Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

ambro25

davedanon wrote: »

you'd never know it. What are the first two?

French, und Deutsch. Though my spoken English is still better than both these days, truth be told. Not fully reacclimatised to the auld Continent yet.

Working on Luxembourgish for the past year and crumbs, but as it's closer to a dialect, particularly with no authoritative grammar for the written form, it's proving rather tricky.

theological

Freedom of movement isn't all it is cracked up to be. The EU have finally realised there is a problem with brain drain from Eastern Europe to Western European countries and are now trying to solve the problem 10 years too late with minimum wage rules.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European commission, pledged to bring in a common framework for setting a minimum wage as she sought to secure support among socialist MEPs for her leadership of the EU’s executive branch.

The commission is also under pressure to reverse the “brain drain” from east to west caused by huge discrepancies in salaries within the EU.

Meanwhile EU freedom of movement has triggered a population crisis in Croatia.

European Union freedom of movement rules have triggered a population crisis in Croatia, the last country to join the EU, with hundreds of thousands of Croats moving to Western Europe for higher pay.

“Croatia suffers a population loss equivalent to losing a small city every year,” Andrej Plenković, the prime minister, said at a press conference to mark the country holding the rotating presidency of the EU for the first time.

Britain's population has grown by a small city every year in terms of net migration in the same period.

I think we often think of freedom of movement from a Western European perspective.

davedanon

These are inevitable glitches, not reasons to scrap the whole thing. Overall, membership of the EU can be nothing but good news for poorer eastern European countries. That's why they joined.

davedanon

Those people who have left, many will return in time, with skills and buying power. tjhey will set up businesses and drive growth. It's a temporary period of adjustment.

theological

davedanon wrote: »

These are inevitable glitches, not reasons to scrap the whole thing. Overall, membership of the EU can be nothing but good news for poorer eastern European countries. That's why they joined.

I'm not sure Croatia sees this problem as a minor glitch.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of movement is not equally beneficial. It has costs on the nations that lose out.

There are plenty of structural problems with the EU. It has got too much power over member states. This is simply one of them.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I'm not sure Croatia sees this problem as a minor glitch.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of movement is not equally beneficial. It has costs on the nations that lose out.

There are plenty of structural problems with the EU. It has got too much power over member states. This is simply one of them.

If they were losing out, these governments would leave the EU as the UK is now doing.

The fact of the matter is that these countries are benefiting on the whole from EU membership. Freedom of movement can be reformed as necessary but removing the rights of people to emigrate so they can seek better opportunities elsewhere isn't the answer.

davedanon

The member are the EU. Everyone has an equal vote. Croatia wouldn't be in the EU if it didn't think it was going to benefit. We were a poor country when we joined. Did we lose out, overall?

davedanon

theological wrote: »

I'm not sure Croatia sees this problem as a minor glitch.

misquoting people isn't helpful. I did not use the word 'minor'.

theological

I think what I want the Europhile posters to acknowledge is that there are major downsides to EU policy even if they argue for remaining in. The impression I get is that you think there are no downsides.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

I think what I want the Europhile posters to acknowledge is that there are major downsides to EU policy even if they argue for remaining in. Because the impression I get is that you think there are no downsides.

Downsides, yes, very possibly.'Major' downsides, no. The EU has been overwhelmingly good for its members. And your impression is simply wrong. Maybe if you read what people actually post, instead of inferring stuff that isn't there.

Tony EH

theological wrote: »

I think what I want the Europhile posters to acknowledge is that there are major downsides to EU policy even if they argue for remaining in. The impression I get is that you think there are no downsides.

That's an impression you're giving yourself. Nobody here who thinks Britain crashing is dumb has said that there are no problems with the EU as it currently stands.

swampgas

theological wrote: »

I think what I want the Europhile posters to acknowledge is that there are major downsides to EU policy even if they argue for remaining in. The impression I get is that you think there are no downsides.

Any policy - at a local, national, international or even corporate level - will never be perfect, and will often have downsides as well as upsides. This is simply a fact of life. And the downsides can be unpredictable and require adjustments to the policy. Again, this is not contentious (I don't think anyway).

I'm not sure that anyone here is saying that the EU is perfect, or a Utopia, or that EU-wide policies don't cause some problems. Because they do. And the problems need to be acknowledged, and either the policy gets improved or the problems are accepted as an acceptable cost, when viewed alongside the benefits the policy brings.

If that's what you're looking for a europhile to say, I'm happy to say it.

First Up

theological wrote:

There are plenty of structural problems with the EU. It has got too much power over member states. This is simply one of them.

I'm amused to see the EU allowing free movement described as it having too much power. What would be less power - not letting people in, or forcing them to stay at home?

Migration is a global fact of life -215 million people worldwide have moved to live away from their home country. Of course there are positives and negatives - brain drain bad, remittances good - but the evidence from extensive research into the "diaspora" experience is that over time, there are benefits at both ends. In some cases (India an example) it has been transforming.

Ireland hasn't done too badly out of it either.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I'm amused to see the EU allowing free movement described as it having too much power. What would be less power - not letting people in, or forcing them to stay at home?

Migration is a global fact of life -215 million people worldwide have moved to live away from their home country. Of course there are positives and negatives - brain drain bad, remittances good - but the evidence from extensive research into the "diaspora" experience is that over time, there are benefits at both ends. In some cases (India an example) it has been transforming.

Ireland hasn't done too badly out of it either.

Free movement has been a staple of the EU and the EEC before it since 1957. Any country joining knows this and yet Europhobic posters present it as some sort of dastardly proviso forced upon member states after they join.

quokula

theological wrote: »

I'm not sure Croatia sees this problem as a minor glitch.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of movement is not equally beneficial. It has costs on the nations that lose out.

There are plenty of structural problems with the EU. It has got too much power over member states. This is simply one of them.

Why would Croatians be angry at having more opportunity to improve their lives, rather than being locked into one place?

If you forget about nations / borders for a minute. It's a fact of life everywhere that people move to where opportunities are. Villages in the west of Ireland lose out when their young people move to Dublin or Cork. Does that mean we should put a wall around those villages and tell them nobody is allowed out? It's superficially good for the area to limit outward migration, but it's terrible for anybody who's stuck there and wants to get out. And the people and their lives are more important than what is basically just a lump of land.

And that's fundamentally what freedom of movement is - it's good for people. And they're what matter, not esoteric concepts of nationalism.

theological

Let's do a roundup.

First Up wrote: »

I'm amused to see the EU allowing free movement described as it having too much power. What would be less power - not letting people in, or forcing them to stay at home?

It could be argued from both sides. It isn't good to wholly open borders because it leads to brain drain for poorer countries. From the other angle it puts strain on infrastructure in wealthier countries, and disincentivises employers from training domestic workers.

First Up wrote: »

Migration is a global fact of life -215 million people worldwide have moved to live away from their home country. Of course there are positives and negatives - brain drain bad, remittances good - but the evidence from extensive research into the "diaspora" experience is that over time, there are benefits at both ends. In some cases (India an example) it has been transforming.

I'm not opposed to immigration provided it is controlled.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Free movement has been a staple of the EU and the EEC before it since 1957. Any country joining knows this and yet Europhobic posters present it as some sort of dastardly proviso forced upon member states after they join.

I didn't argue this. I'm criticising free movement generally as a principle. I think it has a lot of drawbacks. Croatia are just one of the latest to see this from their perspective.

The caveat would be that perhaps it works well when all countries are matched similarly economically. This isn't true in the EU at present. Hence the brain drain in Croatia.

quokula wrote: »

If you forget about nations / borders for a minute. It's a fact of life everywhere that people move to where opportunities are. Villages in the west of Ireland lose out when their young people move to Dublin or Cork. Does that mean we should put a wall around those villages and tell them nobody is allowed out? It's superficially good for the area to limit outward migration, but it's terrible for anybody who's stuck there and wants to get out. And the people and their lives are more important than what is basically just a lump of land.

So why don't you advocate for global free movement if it is such a universally good principle?

First Up

theological wrote:

I'm not opposed to immigration provided it is controlled.

Controlled for the benefit of the receiving nation I presume. "Brain Drain" is a consequence of all migration everywhere. Your concern for poorer EU nations is touching but might you be just a teeeeeeny bit hypocritical in your selective concern for the countries they leave?

theological

First Up wrote: »

Controlled for the benefit of the receiving nation I presume. "Brain Drain" is a consequence of all migration everywhere. Your concern for poorer EU nations is touching but might you be just a teeeeeeny bit hypocritical in your selective concern for the countries they leave?

It works both ways. I was clear on this in my post. My reason for linking to the article about the migration from Croatia is to highlight that we may be Western Europe centric in our thinking.

I don't think that free movement is good for the receiving country either. Migration can be good if it is controlled according to need in the society and in the economy and according to how much provision of public services and infrastructure is required to maintain this movement.

Having the entire population of Cambridge and Oxford and then some every year is probably too much. That's three million over 10 years.

Arguing for reasonable controls is simply good government.

First Up

theological wrote:

I don't think that free movement is good for the receiving country either. Migration can be good if it is controlled according to need in the society and in the economy and according to how much provision of public services and infrastructure is required to maintain this movement.

So how should it be controlled to the benefit of the departing countries? You were worried about them yesterday when you thought it helped your argument.

theological

First Up wrote: »

So how should it be controlled to the benefit of the departing countries? You were worried about them yesterday when you thought it helped your argument.

Other countries controlling intake disincentivises mass movement and brain drain as well. I've said this already in previous posts.

First Up

theological wrote:

Other countries controlling intake disincentivises mass movement and brain drain as well. I've said this already in previous posts.

Ah, keeping them out for their own good. That's convenient. So presumably Steve Jobs should have been born in Syria and used his computer skills in the Damascus souk.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Ah, keeping them out for their own good. That's convenient. So presumably Steve Jobs should have been born in Syria and used his computer skills in the Damascus souk.

Again. Controlled migration is good. Mass migration is bad. You seem to be missing this acknowledgement in my post.

First Up

theological wrote:

Again. Controlled migration is good. Mass migration is bad. You seem to be missing this acknowledgement in my post.

Which neatly contradicts your concern for countries sending emigrants to the UK. "Controlled" migration is cherry picking.

By all means admit that the control just benefits the receiving country but spare us the faux concern for the senders

davedanon

Fed up with the unending cycle of brainless 'logic' and fact-free, free-form theorising on here? Have some Chris Grey. Both he and Tony Connelly should get medals.

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/01/as-costs-mount-brexit-goes-round-same.html

cryptocurrency

Mr Javid told the Financial Times: “There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule-taker, we will not be in the single market and we will not be in the customs union - and we will do this by the end of the year."

Now then, where is the big boy talk from the EU now

RasTa

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Mr Javid told the Financial Times: “There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule-taker, we will not be in the single market and we will not be in the customs union - and we will do this by the end of the year."

Now then, where is the big boy talk from the EU now

So like China then producing goods for the EU without all those pesky EU regulations like worker safety and such

ancapailldorcha

RasTa wrote: »

So like China then producing goods for the EU without all those pesky EU regulations like worker safety and such

Except that they'll start decades behind due to the all but complete destruction of their manufacturing industry.

cryptocurrency

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that they'll start decades behind due to the all but complete destruction of their manufacturing industry.

sure guys, maybe they should get a boards login and get advice from you lot?

Timberrrrrrrr

cryptocurrency wrote: »

sure guys, maybe they should get a boards login and get advice from you lot?

What do you think will be manufactured in the UK? What will they be world leaders in that will have everyone clamouring to buy their goods?

RasTa

cryptocurrency wrote: »

sure guys, maybe they should get a boards login and get advice from you lot?

Well their chancellor doesn't have a clue how the Japanese sell their cars to the EU so maybe someone needs to tell them.