Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Linton

Bantex wrote: »

I believe free movement of goods and services are economic matters, whilst free movement of people is a politcal stance.

There again the EU was always a political project disguised and an economic one.

My approach is based on:
- Politics is driven by the interests of power.
- The interests of power are provided by economics.
- Economics is driven by technology. Politics without a basis in economics starts with the mob and ends in failure.

The most efficient economic entities (countries or country groupings for example) will achieve greater wealth than the least, natural resources being equal. Efficiency requires optimal use of resources. People are resources. For maximum overall wealth people must be free, even encouraged, to move to where they are most needed.

antrobus

danothy wrote: »

You're belief is wrong on that latter count. The free movement of people is economic as it equates to the free movement of labour. ....

Well indeed, the EEA is based on the principle of the four freedoms; the freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital. That's what having a single market means.

After all, the UK was and is a single market, and we don't seek to control the number of Scots who want to emigrate to London, now do we? Or is that all simply a "political stance".:)

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

My approach is based on:
- Politics is driven by the interests of power.
- The interests of power are provided by economics.
- Economics is driven by technology. Politics without a basis in economics starts with the mob and ends in failure.

The most efficient economic entities (countries or country groupings for example) will achieve greater wealth than the least, natural resources being equal. Efficiency requires optimal use of resources. People are resources. For maximum overall wealth people must be free, even encouraged, to move to where they are most needed.

do you truly believe in the totally free movement of people?

maybe 1 billion people choosing to come to the UK?

do you believe that the free wishes of people to live in various places will coincide with maximising economic benefits.

do you believe that maximizing economic benefits is desirable?

do 'optimal' use of resource lead to good long term benefit (burning of rain forests provide excellent short term return but may have long term side effects)

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you truly believe in the totally free movement of people?

maybe 1 billion people choosing to come to the UK?

What I believe in is irrelevant, perhaps not to me but certainly to the world compared with the technological, economic, and sociological pressures that actually drive events.

Free movement is the way things are moving. For economic reasons yes, but also for sociological reasons. People are increasingly meeting others from elsewhere in the world in education, via immigration or holidays. They are getting married and wanting a place to live. Children are being born with a far less strong attachment to a single place. People with a good education are wishing to use that education where there is well paid work and companies around the world are demanding their expertise. Social media is helping the young understand that foreigners arent monsters. Technology is making global movements of population possible.

So its happening and I cant see any reason why it shouldnt end in complete global freedom of movement. Clearly the situation between now and then will need management, but the aim should be to allow it to happen smoothly minimising local difficulties, not to do a Canute.

do you believe that the free wishes of people to live in various places will coincide with maximising economic benefits.

I believe the alternatives of forced movement or prevention of movement are much worse and probably not achievable. Again though, what one believes doesnt matter too much. The actions of billions of individuals world wide is what will force events, each individual driven by what they consider to be their best interest which may well not be immediate financial gain.

do you believe that maximizing economic benefits is desirable?

do 'optimal' use of resource lead to good long term benefit (burning of rain forests provide excellent short term return but may have long term side effects)

As above - its what people do. You could try and stop them by force or try to change what drives them by global conversion to your religion of choice. I wouldnt bet anything on the success of either. Fortunately once most people reach a certain level of economic security what they consider to be their best interests becomes increasingly long term and "philosophical" and less simply maximum financial gain - see "Maslows hierarchy of needs".

So its in our interests having, generally, reached a level or two beyond the maximum immediate gain stage to ensure that other people also reach that stage.

One difficulty is that in capitalism we have an economic system that encourages maximum immediate gain. Unfortunately no-one has come up with another one that works. The centrally planned systems, ideally managed by people of unimpeachable virtue, have failed because they were unable to cope with the complexity brought about by technological change.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

What I believe in is irrelevant, perhaps not to me but certainly to the world compared with the technological, economic, and sociological pressures that actually drive events.

Free movement is the way things are moving. For economic reasons yes, but also for sociological reasons. People are increasingly meeting others from elsewhere in the world in education, via immigration or holidays. They are getting married and wanting a place to live. Children are being born with a far less strong attachment to a single place. People with a good education are wishing to use that education where there is well paid work and companies around the world are demanding their expertise. Social media is helping the young understand that foreigners arent monsters. Technology is making global movements of population possible.

So its happening and I cant see any reason why it shouldnt end in complete global freedom of movement. Clearly the situation between now and then will need management, but the aim should be to allow it to happen smoothly minimising local difficulties, not to do a Canute.



I believe the alternatives of forced movement or prevention of movement are much worse and probably not achievable. Again though, what one believes doesnt matter too much. The actions of billions of individuals world wide is what will force events, each individual driven by what they consider to be their best interest which may well not be immediate financial gain.





As above - its what people do. You could try and stop them by force or try to change what drives them by global conversion to your religion of choice. I wouldnt bet anything on the success of either. Fortunately once most people reach a certain level of economic security what they consider to be their best interests becomes increasingly long term and "philosophical" and less simply maximum financial gain - see "Maslows hierarchy of needs".

So its in our interests having, generally, reached a level or two beyond the maximum immediate gain stage to ensure that other people also reach that stage.

One difficulty is that in capitalism we have an economic system that encourages maximum immediate gain. Unfortunately no-one has come up with another one that works. The centrally planned systems, ideally managed by people of unimpeachable virtue, have failed because they were unable to cope with the complexity brought about by technological change.

It is possible that your vision will come to pass in a hundred years of so. A world without wars or divisions, all people concerned with the long term and no concerns with race religion or creed.

I don't think I share your optimistic view that we are inevitably moving that way.

However, in the mean time, allowing a billion immigrant to the UK would be undesirable.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

...

However, in the mean time, allowing a billion immigrant to the UK would be undesirable.

Probably technologically impossible and the UK would surely not be seen as a desirable place for net immigration long before a figure of 1Bn was reached. Is this a "strawman" argument?

jjlandlord

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe 1 billion people choosing to come to the UK?

What?! I was flabbergasted earlier to learn that 800 million illegal immigrants were preparing to storm our coasts by 2025, but now it's actually 1 billion?!

Doomed, I said, we are all DOOMED!

We urgently need a huge international PR campaign to remind the world that Australia is like England but with sun (plus all Australians look like Kylie Minogue for crying out loud) in order to send the hordes the opposite direction.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Probably technologically impossible and the UK would surely not be seen as a desirable place for net immigration long before a figure of 1Bn was reached. Is this a "strawman" argument?

would be immigrants are paying people trafficers thousands of pounds plus they are risking their lives to cross the med.

if all they had to do was pay the air fare to the UK what would your estimate be of the number coming?

TickersPlaysPop

By the way I have believed in the benefit of extra people into the UK since I became aware of it in early 2000's.

If the UK is being forced to accept a high net movement of EU citizens into the UK... why does the EU not dish out money back to countries like ourselves?

If EU citizens can move as and when they like, how can countries be expected to cope with this rapid change in demand on infrastructure? Roads, health, transport, services, facilities...

Surely there should be some support from the EU?

Also,... has anybody discussed the possibility of these EU citizens moving from the UK back to their countries of origin? What would that do if they did it on mass? This might happen if Spain, Italy etc move back into a vibrant healthy economic state.

leveller2911

The latest report by UCL (prof Christian Dustmann) which states that "highly skilled migrants " are a net gain to the UK by £20 billion surely the die hard pro EU posters on here would raise an eyebrow when UNL got its funding for the report from the EU?. It also fails to mention the low skilled EU migrants impact. They have no way of measuring EU immigrants cost to the NHS so they took a "guesstimate".

I still find it very strange that the likes of Hamish will still say "low skilled" immigrants will be net contributors.

Just gone onto the Governments "entitled to " website and punched in the following:

Couple living in the South East UK (not London) with one working 19-24hrs a week on NMW with the other one not working. They have 2 chilren aged 12 and 15, boy and a girl.The household income is £13,520 a year and they pay out £1,371-68p in tax and NI.They rent privately and their benefit entitlement is as follows.

Child Tax and working tax credits £7,075-40 per year
Housing benefit of £5,683-24 per year
Council tax benefit of £620-03 per year (based on £1,440-00 per year full)
Child benefit of £1,770-60 per year

Total Benefit entitlement for the year 2014-15 is £15,149-27

No way on Gods earth are the majority or EU immigrants net contributors. If you don't believe me see for yourself and put in a few scenarios from single parent to couples with 5 kids ,low skilled and earning around the NMW.

However, for me this isn't just about controlled immigration its about having the power to stop the dregs of the EU from coming here. If the UK had the power to stop Arnis Zalkalns from entering the UK then Alice Gross would still be alive.In 2009 he was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.

Its bad enough when the parole board release a "lifer" early, only for them to go out and commit yet more crimes,even murder but our elected leaders chose to make that policy but being within the EU its not in our Governments control. This is not the first case of an EU ex offender robbing or murdering in the UK.