Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

If just a few per cent of leave voters wanted to keep freedom of movement then suddenly that means that the majority of voters wanted to keep it. It's fair to say the 48% who voted remain certainly wanted to keep it.

It's not at all fair or reasonable to claim that all 48% of those who voted Remain supported Freedom of movement. I've already pointed out that I myself am a direct counter-example to that kind of claim - I voted Remain despite being on balance opposed to freedom of movement in its current form. People would have had all sorts of reasons for voting Remain - and it's very notable that the Remain campaign at the time scarcely mentioned Freedom of Movement, instead focusing almost entirely on the (alleged) economic benefits of staying in the EU.

 

[Mikw]

Badenoch and Truss specifically, probably not, but the likes of JRM have made a lot of money due to the poor performance of the pound since Brexit. It would be naïve at best to believe that their actions and choices would have been 100% motivated by what is best for the country, given that they stood to personally gain from the country doing badly.

Mogg's father wrote a book about reducing human rights and how the upper class could benefit from it.

 

[nw1]

So if I've understood your argument correctly, you're saying that if a freedom has existed for a long time, then it should carry on, and it's wrong to then restrict that freedom?

How about these freedoms, which I believe have all been to some extent lost during the last 50 years after many years (in some cases, centuries) of people having those freedoms as absolute rights...?

1. The freedom to own any dog of any breed that you wish?
2. The freedom, once you own your dog, to allow it poo in any outdoor public location without having to do anything afterwards?
3. The freedom to own certain types of gun?
4. The freedom to drive without wearing a seatbelt?
5. The freedom to drive at up to 30mph in almost any residential area? (Still possible in lots of places, but increasingly being restricted).
6. The freedom to smoke almost anywhere?

I think most of these (with the possible exceptions of 4) and 5), which I am a bit more ambivalent about, certainly the 30mph thing, which was the norm until very recently - and I say that as a non-driver) are a bit different in the sense that they are clearly harmful.

I don't think the freedom of movement to the EU can be equated to the freedom to own a dangerous dog and let it defecate everywhere, or the freedom to own guns. I'm not an anarchist, I believe there need to be a wide range of laws to prevent bad things happening - but I am against suspension of freedoms for weak and controversial reasons.

This same argument could be used to justify other suspensions to long-standing freedoms, such as closing down all public footpaths, or completely banning alcohol both of which could be justified by some with arguments as reasonable as those for hard Brexit.

 

[najaB]

It's not at all fair or reasonable to claim that all 48% of those who voted Remain supported Freedom of movement.

It is, however, fair and reasonable to claim that all 48% of those who voted Remain voted to retain Freedom of Movement, which is the point that @jon0844 was making.

It's bizarre that a country that is so culturally similar to the UK can have such a different view on the EU. Euroscepticism is very rare in Ireland.

One rarely hears the term "Irish Exceptionalism" - which probably goes a long way to explain the difference.

 

[JamesT]

It's bizarre that a country that is so culturally similar to the UK can have such a different view on the EU. Euroscepticism is very rare in Ireland. I presume quite a few British citizens have now lived in Ireland long enough to start the process of becoming Irish citizens after moving there in 2016.

Maybe because Ireland has been a net recipient of EU funds? That may tilt the balance of good and bad for them.
It would be interesting to see how many did actually emigrate after Brexit, whether it's a significant number or just like the performative declarations that some people say that they'll leave the country if a particular party wins the election.

 

[RT4038]

Will continue here from points made (OT) on other threads.

Firstly, apparently we enjoyed freedom of movement since 1973, according to a post on another thread, so the current setup is not just the least freedom since 1992 (as I had thought), but actually since 1972. 50 years. Not good. Think about that: freedom of movement was introduced when the Mid Hants line was still open to regular passengers; a long time ago.

Thus really, if we're talking about modern times from the 1970s onwards, it's the current setup which is "odd", not the previous freedom of movement setup.

Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would. Often discussing "democracy" when it comes to the referendum, they forget that a 52% Brexit result is not a strong and clear majority for Brexit, but a very narrow one. Thus, a soft Brexit would be the most representative result, followed by a "Remain but accounting for the concerns of Brexiters". Hard Brexit in no way reflects the marginal result.

Freedom of Movement could only come with remaining in the customs/trade union, and being in the customs/trade union could only come with agreeing to abide with EU laws and rules. These rules and laws were increasingly threatening the City of London casino. This was frightening our political and business classes, so it had to be a 'Hard' Brexit. 'Soft' Brexit was never on the cards in their minds, because the threat would otherwise still remain. There was only a small window of opportunity to 'get it done', no matter how imperfectly. The unlimited immigraton to this country helped whip up the popular appeal of leaving the EU, but I do not believe that was ever a major consideration with the politicos. Always look to see where the money is threatened to find the real causes!

 

[nw1]

Mogg's father wrote a book about reducing human rights and how the upper class could benefit from it.

William? Didn't he kick up a stink about Monty Python's The Life of Brian too?
Never been a fan of that damned family.

Of the people I know who voted Leave, only about half listed Freedom of Movement as a main reason for their vote.

Generally my experience too, mostly "sovereignty" was the given reason. One person - ironically someone who was into hippyism, free love, illicit drugs and the like as a teenager in the late 60s and early 70s, ironically has now become someone with hardline anti-immigrant views - but they are in the minority.

I would hazard a very strong guess that there were more Leave voters that had no real problem with freedom of movement than Remain voters that did.

In any case, even in the specific area of freedom of movement, the Government adopted an "all or nothing" approach. Could we, for example, have not had a system in which we retained freedom of movement, but immigrants had to do a bit more paperwork on arrival (which would go through without problem, unless they were a terrorist/drug smuggler/people trafficker etc). I am sure that would have allayed most people's concerns.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think most of these (with the possible exceptions of 4) and 5), which I am a bit more ambivalent about, certainly the 30mph thing, which was the norm until very recently - and I say that as a non-driver) are a bit different in the sense that they are clearly harmful.

I don't think the freedom of movement to the EU can be equated to the freedom to own a dangerous dog and let it defecate everywhere, or the freedom to own guns.

Yes, the 'freedoms' I've cited are more clearly harmful, but I would say the principle is the same: You're having to balance one person's freedom against the harm done to others when people exercise that freedom.

In principle, freedom of movement is a great idea - people being able to go and live wherever they want - who can argue with that! But in practice, it did cause harm to others: Large scale immigration damages social cohesiveness, puts pressure on public services, makes it hard to plan for adequate infrastructure (because planning requires having a good idea what population growth will be), and also arguably drove down wages in the UK. Bluntly, you're got a choice between one person's freedom to go and live wherever they want, and someone else's freedom to actually find a decent home to live in the place where they've grown up, where their local community is, where all their friends and family are, and where they desperately want to continue living.

That's why it simply doesn't cut it to say, in effect, we've had this freedom for 50 years, so we must continue to have it.

Don't get me wrong, freedom is a great thing, and I share your philosophical belief in 'freedom and progress' and desire not to unnecessarily impinge on people's freedoms. Personally I see freedom of movement as a noble objective, but one that simply isn't practical in today's World, at least in the way the EU was trying to implement it.

I think you'd be more convincing if you tried to provide reasons for why you think freedom of movement is a sufficiently good thing as to outweigh any disadvantages, rather than keep saying, in effect, 'we've had it for X years, so...'

 

[johncrossley]

But in practice, it did cause harm to others: Large scale immigration damages social cohesiveness, puts pressure on public services, makes it hard to plan for adequate infrastructure (because planning requires having a good idea what population growth will be), and also arguably drove down wages in the UK. Bluntly, you're got a choice between one person's freedom to go and live wherever they want, and someone else's freedom to actually find a decent home to live in the place where they've grown up, where their local community is, where all their friends and family are, and where they desperately want to continue living.

So it is odd that the place most affected by large scale immigration and the place least equipped to deal with it (i.e. London) is staunchly pro-EU.

EU free movement has been replaced by theoretical unlimited immigration though the points system (anyone with enough points can come to the UK) and non-EU immigration is still high. So whilst British citizens have lost their free movement, people against mass immigration haven't got what they want either.

I read Irish boards quite a bit and I don't see any concern on there about EU immigration.

 

[SynthD]

It would have helped if the government had used the EU provided tool to reduce EU immigration, but they didn’t. Immigration is up, and more of it is non-EU, non-white, so it leave some of us confused about motives.

 

[JamesT]

So it is odd that the place most affected by large scale immigration and the place least equipped to deal with it (i.e. London) is staunchly pro-EU.

EU free movement has been replaced by theoretical unlimited immigration though the points system (anyone with enough points can come to the UK) and non-EU immigration is still high. So whilst British citizens have lost their free movement, people against mass immigration haven't got what they want either.

I read Irish boards quite a bit and I don't see any concern on there about EU immigration.

Though in theory the immigration should be of a different quality. The points system only allows highly skilled workers to enter, whereas freedom of movement makes it easy to hire minimum wage workers from elsewhere.

 

[Dent]

The point is that they are direct arguments for Brexit that many people find persuasive, and so amount to direct counter-examples to the claim that was made in this thread that there are no rational arguments for Brexit.

They are not valid rational arguments, and hence not counter-examples to the claim that there are no rational arguments, if they are founded entirely on false premises.

 

[johncrossley]

What I read on Irish boards is huge frustration with the disruption caused by Britain. They are totally on the EU side.

 

[najaB]

I think you'd be more convincing if you tried to provide reasons for why you think freedom of movement is a sufficiently good thing as to outweigh any disadvantages, rather than keep saying, in effect, 'we've had it for X years, so...'

To start with, we would need to agree what 'Freedom of Movement' actually means. As defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

EU citizens are entitled to:

• look for a job in another EU country
• work there without needing a work permit
• reside there for that purpose
• stay there even after employment has finished
• enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and all other social and tax advantages

Note that those rights are based around work - if you don't already have or are not actively looking for work then you have no right to stay.

Link: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though in theory the immigration should be of a different quality. The points system only allows highly skilled workers to enter, whereas freedom of movement makes it easy to hire minimum wage workers from elsewhere.

Agreed. And also - very relevant - the points system is under the UK Government's control: If at any time, it becomes apparent that the numbers of people taking advantage of the points system are not sustainable, then the Government can very easily modify the rules to take account of that. That was not the case for EU freedom-of-movement migration.

They are not valid rational arguments, and hence not counter-examples to the claim that there are no rational arguments, if they are founded entirely on false premises.

Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't stop it from being a rational argument. I see no demonstrably false premises in the arguments I cited. I think you are - like so many on the Remain side - falling into the trap of assuming that just because you don't agree with an argument, that somehow magically makes it not a rational argument that another reasonably intelligent person couldn't agree with.

 

[johncrossley]

Agreed. And also - very relevant - the points system is under the UK Government's control: If at any time, it becomes apparent that the numbers of people taking advantage of the points system are not sustainable, then the Government can very easily modify the rules to take account of that. That was not the case for EU freedom-of-movement migration.

Immigration has been high for decades, long before EEC membership. Governments have had the power to curtail it but have chosen not to. So while in theory the UK Government is in full control, in practice they choose not to exercise that power. Because they know that mass immigration is required in all developed economies, regardless of any rhetoric that comes out of their mouths to appeal to voters. So the overall net result, in practice, is the loss of free movement to UK citizens.

 

[nw1]

Yes, the 'freedoms' I've cited are more clearly harmful, but I would say the principle is the same: You're having to balance one person's freedom against the harm done to others when people exercise that freedom.

In principle, freedom of movement is a great idea - people being able to go and live wherever they want - who can argue with that! But in practice, it did cause harm to others: Large scale immigration damages social cohesiveness, puts pressure on public services, makes it hard to plan for adequate infrastructure (because planning requires having a good idea what population growth will be), and also arguably drove down wages in the UK.

I think these are theories rather than facts, and do not outweigh the positives for freedom of movement. What about these positives:

- another country provides more job opportunities in the area you wish to work?
- you prefer the culture of another country?
- you find the UK's winters very challenging, due to the very short daylight hours and excessive rain and gloom, difficult and suffer from SAD, and relocation to somewhere further south (sunnier, longer days) or east (drier) would considerably alleviate this?
- you have met someone in another country, and want to continue the relationship without stifling state bureaucracy?
- your friends are from another country, and they return to their home country, and you want to move there with them?

To my mind, suspending freedom of movement is proven to make things difficult, while the perceived disadvantages of freedom of movement are just conjecture. In particular, the argument that EU migration has caused the UK's population to increase drastically is a weak one, from what I gather EU citizens never made up more than 1 in 20 of the population, so having 20 people now for every 19 is scarcely a huge difference.

Bluntly, you're got a choice between one person's freedom to go and live wherever they want, and someone else's freedom to actually find a decent home to live in the place where they've grown up, where their local community is, where all their friends and family are, and where they desperately want to continue living.

But doesn't migration within the UK cause this? Why is it OK to make life difficult for say a French or Italian person to live in the UK, but not OK to prohibit an affluent person from the Home Counties to migrate to Cornwall or Wales and drive up house prices there?

I too have noticed less of a sense of community in the rural UK but it doesn't seem to be foreigners causing it, rather Home Counties people moving in because it's the latest desirable, fashionable area, and all the old pubs closing down to be replaced by expensive new establishments attracting said clientele.

Don't get me wrong, I do not approve of restrictions on people moving within the UK either - I want to make that absolutely clear - but just trying to get to the bottom of why one is automatically OK and the other isn't.

That's why it simply doesn't cut it to say, in effect, we've had this freedom for 50 years, so we must continue to have it.

Except that people didn't fuss about it in the 70s, 80s and 90s, or not that I could see. It only seemed to be the rise of people like Farage, and the Tories perceiving Farage as a threat, which made people think it was an issue.

Also I ask again, what about the public footpath or alcohol scenarios: semi-reasonable arguments could be made for the closure of the former and the banning of the latter. Should such arguments also be listened to and acted upon, even though the disadvantages obviously outweigh the advantages?

 

[Dent]

Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't stop it from being a rational argument. I see no demonstrably false premises in the arguments I cited. I think you are - like so many on the Remain side - falling into the trap of assuming that just because you don't agree with an argument, that somehow magically makes it not a rational argument that another reasonably intelligent person couldn't agree with.

Nowhere did I claim I my disagreeing with an argument magically makes it not rational, that is a strawman which you made up. My point was that for an argument to be rational the premises on which it is based have to be actually true, not merely "allegedly" true.

 

[nw1]

Though in theory the immigration should be of a different quality. The points system only allows highly skilled workers to enter, whereas freedom of movement makes it easy to hire minimum wage workers from elsewhere.

I am slightly sceptical of points systems. For example what if you are not "highly skilled" but have other, personal, reasons to make migration important for you?

 

[AlterEgo]

I am slightly sceptical of points systems. For example what if you are not "highly skilled" but have other, personal, reasons to make migration important for you?

You don't have a divine birthright to just move and work anywhere because you have a reason you believe to be compelling, that is how nearly all the borders of the world work.

 

[RT4038]

I think these are theories rather than facts, and do not outweigh the positives for freedom of movement. What about these positives:

- another country provides more job opportunities in the area you wish to work?
- you prefer the culture of another country?
- you find the UK's winters very challenging, due to the very short daylight hours and excessive rain and gloom, difficult and suffer from SAD, and relocation to somewhere further south (sunnier, longer days) or east (drier) would considerably alleviate this?
- you have met someone in another country, and want to continue the relationship without stifling state bureaucracy?
- your friends are from another country, and they return to their home country, and you want to move there with them?

But if none of these apply to your personal circumstances (and they are all pretty niche activities in the general round of things), then none of them are positives

There is nothing 'obviously' an advantage in freedom of movement if you don't want/need to partake in any of these niche activities, but possibly more disadvantages obvious on your home turf.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think these are theories rather than facts, and do not outweigh the positives for freedom of movement.

I would say, they are disadvantages of freedom of movement for which there seems to be pretty substantial evidence that they are true.

What about these positives:
- another country provides more job opportunities in the area you wish to work?
- you prefer the culture of another country?
- you find the UK's winters very challenging, due to the very short daylight hours and excessive rain and gloom, difficult and suffer from SAD, and relocation to somewhere further south (sunnier, longer days) or east (drier) would considerably alleviate this?
- you have met someone in another country, and want to continue the relationship without stifling state bureaucracy?
- your friends are from another country, and they return to their home country, and you want to move there with them?

To my mind, suspending freedom of movement is proven to make things difficult, while the perceived disadvantages of freedom of movement are just conjecture. In particular, the argument that EU migration has caused the UK's population to increase drastically is a weak one, from what I gather EU citizens never made up more than 1 in 20 of the population, so having 20 people now for every 19 is scarcely a huge difference.

Sure, they are positives for people who want to move to other countries. I never said there weren't any positives. And actually those are arguments that I would have more respect for: Citing the positives of freedom of movement. The question is, do the positives outweigh the negatives. My view is that they probably don't.

A 5% population increase may sound small, but remember that's not 5% evenly spread around the country. Immigrant communities tend - for very obvious and understandable reasons - to congregate in small areas, so an average 5% increase will be a much greater increase in some parts of the country. And even 5% is an awful lot of new infrastructure you need to build if happens on a relatively quick timescale.

But doesn't migration within the UK cause this? Why is it OK to make life difficult for say a French or Italian person to live in the UK, but not OK to prohibit an affluent person from the Home Counties to migrate to Cornwall or Wales and drive up house prices there?

Yes, it does. And migration within the UK (and particularly people buying 2nd homes) is also a problem for local communities. But at some point you have to be pragmatic about things. Restricting people's freedom to live anywhere within their own country is a very different (and much more severe) thing from restricting people's freedom to roam the World and go live in any country they please.

There is also a practical matter that someone moving within the UK is already familiar with UK customs, laws, way of life etc., and will almost certainly speak fluent English, so it's much less likely that there will be problems associated with people moving in who aren't familiar with how a community 'works'.

Except that people didn't fuss about it in the 70s, 80s and 90s, or not that I could see. It only seemed to be the rise of people like Farage, and the Tories perceiving Farage as a threat, which made people think it was an issue.

In the 70s, 80s and 90s, the numbers taking advantage of freedom of movement were much, much, lower, which meant the problems it caused from the 2000's onwards weren't an issue. I wouldn't say that Farage etc. was the cause of the change in attitudes: Movements like UKIP were more of a response (possibly an unpleasant response) to the vast increase in immigration that was already happening. Lots of people would have thought it was an issue whether or not someone like Nigel Farage came along - because they could see how mass immigration was suddenly changing their communities and putting a huge strain on their housing/services/etc.

Again, you have to look at things in a pragmatic way: Say you decide that, in order to get to know your neighbours better, you throw a small house party and spread the word that people who live around you are invited to your house one evening. Say 5 people turn up.... not a problem at all: You've just made 5 new friends! But if you do the same thing and 50 people turn up... big problem! You're probably going to very suddenly decide that this wasn't a good idea! That's kinda what happened with Freedom of Movement during the 2000s.

Also, back in the 70s/80s, the then EEC was much smaller, and all members had similar standards of living. Freedom of movement kinda works in that situation. But then in the 2000s the EU expanded to include many countries with much lower standards of living, so all of a sudden you had mass migration from poorer countries to richer ones (particularly the UK) in order to take advantage of the higher wages. Freedom of movement doesn't work so well in that situation!

Also I ask again, what about the public footpath or alcohol scenarios: semi-reasonable arguments could be made for the closure of the former and the banning of the latter. Should such arguments also be listened to and acted upon, even though the disadvantages obviously outweigh the advantages?

Same principle, I would say. You have to balance the advantages against the disadvantages, and decide where the balance lies. So yes, you would listen to the arguments on both sides.

 

[edwin_m]

Really? I find that surprising because I can think of many rational reasons why people might support Brexit. Off the top of my head, rational arguments include...

1. Freedom of movement was (allegedly) dragging down wages, putting too much pressure on our infrastructure, and making it impossible for the Government to predict population numbers and so plan apporpriate infrastructure for the future.
2. EU regulations were (allegedly) harming business and competitiveness by putting too much regulatory burden on companies.
3. EU farming/food production regulations and subsidies were (allegedly) harming the environment.
4. It was discriminatory that people from EU countries could freely come to the UK but people from non-EU countries couldn't - and the immigration pressures caused by EU freedom of movement were making it politically impossible to ease visa rules for non-EU countries.
5. The EU had (allegedly) made too much Government too remote from the population - more local Government can be more responsive and more alert to the needs of its people.
6. The particular bureaucratic / political structure of the EU was making essential reform too difficult.
7. Restoring rules to Westminster could (allegedly) make it easier to reform/change regulation so we could be more responsive to changing circumstances.
8. A stable, cohesive, society requires Government to be at a level/cover an area that most people feel a strong attachment and sense of loyalty to. Most people feel that sense of loyalty to the UK in a way that people don't feel to the same extent towards the EU (speaking generally of course, obviously there are exceptions). That suggests we should be keeping Government within the UK.

There does seem some irony that i the same post you criticise other people for 'ignorance, stupidity, and venality', before a few sentences further on, admitting your own ignorance about the existence of rational arguments for Brexit!

(NB: Before you reply to disagree with some of those arguments: Remember, I'm not claiming that there aren't counter-arguments. Of course there were many rational arguments for Remain as well. And it's in the nature of politics that there are usually good arguments on both sides, and that it's pretty much always possible to pick holes in any argument. The point is that what I've cited are rational arguments for Brexit, which many people found/still find strongly persuasive).

I concede the point there are some rational arguments, though not really exercised much in previous discussions on the forum. Many of them don't hold water on closer inspection, for example the labour shortages and the promised wage rises being outpaced by inflation suggests that the economic benefits of losing freedom of movement are illusory. Despite being outside the EU, unless we damage ourselves further by cutting it off completely (fog in Channel...) we still have to follow most of their social norms and standards. Your point 8 I take to be a joke, considering that Brexit has split the country down the middle.

One rarely hears the term "Irish Exceptionalism" - which probably goes a long way to explain the difference.

Ireland was of course ruled and arguably oppressed by Britain for several centuries, but despite that history was happy to be a member of the EU. And Northern Ireland voted to remain.

Freedom of Movement could only come with remaining in the customs/trade union, and being in the customs/trade union could only come with agreeing to abide with EU laws and rules. These rules and laws were increasingly threatening the City of London casino. This was frightening our political and business classes, so it had to be a 'Hard' Brexit. 'Soft' Brexit was never on the cards in their minds, because the threat would otherwise still remain. There was only a small window of opportunity to 'get it done', no matter how imperfectly. The unlimited immigraton to this country helped whip up the popular appeal of leaving the EU, but I do not believe that was ever a major consideration with the politicos. Always look to see where the money is threatened to find the real causes!

However it's now quite likely that the EU will freeze the City out of their financial services markets, particularly if standards diverge too far or as retaliation for the UK breaking agreements in other areas.

 

[johncrossley]

If free movement is so undesirable then the other EU members wouldn't agree to it, or would have stopped it once the expansion into central/eastern Europe happened. It simply isn't considered a big deal.

 

[RT4038]

I concede the point there are some rational arguments, though not really exercised much in previous discussions on the forum. Many of them don't hold water on closer inspection, for example the labour shortages and the promised wage rises being outpaced by inflation suggests that the economic benefits of losing freedom of movement are illusory. Despite being outside the EU, unless we damage ourselves further by cutting it off completely (fog in Channel...) we still have to follow most of their social norms and standards. Your point 8 I take to be a joke, considering that Brexit has split the country down the middle.

They all hold some water, but the counter arguments may hold more! I suspect there is no right or wrong in any of them, just opinion. There has not yet been anything to show ( not wishing to partake in any of the niche activities in the list provided by @nw1 ) what overall advantage there is of my Free movement vs. my town being full of Eastern Europeans?

However it's now quite likely that the EU will freeze the City out of their financial services markets, particularly if standards diverge too far or as retaliation for the UK breaking agreements in other areas.

Yes, but it is not quite the same - it is not EU regulation, interference and, god forbid, exposure.

If free movement is so undesirable then the other EU members wouldn't agree to it, or would have stopped it once the expansion into central/eastern Europe happened. It simply isn't considered a big deal.

Perhaps they have not had such a large movement to their countries?

 

[johncrossley]

Perhaps they have not had such a large movement to their countries?

All the rich EU members in northern Europe have seen significant movement.

 

[RT4038]

All the rich EU members in northern Europe have seen significant movement.

Perhaps the difference is they are all Europeans, whereas we are not?

 

[MikeWM]

My opinion would be that free movement is very desireable in the abstract - when you get down to it, borders are just silly political constructs, and limiting where a person can go simply based on where they were born is actually incredibly perverse when you think about it.

*However*, given we have the system of nation states we have, with different and distinct economic standings, different cultures and languages, etc. you can't just unravel that in the blink of an eye and hope that everyone moving where they feel like will just 'work', because it doesn't. 'You wouldn't start from here', but we are starting from here, and we have to accept that.

It is admirable to *aim* for such a system, but I think the EU system went too far, too quickly, especially after expanding into the very different ex-communist eastern Europe economies.

There's also another element that applies more specifically to Britain - being an island, we have a strong idea of our borders as they are fairly obvious and geographically natural (excluding Northern Ireland of course!) Most of the rest of Europe is a contiguous landmass where borders have been fluid and often-changing over the past 200 years or so.

 

[johncrossley]

Perhaps the difference is they are all Europeans, whereas we are not?

What about the Irish?

 

[nlogax]

Perhaps the difference is they are all Europeans, whereas we are not?

As EU residents sure, you may have a point. We're not those anymore. But we ARE Europeans. Like it or lump it.