Cornish Steve Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Because it is a core EU value and if you want free access to the economic zone you need to accept that as well. So leaders in Europe decide that unfettered migration is core value and hence a requirement to economic participation. What if they decide that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a core value? Or contributing 10 percent of GDP to third world nations? I still don't get this. An economic union is just that - not an excuse for implementing other policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Without a doubt; can't stand her either (or any Tory since Chris Patten come to that, except my dad) but there could be nobody worse. I'd rather a syphilitic newt ran the country. you just described Gove there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Without a doubt; can't stand her either (or any Tory since Chris Patten come to that, except my dad) but there could be nobody worse. I'd rather a syphilitic newt ran the country. Mike, I notice you are putting a syphilitic newt before Corbyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Mike, I notice you are putting a syphilitic newt before Corbyn. No John, just before any Tory MP . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) So leaders in Europe decide that unfettered migration is core value and hence a requirement to economic participation. What if they decide that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a core value? Or contributing 10 percent of GDP to third world nations? I still don't get this. An economic union is just that - not an excuse for implementing other policies. The majority of the 27 member states want their people to be able to live wherever they want within the economic union, so much so that they make it a 'conditio sine qua non' for any third country that wants to have access to the common market of 27 european nations.. in essence, there's not much more to it than that. Edit: To follow up on what Makis said: it is indeed a core value of the EU; but only of the EU. To be able to live and work wherever you want within 27 nations is a good way to create a common identity. But that also means it is somewhat irrelevant towards third parties like the UK, with whom is unnecessary to create a common identity. Edited June 30, 2016 by holystove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makis Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 So leaders in Europe decide that unfettered migration is core value and hence a requirement to economic participation. What if they decide that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a core value? Or contributing 10 percent of GDP to third world nations? I still don't get this. An economic union is just that - not an excuse for implementing other policies. Er, yes. If you want free access to our markets you have to abide by our rules. And free movement is also an economic value, not just "other" policies. It's pretty much proven it increases economic growth in the area. Obviously not perhaps in every part but overall. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1386/economics/free-movement-of-labour/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/07/01/the-uk-has-been-one-of-the-main-beneficiaries-from-free-movement-of-labour-in-the-eu/(this is from two years ago) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The majority of the 27 member states want their people to be able to live wherever they want within the economic union, so much so that they make it a 'conditio sine qua non' for any third country that wants to have access to the common market of 27 european nations.. in essence, there's not much more to it than that. Edit: To follow up on what Makis said: it is indeed a core value of the EU; but only of the EU. To be able to live and work wherever you want within 27 nations is a good way to create a common identity. But that also means it is somewhat irrelevant towards third parties like the UK, with whom is unnecessary to create a common identity. The problem is, what are the control mechanisms? There aren't any. Lets say, hypothetically, Turkey gain entrance to the EU and get freedom of movement. Then lets say, 5m Turks decide that they want to live and work in Belgium. What would Belgium's reaction be to a 50% increase in population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makis Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Not the Turkey shit again. They are far, far away from gaining entrance to the EU so the whole thing is a moot point. They would need massive reforms in their society and politics to be even theoretically eligible. You might just as well use Russia as an example. And why would they all go to Belgium in any case? They would probably want to work and it would be obvious all going to the same small country would make that impossible. holystove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The problem is, what are the control mechanisms? There aren't any. Lets say, hypothetically, Turkey gain entrance to the EU and get freedom of movement. Then lets say, 5m Turks decide that they want to live and work in Belgium. What would Belgium's reaction be to a 50% increase in population? just curious John. Do you condone my ability to live abroad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The problem is, what are the control mechanisms? There aren't any. Lets say, hypothetically, Turkey gain entrance to the EU and get freedom of movement. Then lets say, 5m Turks decide that they want to live and work in Belgium. What would Belgium's reaction be to a 50% increase in population? I know this will seem weird to you but for the same reason there isn't a control mechanism to organize migration between Wales and England, or Scotland and Wales, or Texas and Georgia. But a necessity for that to work is that there aren't countries in the Union that are economically much less advanced than others (see my previous post about the 2004 enlargement). This only in addition to what Makis wrote who I fully agree with regarding Turkey. Chach 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 just curious John. Do you condone my ability to live abroad? Matt, I think you totally misunderstand the point I'm making. I am not against migration at all, but there has to be some control system. Uncontrolled free movement has serious impacts on infrastructure, budgets etc., Its about planning. If you have had an impact on the Swiss budget it will have been positive with all that wine and beer you consume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Matt, I think you totally misunderstand the point I'm making. I am not against migration at all, but there has to be some control system. Uncontrolled free movement has serious impacts on infrastructure, budgets etc., Its about planning. If you have had an impact on the Swiss budget it will have been positive with all that wine and beer you consume. my point though mate, is that being an EU citizen, like millions of other Brtions, have had the opportunity to get to work abroad without any fuss. Swiss isn't EU, but because of their agreements which include free movement, I get preferential treatment after Swiss nationals. Now, this is largely the argument but it doesn't work because companies still choose who they want. Being non-EU will change nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Not the Turkey shit again. They are far, far away from gaining entrance to the EU so the whole thing is a moot point. They would need massive reforms in their society and politics to be even theoretically eligible. You might just as well use Russia as an example. And why would they all go to Belgium in any case? They would probably want to work and it would be obvious all going to the same small country would make that impossible. Makis, my post said 'hypothetically' which you are turning into reality. The point is, with free movement and no controls, any country in the EU is vulnerable to high levels of immigration that they can do nothing about. My point was about the lack of controls. If you can't do anything about the number of people coming in, how do you plan for infrastructure development? Just one example: In this country we talk about the shortage of housing. Last year, the number of people coming to the UK was equal to a city the size of Newcastle. Cameron says he was going to reduce the numbers to tens of thousands. I reiterate, my point is: how can you plan with free movement to the scale we are seeing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Is anyone actually against proper control though? Does anyone actually believe leaving the EU will make that happen (because it won't) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 just curious John. Do you condone my ability to live abroad? I do... Jammy bastard ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Why should you plan for a hypothesis that is never going to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The trouble with the whole "creating a common identity" is that there are countries within the EU that people simply won't migrate to its a vastly unlevel playing field due to political and national problems, living standards benefit and health systems etc it's a biased policy that will never work well and certainly as we've seen create a common identity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I do... Jammy bastard ? thats jealousy mate, you're confusing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Why should you plan for a hypothesis that is never going to happen?proactivity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The trouble with the whole "creating a common identity" is that there are countries within the EU that people simply won't migrate to its a vastly unlevel playing field due to political and national problems, living standards benefit and health systems etc it's a biased policy that will never work well and certainly as we've seen create a common identitythats exactly why we should be working together, to level the playing field and come together. Plus, some of those less sexy countries are stunning with great food, drink and people. It is a multi-decade project, maybe century long but it's the his we should all aim for. holystove and MikeO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Why should you plan for a hypothesis that is never going to happen? holystove, I can't believe you posted that. It was an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 holystove, I can't believe you posted that. It was an example. Maybe the language barrier is making me misunderstand what you meant, but the fixed parameters in your example would never materialize so I think it's an invalid hypothesis? 1/ there would never be 5 million turks migrating to belgium because that wouldn't be in their own intrest 2/ I assume the 5 million was just a hyperbole for excessive migration, but I agree with Makis in that Turkey would only be allowed in the Union if they are a more "advanced" country and the Turks would then presumably feel a lesser need to migrate in massive numbers. Regarding migration; I can't speak for the UK, but every problem with migration in Belgium has to do with migration from outside the EU (from Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, ..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 thats exactly why we should be working together, to level the playing field and come together. Plus, some of those less sexy countries are stunning with great food, drink and people. It is a multi-decade project, maybe century long but it's the his we should all aim for. I was typing the same thing when I got a pop-up saying "show new post" (or something to that extend) and turns out you had already said it better. I was against the 2004 enlargement but now I can live in Prague, so it's not all bad . It's one of the things that was bothering me about the remain camp. There was only scaremongering about dire economic consequences.. The focus was purely on why it could be bad for Britain to leave the EU. Did anyone vote remain in hope of a better life for Eastern and Southern Europe and eventually for them to be at the same level as us, even if it would mean a temporary lower standard of living right now? Everybody was thinking about what is best for the UK, not what is best for Europe. I know it could be perceived to be naive but it would be one of the main reasons for me to vote "remain". Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I was typing the same thing when I got a pop-up saying "show new post" (or something to that extend) and turns out you had already said it better. I was against the 2004 enlargement but now I can live in Prague, so it's not all bad . It's one of the things that was bothering me about the remain camp. There was only scaremongering about dire economic consequences.. The focus was purely on why it could be bad for Britain to leave the EU. Did anyone vote remain in hope of a better life for Eastern and Southern Europe and eventually for them to be at the same level as us, even if it would mean a temporary lower standard of living right now? Everybody was thinking about what is best for the UK, not what is best for Europe. I know it could be perceived to be naive but it would be one of the main reasons for me to vote "remain". I would've voted remain for Europe, for the greater good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I was typing the same thing when I got a pop-up saying "show new post" (or something to that extend) and turns out you had already said it better. I was against the 2004 enlargement but now I can live in Prague, so it's not all bad . It's one of the things that was bothering me about the remain camp. There was only scaremongering about dire economic consequences.. The focus was purely on why it could be bad for Britain to leave the EU. Did anyone vote remain in hope of a better life for Eastern and Southern Europe and eventually for them to be at the same level as us, even if it would mean a temporary lower standard of living right now? Everybody was thinking about what is best for the UK, not what is best for Europe. I know it could be perceived to be naive but it would be one of the main reasons for me to vote "remain". Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I was typing the same thing when I got a pop-up saying "show new post" (or something to that extend) and turns out you had already said it better. I was against the 2004 enlargement but now I can live in Prague, so it's not all bad . It's one of the things that was bothering me about the remain camp. There was only scaremongering about dire economic consequences.. The focus was purely on why it could be bad for Britain to leave the EU. Did anyone vote remain in hope of a better life for Eastern and Southern Europe and eventually for them to be at the same level as us, even if it would mean a temporary lower standard of living right now? Everybody was thinking about what is best for the UK, not what is best for Europe. I know it could be perceived to be naive but it would be one of the main reasons for me to vote "remain". Boom! MikeO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Hate UKIP with a passion, but I think it's a stretch to label ALL of their voters racist; certainly a significant proportion of them are but not all. Show me the part where I said ALL (your caps), and I'll show you the part where using the term straw man fell out of fashion on TT. Wouldn't one sign of being non-racist be that you don't support someone (Farage) who is? What non-racist would elect a racist to represent him or her? Maybe not -all- UKIP voters are racist but at the very least that would indicate they don't find racism that important of an issue. I would agree with that sentiment but from what I can tell Farage amazingly seems to be one of the least racist in the party, some of the quotes I've read of other members are like something from the 18th century. What does UKIP have to do with anything we've discussed you've gone from trying to justify racism being a larger part of all this than it actually was from a conveniently put together piece of tweets by racist morons 1200 vs 17.5m votes As Mike said I don't care for UKIP one bit but your tarnishing people with the same brush due to their political views, how many people who voted remain are racist? How many ethnic minorities voted to leave? The list goes on... UKIP is a far right political party with xenophobia at its core, at the 2015 general election 12.7% of the turnout voted for them and you ask what UKIP have to do with anything, I would argue they have everything to do with it. There is no point having a discussion about something if new ideas can't be be introduced and we are only allowed to discuss it in the context of an article that aggregated racist posts on twitter, the issue is much bigger that that. Immigration was the #3 issue, not #2. I was using this polling, which one are you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 I know this will seem weird to you but for the same reason there isn't a control mechanism to organize migration between Wales and England, or Scotland and Wales, or Texas and Georgia. But a necessity for that to work is that there aren't countries in the Union that are economically much less advanced than others (see my previous post about the 2004 enlargement). This only in addition to what Makis wrote who I fully agree with regarding Turkey. The difference is that the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, and the United States is a sovereign nation, so individuals are migrating from one part of the country to another. This is the entire point: Romania is NOT the UK; Bulgaria is NOT Belgium; etc. Why should individuals be free to migrate to another country based on a dictate from the EU leadership that, for some reason known to them and not to the rest of us, free migration must be a prerequisite to belonging to a free trade block. It's pretty obvious to me that this is a policy designed to implement and cement a single super-state. This is precisely what most Britons do not want and why Leave supporters won the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 my point though mate, is that being an EU citizen, like millions of other Brtions, have had the opportunity to get to work abroad without any fuss. Swiss isn't EU, but because of their agreements which include free movement, I get preferential treatment after Swiss nationals. Now, this is largely the argument but it doesn't work because companies still choose who they want. Being non-EU will change nothing. Let's be careful in our terminology: We are NOT EU citizens. The two of us are British citizens. There is no EU superstate, and I, for one, do not want to see a superstate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 I was using this polling, which one are you using? A report quoted on NPR, which, from its recent bias, was clearly in favor of Remain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.