

    If this is a pure employment scenario then demand and supply would control it on its own, however it is not. Those who fail to gain employment in over-supplied trades (but still come here because they know they will be able to live on state benefits) will not be able to get a job, and will therefore rely on the state. In this scenario it is not good for both the migrant and the UK, especially to the UK taxpayers.

    It is important that we minimise this scenario from happening by having a system which we can control and plan our resources accordingly. It is also to ensure that the UK can have the capacity to accommodate more immigrants by having a sustainable system.
    But I thought that was a given that post-brexit no one is allowed to come just for benefits...

    So why are you curbing everyone if in fact you just want to curb a certain group of people (benefit scroungers).

    And the last part is just plain wrong. Most of the most developed (western) nations need (young) people. So talking about making it a sustainable system is again ironic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But I thought that was a given that post-brexit no one is allowed to come just for benefits...

    So why are you curbing everyone if in fact you just want to curb a certain group of people (benefit scroungers).

    And the last part is just plain wrong. Most of the most developed (western) nations need (young) people. So talking about making it a sustainable system is again ironic.
    The system is not curbing everyone. Those very few people who come here just for benefits will not be allowed to gain citizenship, but the rest who are perfectly qualified are able to, provided that we have the capacity to accommodate them.

    As I said, a sustainable system means that we can curb but to also increase skilled immigration if we need a supply of labour for a certain sector. A system in which we have no control of, and therefore cannot plan towards is unsustainable, and I think you know which one I am referring to.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The system is not curbing everyone. Those very few people who come here just for benefits will not be allowed to gain citizenship, but the rest who are perfectly qualified are able to, provided that we have the capacity to accommodate them.

    As I said, a sustainable system means that we can curb but to also increase skilled immigration if we need a supply of labour for a certain sector. A system in which we have no control of, and therefore cannot plan towards is unsustainable, and I think you know which one I am referring to.
    A system where companies freely decide who they can hire is bound to be much more efficient than the one you are suggesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    A system where companies freely decide who they can hire is bound to be much more efficient than the one you are suggesting.
    I have already addressed this point.

    "Because the quota we are talking about is not just for working, but also for living and entitlement to UK state benefits and public services.

    If this is a pure employment scenario then demand and supply would control it on its own, however it is not. Those who fail to gain employment in over-supplied trades (but still come here because they know they will be able to live on state benefits) will not be able to get a job, and will therefore rely on the state. In this scenario it is not good for both the migrant and the UK, especially to the UK taxpayers.

    It is important that we minimise this scenario from happening by having a system which we can control and plan our resources accordingly. It is also to ensure that the UK can have the capacity to accommodate more immigrants by having a sustainable 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?
    I doubt anyone of any significance actually believes that freedom of movement is some kind of devine 'right' of theirs. This sounds more like hyperbole than anything.

    The reason why countries with free trade deals don't have freedom of movement is because they haven't formed a single market between themselves. The deal between the EU and Canada would not put it in the single market. It only gives tariff free trade.

    I'd rather we remain a member of the single market than have just a free trade agreement. If this requires we have freedom of movement then so be it.



    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    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?
    The same research finds that medium and high-paid workers gain from the same level of immigration, so the average impact isn't significant. The people most affected by wage changes are also migrants themselves, not natives. This is for EU immigration.

    Non-EU immigration, which involves quotas that are meant to benefit us, actually creates unemployment amongst the UK-born population. EU immigration does not have this effect. There is also research which has found that EU immigrants are net contributors to public finances while non-EU immigrants aren't.

    To me, immigration from the EU seems like it's doing more for us than immigration from outside of the EU. Hence I don't have any particular problem with the way things are now, I think it benefits us. I personally would prefer freedom of movement too as it gives me more rights as an individual to work, live, study, etc, abroad, plus it makes it easier.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    His username is "CherishFreedom".

    Wants governments to demand visas for crossing imaginary lines.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    His username is "CherishFreedom".

    Wants governments to demand visas for crossing imaginary lines.
    I've made it clear from post 1 that I'm talking about 'rights' to live and work, not travelling visa.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I doubt anyone of any significance actually believes that freedom of movement is some kind of devine 'right' of theirs. This sounds more like hyperbole than anything.

    The reason why countries with free trade deals don't have freedom of movement is because they haven't formed a single market between themselves. The deal between the EU and Canada would not put it in the single market. It only gives tariff free trade.

    I'd rather we remain a member of the single market than have just a free trade agreement. If this requires we have freedom of movement then so be it.
    Well that's what they are asking, even for after the UK has left the EU.

    My position is that we should not be in the single market, a deal similar to Canada would be ideal.

    I respect our difference on this though, but I think both of us know that all signs currently point towards a hard Brexit.


    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The same research finds that medium and high-paid workers gain from the same level of immigration, so the average impact isn't significant. The people most affected by wage changes are also migrants themselves, not natives. This is for EU immigration.

    Non-EU immigration, which involves quotas that are meant to benefit us, actually creates unemployment amongst the UK-born population. EU immigration does not have this effect. There is also research which has found that EU immigrants are net contributors to public finances while non-EU immigrants aren't.

    To me, immigration from the EU seems like it's doing more for us than immigration from outside of the EU. Hence I don't have any particular problem with the way things are now, I think it benefits us. I personally would prefer freedom of movement too as it gives me more rights as an individual to work, live, study, etc, abroad, plus it makes it easier.
    Which is why I pointed out that some Brexiters are perfectly reasonable to feel that immigration has affected their jobs, because the working class makes up majority of the UK's population. For the working class, immigration had dragged down the wages in general.

    I am personally fine with immigration because it doesn't affect me and actually benefits me according to the research. However I still acknowledge their concerns. I am advocating for a system in which the UK can control and plan for immigration. It is fair for the UK and for those we admit, as we can ensure that both sides benefit. It is also only right that we uphold EU immigrants to the same requirements as to those from non-EU countries.

    I think there seems to be a misconception that controlling our own immigration means pulling up the draw bridge. This is not necessarily the case. It only means that we can admit those we feel can contribute to our society and be able to plan our for public services better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Like the V4 have a voice. Jesus.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have already addressed this point.

    "Because the quota we are talking about is not just for working, but also for living and entitlement to UK state benefits and public services.

    If this is a pure employment scenario then demand and supply would control it on its own, however it is not. Those who fail to gain employment in over-supplied trades (but still come here because they know they will be able to live on state benefits) will not be able to get a job, and will therefore rely on the state. In this scenario it is not good for both the migrant and the UK, especially to the UK taxpayers.

    It is important that we minimise this scenario from happening by having a system which we can control and plan our resources accordingly. It is also to ensure that the UK can have the capacity to accommodate more immigrants by having a sustainable system."
    As I said above, I have no qualms with you stopping people from coming over that will live off benefits.

    You still haven't understood that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    As I said above, I have no qualms with you stopping people from coming over that will live off benefits.

    You still haven't understood that?
    You asked why can't the market control immigration by its own demand and supply.

    I'm just reiterating that the market cannot control immigration demand on its own because immigration affects the UK on a state level. Companies are not going to care where the migrants will be if they don't land a job, whether they will stay in the UK and live on benefits or not. This is why a quota system is required to prevent this from happening.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Well that's what they are asking, even for after the UK has left the EU.

    My position is that we should not be in the single market, a deal similar to Canada would be ideal.

    I respect our difference on this though, but I think both of us know that all signs currently point towards a hard Brexit.

    Which is why I pointed out that some Brexiters are perfectly reasonable to feel that immigration has affected their jobs, because the working class makes up majority of the UK's population. For the working class, immigration had dragged down the wages in general.

    I am personally fine with immigration because it doesn't affect me and actually benefits me according to the research. However I still acknowledge their concerns. I am advocating for a system in which the UK can control and plan for immigration. It is fair for the UK and for those we admit, as we can ensure that both sides benefit. It is also only right that we uphold EU immigrants to the same requirements as to those from non-EU countries.

    I think there seems to be a misconception that controlling our own immigration means pulling up the draw bridge. This is not necessarily the case. It only means that we can admit those we feel can contribute to our society and be able to plan our for public services better.
    I think for the sake of our financial services, which are a huge part of the economy, and for the continued ease at which business is done between the UK and the EU we should remain in the single market. A trade deal will remove tariff barriers but won't remove non-tariff barriers. I know there would be benefits to having immigration controls on who comes from the EU but I don't see these as being more beneficial than our membership to the single market.

    From what I read from that research the negative wage impacts affect the lowest 10% of earners, so not the majority of the population.

    Assuming we did have an immigration system based on letting people enter only if 'we feel they can contribute to our society', how would that work? How would you determine who is and is not going to contribute, and by how much?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I think for the sake of our financial services, which are a huge part of the economy, and for the continued ease at which business is done between the UK and the EU we should remain in the single market. A trade deal will remove tariff barriers but won't remove non-tariff barriers. I know there would be benefits to having immigration controls on who comes from the EU but I don't see these as being more beneficial than our membership to the single market.

    From what I read from that research the negative wage impacts affect the lowest 10% of earners, so not the majority of the population.

    Assuming we did have an immigration system based on letting people enter only if 'we feel they can contribute to our society', how would that work? How would you determine who is and is not going to contribute, and by how much?
    I think there are certain challenges with leaving the single market and passport in is one of them, in terms of technicality. To trade in the EU, financial services company must have a subsidary in the EU, which the majority of them does. However for smaller firms it would mean setting up an 'office' within a EU state which can be a PO box, and mirroring its UK framework for certification. Non-tariff barriers can be an extra cost to businesses however it needn't always be. For example, if they UK is to adopt a stripped-down regulatory framework it would actually benefit companies to be able to sell goods and services domestically with less regulations. Also it means that the UK will be free to customise trade agreements and standards with non-EU countries, which can boost our global business competitiveness. Again I respect your view on this, but our assessments of the risks and opportunities are different.

    The research I was referring to is that "during 1992 and 2006, 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%." This seems to be the only mainstream research that refers to the effect on average wage, and most people are indeed working in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector.

    As for the quota system, there are many official surveys available such as the Employers Skills Survey which gives the government an idea of what skills are in demand and therefore to increase the quota, and vice versa.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You asked why can't the market control immigration by its own demand and supply.

    I'm just reiterating that the market cannot control immigration demand on its own because immigration affects the UK on a state level. Companies are not going to care where the migrants will be if they don't land a job, whether they will stay in the UK and live on benefits or not. This is why a quota system is required to prevent this from happening.
    Generally when people say there is only one solution, as you are ("this is why a quota system is needed"), they are wrong.

    Is the world so black and white to you? You cannot fathom the idea of making living in the country for foreigners contingent on landing a job? Or that how about you simply don't pay social benefits to people that come in and don't work? Don't put a quota on people but on the amount of time they have spent working/studying/living in the country?

    Crazy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Generally when people say there is only one solution, as you are ("this is why a quota system is needed", they are wrong.

    Is the world so black and white to you? You cannot fathom the idea of making living in the country for foreigners contingent on landing a job? Or that how about you simply don't pay social benefits to people that come in and don't work? Don't put a quota on people but on the amount of time they have spent working/studying/living in the country?

    Crazy.
    Please quote me where I said this is the only solution? I think you are just finding things to pick on, and starting to have to resort to generalisation.

    But since you talk about solution, then I take it that you admit that there is a problem with our current system?

    What is your solution?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Please quote me where I said this is the only solution? I think you are just finding things to pick on, and starting to have to resort to generalisation.

    But since you talk about solution, then I take it that you admit that there is a problem with our current system?

    What is your solution?
    I have repeatedly tried to outline them. A solution doesn't need to be a solution to a problem but to an issue.

    And no, I pointed out that generalization to highlight that you are proving it right
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I have repeatedly tried to outline them. A solution doesn't need to be a solution to a problem but to an issue.

    And no, I pointed out that generalization to highlight that you are proving it right
    OK, so are you implying a problem doesn't need a solution?

    The things you listed are not solutions, as you know it does not pre-examine the eligibility of the applicant.

    If they fail the requirement, what are you going to do, ask them to move back?

    And how do you not pay social benefits to citizens? We are a welfare state.
 
 
 
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.