Why is Freedom of movement a "pillarof the EU"

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
Its fairly widely accepted that the reason for Brexit was the freedom of movement , and a possibly decisive event , the humiliation of Cameroon by the other leaders when he looked for a deal on this.

Its regularly trotted out as not for discussion by politicians of all political persuasions from the EU and National governments

Yet I simply cant understand why its such a red line especially for those that claim to be on the left.

Its fairly obvious that freedom of movement has been of extraordinary benefit in keeping wages and conditions of employment repressed as floods of essentially young people flock across borders in search of work of any kind.

Regardless of educational achievement , they tend to work in low paid work , renting , causing a boom for already wealthy Landlords and with no hope of achieving pensions or even saving for a house deposit

Add in the fact that an island of just 5 million could easily be overwhelmed by a population of 500 million (funny how Prionsios De Rossas smarmy claim that "no more than 2,000 would come" is never aired anymore)

No one is arguing that movement should not be achievable , but whats wrong with a government controlling planning (and knowing ) who is in its country , who can avail of benefits and social services as well as regulating supply of Labour to reduce profits and increase workers standards of living

Why is it a pillar of the EU that a constant supply of cheap transient labour is available for exploitation by business and why does the left support this ?
 
Last edited:


ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,090
Ultimately, European federalist a want a USE. How else to foster trans-European culture and kinship than implement free movement of people.
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
Ultimately, European federalist a want a USE. How else to foster trans-European culture and kinship than implement free movement of people.
Is national sovereignty in your opinion inherently a good thing?
If so, are you equally opposed to the United Nations?
It, unlike the EU, has the authority to wage war on the authorization of a majority of the SC.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
Is national sovereignty in your opinion inherently a good thing?
If so, are you equally opposed to the United Nations?
It, unlike the EU, has the authority to wage war on the authorization of a majority of the SC.
Yes national sovereignty is a good idea ...... democracy should be moving down not up to a supranational level

And the UN comparison is ridiculous because it does not have the power to impose economic and legal decisions on Ireland .....
 

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,114
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
Its fairly widely accepted that the reason for Brexit was the freedom of movement , and a possibly decisive event , the humiliation of Cameroon by the other leaders when he looked for a deal on this.

Its regularly trotted out as not for discussion by politicians of all political persuasions from the EU and National governments

Yet I simply cant understand why its such a red line especially for those that claim to be on the left.

Its fairly obvious that freedom of movement has been of extraordinary benefit in keeping wages and conditions of employment repressed as floods of essentially young people flock across borders in search of work of any kind
That's not obvious to me. We have largely free trade with China now, are you arguing that the controls on the migration of Chinese people out of, or within, China is keeping their wages high? I don't think so.

The fact that skilled Chinese people can't move to the west, or even sometimes to prosperous regions within their own country is what keeps their wages down. You are entitled to look at it from just an Irish nativist viewpoint, but you can't expect any other countries to join an EU that has Irish nativism as its primary goal.

There is no doubt that free trade and investment increases wealth, but they are particularly to the benefit of industry and consumers. As Trump exploited, they don't benefit labour much. The real question you should ask is why should industry get free movement of goods and capital, but labour be pinned down in one location? This creates an imbalance of power that can be easily exploited - levelling down wages and conditions.

It is pretty clear that, for example, wages in Ireland and Poland are being levelled up, not down. Or you could choose to restrict the movement of all three; capital, goods and labour. Welcome to Pyongyang, comrade.

Add in the fact that an island of just 5 million could easily be overwhelmed by a population of 500 million (funny how Prionsios De Rossas smarmy claim that "no more than 2,000 would come" is never aired anymore)
Maybe because you don't provide a source...?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If you can explain how a single market could work while people need visas and paperwork to travel...

The alternative is freedom of movement for trucks but not their drivers, freedom for hedgefunds but not hedgefund managers and freedom of movement for services but not service providers.

It makes no sense. Trade is about people.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
That's not obvious to me. We have largely free trade with China now, are you arguing that the controls on the migration of Chinese people out of, or within, China is keeping their wages high? I don't think so.
I have no notion of living standards in China .... i suspect they're not great except for a tiny minority .....but as they are not part of the EU and have not had significant migration into Ireland under the "freedom of movement" from EU , i really cant see the relevance to the OP :roll:

The fact that skilled Chinese people can't move to the west, or even sometimes to prosperous regions within their own country is what keeps their wages down. You are entitled to look at it from just an Irish nativist viewpoint, but you can't expect any other countries to join an EU that has Irish nativism as its primary goal.

There is no doubt that free trade and investment increases wealth, but they are particularly to the benefit of industry and consumers. As Trump exploited, they don't benefit labour much. The real question you should ask is why should industry get free movement of goods and capital, but labour be pinned down in one location? This creates an imbalance of power that can be easily exploited - levelling down wages and conditions.

It is pretty clear that, for example, wages in Ireland and Poland are being levelled up, not down. Or you could choose to restrict the movement of all three; capital, goods and labour. Welcome to Pyongyang, comrade.



Maybe because you don't provide a source...?
Yep no quote becasue its from memory and couldnt be arsed looking , although Im fairly sure someone else will remember it given the prominence it was given at the time

Oh and Polish wages , may be rising ........ but the AIW is about 900 - 1000 (4000 zloty) per month .....which is below our min wage ....so not being levelled significantly at all
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,567
the Left has become protectionist and the Right has become free trade. Fancy that.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
If you can explain how a single market could work while people need visas and paperwork to travel...

The alternative is freedom of movement for trucks but not their drivers, freedom for hedgefunds but not hedgefund managers and freedom of movement for services but not service providers.

It makes no sense. Trade is about people.
Err no you would use National Insurance numbers, which every country has , as a means of controlling the Labour pool while not restricting Travel at all
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,491
Twitter
Deiscirt
Its fairly widely accepted that the reason for Brexit was the freedom of movement , and a possibly decisive event , the humiliation of Cameroon by the other leaders when he looked for a deal on this.
Only by extension. Freedom of movement within the EU wouldn't have been so much of an issue had that freedom not been effectively extended to the rest of the world.

Its regularly trotted out as not for discussion by politicians of all political persuasions from the EU and National governments
Intra-european free movement is a positive thing IMO. You'd have to be a serious knuckle-dragger to oppose it. However, given Europe's pourous borders, FOM has in practice meant FOM for the world, and that's a big problem. So big, we lost the most internationally significant member of the EU over it.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
Only by extension. Freedom of movement within the EU wouldn't have been so much of an issue had that freedom not been effectively extended to the rest of the world.



Intra-european free movement is a positive thing IMO. You'd have to be a serious knuckle-dragger to oppose it. However, given Europe's pourous borders, FOM has in practice meant FOM for the world, and that's a big problem. So big, we lost the most internationally significant member of the EU over it.

And there you have it ...the automatic pejorative abuse of anyone asking a legitamate question , that has alienated so many in a number of jurisdictions

The OP makes clear my reasons for opposition to completely uncontrolled inter EU mass migraton...that you choose to just describe me as a knuckledragger without any attempt to explain why you think my reasoning is flawed , says more about you than me .....loudly
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
Its fairly widely accepted that the reason for Brexit was the freedom of movement , and a possibly decisive event , the humiliation of Cameroon by the other leaders when he looked for a deal on this.

Its regularly trotted out as not for discussion by politicians of all political persuasions from the EU and National governments

Yet I simply cant understand why its such a red line especially for those that claim to be on the left.

Its fairly obvious that freedom of movement has been of extraordinary benefit in keeping wages and conditions of employment repressed as floods of essentially young people flock across borders in search of work of any kind.

Regardless of educational achievement , they tend to work in low paid work , renting , causing a boom for already wealthy Landlords and with no hope of achieving pensions or even saving for a house deposit

Add in the fact that an island of just 5 million could easily be overwhelmed by a population of 500 million (funny how Prionsios De Rossas smarmy claim that "no more than 2,000 would come" is never aired anymore)

No one is arguing that movement should not be achievable , but whats wrong with a government controlling planning (and knowing ) who is in its country , who can avail of benefits and social services as well as regulating supply of Labour to reduce profits and increase workers standards of living

Why is it a pillar of the EU that a constant supply of cheap transient labour is available for exploitation by business and why does the left support this ?
In a word. Cheap-Labour.
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,252
That's not obvious to me. We have largely free trade with China now, are you arguing that the controls on the migration of Chinese people out of, or within, China is keeping their wages high? I don't think so.

The fact that skilled Chinese people can't move to the west, or even sometimes to prosperous regions within their own country is what keeps their wages down. You are entitled to look at it from just an Irish nativist viewpoint, but you can't expect any other countries to join an EU that has Irish nativism as its primary goal.

There is no doubt that free trade and investment increases wealth, but they are particularly to the benefit of industry and consumers. As Trump exploited, they don't benefit labour much. The real question you should ask is why should industry get free movement of goods and capital, but labour be pinned down in one location? This creates an imbalance of power that can be easily exploited - levelling down wages and conditions.

It is pretty clear that, for example, wages in Ireland and Poland are being levelled up, not down. Or you could choose to restrict the movement of all three; capital, goods and labour. Welcome to Pyongyang, comrade.



Maybe because you don't provide a source...?
Yes he did.
Along with Dick Roche.
Who made a similar prediction.
Got it incredibly wrong.
But that's politicians.
Hopelessly wrong or disingenuous at best.
 

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,114
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
I have no notion of living standards in China .... i suspect they're not great except for a tiny minority .....but as they are not part of the EU and have not had significant migration into Ireland under the "freedom of movement" from EU , i really cant see the relevance to the OP :roll:
If you can't see the relevance of living standards in China, then you are naive indeed. We have largely free trade and (in one direction anyway) movement of capital with China, but as you say, little labour mobility. That means that the huge wealth accrued in Ireland and the rest of the west by their goods is of little benefit to labour in China. Industry loves it. Undercut western wages and exploit Chinese workers in one stroke.

Oh and Polish wages , may be rising ........ but the AIW is about 900 - 1000 (4000 zloty) per month .....which is below our min wage ....so not being levelled significantly at all
muh facts



Yep no quote becasue its from memory and couldnt be arsed looking , although Im fairly sure someone else will remember it given the prominence it was given at the time
Unfortunately quotes 'from memory' on internet forums is about as reliable as Trump 'facts' or half-remembered Polish wage growth figures.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,509
Its fairly widely accepted that the reason for Brexit was the freedom of movement , and a possibly decisive event , the humiliation of Cameroon by the other leaders when he looked for a deal on this.

Its regularly trotted out as not for discussion by politicians of all political persuasions from the EU and National governments

Yet I simply cant understand why its such a red line especially for those that claim to be on the left.

Its fairly obvious that freedom of movement has been of extraordinary benefit in keeping wages and conditions of employment repressed as floods of essentially young people flock across borders in search of work of any kind.

Regardless of educational achievement , they tend to work in low paid work , renting , causing a boom for already wealthy Landlords and with no hope of achieving pensions or even saving for a house deposit

Add in the fact that an island of just 5 million could easily be overwhelmed by a population of 500 million (funny how Prionsios De Rossas smarmy claim that "no more than 2,000 would come" is never aired anymore)

No one is arguing that movement should not be achievable , but whats wrong with a government controlling planning (and knowing ) who is in its country , who can avail of benefits and social services as well as regulating supply of Labour to reduce profits and increase workers standards of living

Why is it a pillar of the EU that a constant supply of cheap transient labour is available for exploitation by business and why does the left support this ?

The problem that developed with freedom of movement is the expansion of the EU into very low wage economies, freedom of movement is fine when we are all on a fairly level playing field, but the expansion to the east has massively altered the playing field and is distorting wages and the labour market in the higher wage economies.

Example in this country is the Greyhound bin strike, the threatened strike in tescos both attempts to remove longstanding staff and replace with staff on lower wages and conditions, because cheaper labour is available, the hospitality industry, cleaning etc have virtually removed Irish people from their staff as cheaper labour is available, the reaction will undoubtedly come here just as it came in the UK and the US.



Unfortunately most left wingers are trapped in all immigration is good, because those usually opposed to immigration are xenophobic, racist types that you don't want to be associated with.
Marx pointed all this stuff out nearly 150 years ago, most leftwingers have never actually looked at anything Marx said so it obviously is lost on them.


If the left wakes up soon and sees the lessons from the UK and the US that you are leaving a wide open space for the xenophopes and racists to exploit, they have been lucky that the ones here so far are a lacklustre bunch of crackpots, but with the right person/ people they are well capable of making inroads in this country.

You are correct, most are working in low paid work and that really doesn't affect the chattering classes if their bins are collected by an Eastern European on minimum wage or a guy from Coolock on a wage he could put a roof over his head and raise a family, but it affects those that are being displaced and moved to a life on low wages or social welfare.
Like I said we are creating the perfect breeding ground for racists and xenophobes it just hasn't been exploited yet.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
Intra-european free movement is a positive thing IMO. You'd have to be a serious knuckle-dragger to oppose it.
Problem is the scale of incomes among EU countries. The richest (Luxembourg) is 15 times wealthier than the poorest (Bulgaria). Whereas in the US the richest state (Maryland ... all those lobbyists and PS) is only twice as wealthy as the poorest (Mississippi).

It means that movement of Labour in the EU creates dislocations that you don't see in the US. For instance a months Childrens Allowance in Ireland is more than a months wages in some eastern EU countries.
 
Last edited:

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,509
If you can explain how a single market could work while people need visas and paperwork to travel...

The alternative is freedom of movement for trucks but not their drivers, freedom for hedgefunds but not hedgefund managers and freedom of movement for services but not service providers.

It makes no sense. Trade is about people.

The single Market worked whilst the 2004 countries didn't have freedom of movement. Why did they not give the newer members freedom of movement straight away ? because of the fear of mass immigration, so they waited but just not long enough the former Eastern block counries are still too far behind and those workers are moving to better paid western countries and being exploited.

I have no problem with immigration the problem is that it is being used to drive down wages, if any thought had been put into protection of the immigrants from exploitation then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in, and there is going to inevitably be a reaction just as their was in the UK.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,509
Problem is the scale of incomes among EU countries. The richest (Luxembourg) is 15 times wealthier than the poorest (Bulgaria). Whereas in the US the richest state (Maryland ... all those lobbyists and PS) is only twice as wealthy as the poorest (Mississippi).

It means that movement of Labour in the EU creates dislocations that you don't see in the US. For instance a months Childrens Allowance in Ireland is more than a months wages in some eastern EU countries.

A more sensible approach would have been to gradually bring in the former Eastern bloc, associate membership, free trade, etc until they had caught up with the existing members, or serious protection measures to prevent exploitation and the race to the bottom in the wage area, but of course that would never have suited big business.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
A more sensible approach would have been to gradually bring in the former Eastern bloc, associate membership, free trade, etc until they had caught up with the existing members, or serious protection measures to prevent exploitation and the race to the bottom in the wage area, but of course that would never have suited big business.
Which leaves you with the low paid migrants and now unemployed locals who used to do those jobs both looking for housing, healthcare, education etc. Which creates a huge strain on public services.

Except that doesn't affect the policy makers and quagocrats etc with their private healthcare, private schools and lush neighborhoods.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top