Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
BobKowalski said:
‘Migration will still happen, both ways, but might be more difficult.’

Precisely. We can’t have ordinary folk travelling around as the mood takes them. There are forms to be filled, visa’s to be obtained. ‘Just like back in my day.’

They say travel broadens the mind, it clearly does not liberate the imagination to dream of better things.

And the myopia in ditching Erasmus for a scheme that is yet to exist, or could exist alongside Erasmus, is telling.
Click to expand...

why bother having locks on your doors then.
 
BobKowalski said:
‘Migration will still happen, both ways, but might be more difficult.’

Precisely. We can’t have ordinary folk travelling around as the mood takes them. There are forms to be filled, visa’s to be obtained. ‘Just like back in my day.’

They say travel broadens the mind, it clearly does not liberate the imagination to dream of better things.

And the myopia in ditching Erasmus for a scheme that is yet to exist, or could exist alongside Erasmus, is telling.
Click to expand...
No one stopping anyone travelling. You can go anywhere in the EU for 90 days in any 180 days. If I want to go to the USA to see my lad, I fill in a Visa Waiver form, pay a few quid and it's approved virtually instantly, lasting me for 2 years. It's not really a hardship. When we played in Moscow, plenty on here got visas.

The issue I have with free movement is economic, not because I don't like foreigners. It's pretty well the same argument Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz uses in his book on the Euro, though he puts it much more academically rigorously than I do. It's the same principal as in chemical osmosis, when you have two solutions of different density and a porous boundary. The higher density solution migrates to the lower density one until equlibirium is achieved.

People from poorer countries naturally gravitate to richer ones, as we've seen with the influx of Eastern European people from Poland and Romania. Yes, many of them contribute to our economy but they also consume resources, such as accomodation and medical services, which are finite and difficult to scale quickly. The more skilled they are (doctors, engineers, etc) the more they earn in the richer country, which is skills they deprie their home country of, as well as the tax revenue they could have contributed at home.

So the poor countries get propped up financially by those richer ones, as we've seen with the net flow of EU funds from countries like us and Germany to the likes of Poland & Romania. So it's just swings and roundabouts really. If the EU was a level-playing field, with wage levels, tax levels, opportunities & infrastructure all similar across the community, then free movement would be no issue economically. But like those chemical solutions, it isn't. There is no equilibrium. What's the incentive for countries to develop and increase their skills base if those skilled younger people just fuck off somewhere else when it suits them?

So of course people in the UK see free movement of people as a good thing because we essentially attract lots of cheap labour. But that cheap labour here isn't a good thing for the countries the workers have come from. It's one of those great liberal ideas which is the effective replacement for colonialism, except we're taking the skills from these countries rather than the raw materials.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No one stopping anyone travelling. You can go anywhere in the EU for 90 days in any 180 days. If I want to go to the USA to see my lad, I fill in a Visa Waiver form, pay a few quid and it's approved virtually instantly, lasting me for 2 years. It's not really a hardship. When we played in Moscow, plenty on here got visas.

The issue I have with free movement is economic, not because I don't like foreigners. It's pretty well the same argument Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz uses in his book on the Euro, though he puts it much more academically rigorously than I do. It's the same principal as in chemical osmosis, when you have two solutions of different density and a porous boundary. The higher density solution migrates to the lower density one until equlibirium is achieved.

People from poorer countries naturally gravitate to richer ones, as we've seen with the influx of Eastern European people from Poland and Romania. Yes, many of them contribute to our economy but they also consume resources, such as accomodation and medical services, which are finite and difficult to scale quickly. The more skilled they are (doctors, engineers, etc) the more they earn in the richer country, which is skills they deprie their home country of, as well as the tax revenue they could have contributed at home.

So the poor countries get propped up financially by those richer ones, as we've seen with the net flow of EU funds from countries like us and Germany to the likes of Poland & Romania. So it's just swings and roundabouts really. If the EU was a level-playing field, with wage levels, tax levels, opportunities & infrastructure all similar across the community, then free movement would be no issue economically. But like those chemical solutions, it isn't. There is no equilibrium. What's the incentive for countries to develop and increase their skills base if those skilled younger people just fuck off somewhere else when it suits them?

So of course people in the UK see free movement of people as a good thing because we essentially attract lots of cheap labour. But that cheap labour here isn't a good thing for the countries the workers have come from. It's one of those great liberal ideas which is the effective replacement for colonialism, except we're taking the skills from these countries rather than the raw materials.
Click to expand...
It’s a valid argument but it also works the other way. Being a high cost high wage economy encourages companies to invest in the lower cost lower wage economies hence the increase in for example car production in places like Poland and Slovakia by companies based in France and Germany. This in turn brings higher wages to these countries and over a period of time it does bring a measure of equilibrium. Cutting ourselves off from that single market and freedom of movement won’t encourage inward investment into the UK, and this has been borne out over the last 4 years.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No one stopping anyone travelling. You can go anywhere in the EU for 90 days in any 180 days. If I want to go to the USA to see my lad, I fill in a Visa Waiver form, pay a few quid and it's approved virtually instantly, lasting me for 2 years. It's not really a hardship. When we played in Moscow, plenty on here got visas.

The issue I have with free movement is economic, not because I don't like foreigners. It's pretty well the same argument Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz uses in his book on the Euro, though he puts it much more academically rigorously than I do. It's the same principal as in chemical osmosis, when you have two solutions of different density and a porous boundary. The higher density solution migrates to the lower density one until equlibirium is achieved.

People from poorer countries naturally gravitate to richer ones, as we've seen with the influx of Eastern European people from Poland and Romania. Yes, many of them contribute to our economy but they also consume resources, such as accomodation and medical services, which are finite and difficult to scale quickly. The more skilled they are (doctors, engineers, etc) the more they earn in the richer country, which is skills they deprie their home country of, as well as the tax revenue they could have contributed at home.

So the poor countries get propped up financially by those richer ones, as we've seen with the net flow of EU funds from countries like us and Germany to the likes of Poland & Romania. So it's just swings and roundabouts really. If the EU was a level-playing field, with wage levels, tax levels, opportunities & infrastructure all similar across the community, then free movement would be no issue economically. But like those chemical solutions, it isn't. There is no equilibrium. What's the incentive for countries to develop and increase their skills base if those skilled younger people just fuck off somewhere else when it suits them?

So of course people in the UK see free movement of people as a good thing because we essentially attract lots of cheap labour. But that cheap labour here isn't a good thing for the countries the workers have come from. It's one of those great liberal ideas which is the effective replacement for colonialism, except we're taking the skills from these countries rather than the raw materials.
Click to expand...

I get it. You like rules, paperwork and visas dictating how people move between countries.

What Poland does is attract migration from Ukraine. Poland has tripled it’s GDP in the last twenty years. EU membership is very popular.

My point though, is the freedom of people to move and seek out a better life without Govt’s making it difficult, or imposing arbitrary financial conditions. On this I side with ordinary families, not those who seek to restrict it.

As for the cost, well other countries absorb migrants at a higher rate then we do and seem to manage to upgrade their infrastructure to cope. Migrants contribute more than they take out of an economy, but if you have a Govt dedicated to running public services down then you have a problem, but the problem is the Govt, not the migrants.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The problem before was that we were an EU full member but with so many opt-outs that we effectively had one foot out. We weren't in the Eurozone or Schengen area and seemed to be fighting battles all the time.

Now we aren't a member, we may be able to build a more constructive relationship, based on the things we want to do, rather than the things we don't.
Click to expand...
Or you could just fight amongst yourselves.
 
Rascal said:
Lets hope that UK becomes a bastion of Socialism that drifts away from the Neo-liberalism of the EU.

A good revolution is what we need, abolish the monarchy, tear down the establishment and give power to the people and in the spirit of the Socialist International we become a beacon that spreads the message of Democratic Socialism to our friends across the Channel.

As Vladimir Illych said

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."

Break the chains of the Neo Liberal capitalist exploiters and claim the nation for the working class who will establish the UK as a society where abundance means nobody struggles and everyone prospers.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

When you get it. Can we join?
 
BobKowalski said:
‘Migration will still happen, both ways, but might be more difficult.’

Precisely. We can’t have ordinary folk travelling around as the mood takes them. There are forms to be filled, visa’s to be obtained. ‘Just like back in my day.’

They say travel broadens the mind, it clearly does not liberate the imagination to dream of better things.

And the myopia in ditching Erasmus for a scheme that is yet to exist, or could exist alongside Erasmus, is telling.
Click to expand...
The Erasmus decision was completely needless but in my opinion freedom of movement is a bonkers between nation states of economic disparity.

Bulgaria doesn’t benefit if it’s brightest and most talented up sticks and move to London.

Local populations inheriting many people experience stresses on infrastructure, places in schools, doctors appointments, housing crisis, issues with significant cultural changes that they didn’t necessarily want nor ask for.

I feel the same way when I drive through Levenshulme as I do when I went to Benidorm on a stag do, and to see what Brits have done there.

I am pro immigration and completely appreciate the need for people with STEM skills, as an example, to come into the country and we should accept people from all around the world.

But we should do so in a controlled manner, where we set the criteria and where we can manage it. It’s why, one of the few things I approve of this year, from this government, is their new immigration policy. It’s actually a brilliant policy, that will grant different people the chance to come and settle, but ultimately those who have the skills we need.

It doesn’t matter whether they’re Bangladeshi or Dutch, that’s another aspect I like, it’s blind to where they are coming from.

We are a very crowded, small island and immigration being controlled is a very big benefit of leaving the EU.

However I still feel all the benefits of remaining, are greater than this specific policy.
 
BobKowalski said:
...or a roof, it’s a fucker selling a house without a roof. People notice.
Click to expand...
indeed. So you can have a roof over your head with a house built for you already being on this land, with locks on your doors to keep out whoever you don't want in your house.

But the UK has to have free movement of people and let in whoever wants to come, let them take houses built for people already here and do what they want because it's better that way, we can't have restrictions on who goes where we just have to accept it blindly because it's a "benefit".
 
west didsblue said:
It’s a valid argument but it also works the other way. Being a high cost high wage economy encourages companies to invest in the lower cost lower wage economies hence the increase in for example car production in places like Poland and Slovakia by companies based in France and Germany. This in turn brings higher wages to these countries and over a period of time it does bring a measure of equilibrium. Cutting ourselves off from that single market and freedom of movement won’t encourage inward investment into the UK, and this has been borne out over the last 4 years.
Click to expand...
That's nothing to do with free movement though. Globalisation has seen investment in lower wage economies for a long time. India, Bangladesh and the Phillipines aren't in the EU. Nor is China.
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
Should we not consign the 'side of a bus', along with the f/c of emergency budgets and WW3 to the past and not bring them up on this thread?

What is the benefit to this new thread of harping back to days of the campaign.

As @Ric said in the OP:

"It's the start of a new era for the UK and the EU....." should we not talk about the here and now and the future rather than keep banging on about the campaign of 2016?
Click to expand...
Or you could just ignore a one-line sarky comment rather than respond with a tedious lecture. In any case it was PB who raised what the result might have been in different circumstances.
 
west didsblue said:
Yep, I’m pretty sure everyone knew what the stadium was going to look like long before the site was cleared. They did this thing called planning which was costed and subject to a lot of scrutiny before getting the go ahead.
Click to expand...
And the taxpayer paid for the mess to be cleared up.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Wolfie Smith Posters | Redbubble
Click to expand...
Funny that you posted that Saddleworth.
I thought I was watching an old episode of Citizen Smith as well.
"Power to the People".
 
Ban-jani said:
The Erasmus decision was completely needless but in my opinion freedom of movement is a bonkers between nation states of economic disparity.

Bulgaria doesn’t benefit if it’s brightest and most talented up sticks and move to London.

Local populations inheriting many people experience stresses on infrastructure, places in schools, doctors appointments, housing crisis, issues with significant cultural changes that they didn’t necessarily want nor ask for.

I feel the same way when I drive through Levenshulme as I do when I went to Benidorm on a stag do, and to see what Brits have done there.

I am pro immigration and completely appreciate the need for people with STEM skills, as an example, to come into the country and we should accept people from all around the world.

But we should do so in a controlled manner, where we set the criteria and where we can manage it. It’s why, one of the few things I approve of this year, from this government, is their new immigration policy. It’s actually a brilliant policy, that will grant different people the chance to come and settle, but ultimately those who have the skills we need.

It doesn’t matter whether they’re Bangladeshi or Dutch, that’s another aspect I like, it’s blind to where they are coming from.

We are a very crowded, small island and immigration being controlled is a very big benefit of leaving the EU.

However I still feel all the benefits of remaining, are greater than this specific policy.
Click to expand...
I thought we'd all agreed that care workers were indeed skilled. The government's policy is to discriminate on income grounds, to keep out the huddled masses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top