# Could the UK not have free trade with the EU without free movement of people?



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

The vast majority of people in the UK and the rest of the EU agree that free trade is a good idea. 

If the British want to control their borders, then they should be allowed to do so. A free market or a single market is still a good idea. 

Or is there some economic argument which says that you can't have a free market without free movement of people?


----------



## tvman (11 Jul 2016)

I don't think its fundamentally an economic argument, but political. 
I think the arguments are a) if the UK gets a better deal than the current members of the EU (i.e. access to single market and the ability to restrict EU migration) then other countries will presumably look to exit on the same terms and the EU could unravel and b) newer EU members in particular want access to the UK labor market for their citizens and would block any deal along the lines you are suggesting.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jul 2016)

Doesn't North America have NAFTA without free movement of people between US, Canada and Mexico?
My understanding (from wikipedia) is that it is restricted under the TN status visa scheme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TN_status

The EU seems to have an ideological attachment to free movement of people. The EU is not a free market, it is a customs union.

It would be a lot easier to expand the EU further if there could be associate membership for UK, Turkey etc so that there could be free movement of goods but not labour.
This is currently also a bone of contention in relation to Switzerland's future in the single market (they are not an EU member).

I think the EU is in a bad situation where it seems to think it needs to make the EU a prison by hurting any country that wishes to exit. 

The solution to the concerns of new EU members is that their domestic economic situation needs improvement.
Relying on emigration as a release valve on a society is not going to lead to a flourishing society (e.g. Ireland in the 1950s or 1980s).
Is it in anyone's interest (the EU, the UK or the countries themselves) if Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia become nothing more than sources of labour for the rest?
What will these countries look like in a generation's time if their best and brightest see no future in their own countries?


----------



## rob oyle (11 Jul 2016)

Just to briefly mention the counterpoint: Why permit the movement of capital and services and not people? I'm no socialist but the only parties that would benefit from such an arrangement would be those with the capital or in control of services, and there's been enough of that already.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

rob oyle said:


> Why permit the movement of capital and services and not people?



Because capital, services and people are all different things. You could allow any one and not allow the other two. That should be a political choice or political agreement between consenting nations. 



rob oyle said:


> the only parties that would benefit from such an arrangement would be those with the capital or in control of services



If we sell our food to the UK and they sell cars to us, we all benefit.  Not just the capitalists.  The lower prices and economic growth are good for everyone.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

I also suspect that the free movement of people is something which benefits capitalists in the receiving country  a lot more than the ordinary citizen. Capitalists can get cheap foreign labour.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2016)

Why should Britain benefit from European jobs created by having access to the single market if they are are not prepared to allow the free movement of those jobs for all Europeans. What's to stop the UK using State Aid to poach even more jobs from the EU at the expense of other European Countries?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

Sunny said:


> Why should Britain benefit from European jobs created by having access to the single market if they are are not prepared to allow the free movement of those jobs for all Europeans.



Because it would be reciprocal. They allow the EU access to their market and the EU allows the UK access to the UK market. Both economies benefit. 

Brendan


----------



## Branz (11 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If we sell our food to the UK and they sell cars to us, we all benefit. Not just the capitalists. The lower prices and economic growth are good for everyone.


... Cars and food and cheap in the same sentence....

There are two aspects to the "free movement of people" mantra.
Free movement of EU nationals within the EU
Free movement of [undocumented/illegals/refugees (under number of headings)/etc] people from outside the EU within the EU.

The second one was at the heart of the Leave debate in Britain and was never envisaged by the founding fathers of what we now call the EU.

As for


Brendan Burgess said:


> The vast majority of people in the UK and the rest of the EU agree that free trade is a good idea.



I would suggest the vast majority of people in the UK and the rest of the EU have no idea what free trade is: good, bad or indifferent.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

Branz said:


> I would suggest the vast majority of people in the UK and the rest of the EU have no idea what free trade is: good, bad or indifferent.



Good point. But I have not heard anyone arguing for protectionist economic policies. 

Maybe the Remain camp should have created an artificial debate. Get some maverick economist to claim that stopping free trade would boost the British economy. 

Brendan


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Because it would be reciprocal. They allow the EU access to their market and the EU allows the UK access to the UK market. Both economies benefit.
> 
> Brendan



But it wouldn't be equal. Why would the EU allow Britain to say no to free movement of workers, no to EU regulation and no to contributing to the EU budget but still allow them to access to the single market to compete with European companies. Forget about the impact on Ireland which is an outlier and a different argument but the UK only accounts for about 10% of EU exports. At the same time, the EU accounts for over 50% of UK exports. I know German car companies don't agree but let's get real about who needs who here. 

Also, if you at an area like financial services, the UK has thousands and thousands of jobs based solely on having access to the single market. They don't exist without it so they are European jobs that are based in the UK. Which is fair enough if every citizen in the EU can get one but why should EU countries with high unemployment not turn around and say if want out, then leave but don't expect us to allow you remain the biggest financial centre and clearer of the European currency if you want to be by yourself. By all means, come up with mutually beneficial trade deals but the idea that the UK can access the single market on their own terms is delusional. And it's not about punishing them. It's simple economic reality because the single market dies if they get what they think they can get.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

Sunny said:


> but still allow them to access to the single market to compete with European companies.



Because the EU would be allowed access to the British market!  It's not about allowing the UK access to the single market, but not the reverse. 



Sunny said:


> Also, if you at an area like financial services, the UK has thousands and thousands of jobs based solely on having access to the single market. They don't exist without it so they are European jobs that are based in the UK.



Surely London was a major financial centre before the EU was created? 

I think it's clear that it has benefited from the single market. 



Sunny said:


> By all means, come up with mutually beneficial trade deals



OK, that is what I am getting at.  We should be aiming to create as free a market as possible.  Maybe if London has some unfair advantage in financial services, then exclude financial services from the deal. 

But why is the free movement of people dependent on access to the single market? 

There doesn't seem to be an economic argument. It's a political one.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jul 2016)

Sunny said:


> Why should Britain benefit from European jobs created by having access to the single market if they are are not prepared to allow the free movement of those jobs for all Europeans. What's to stop the UK using State Aid to poach even more jobs from the EU at the expense of other European Countries?



What is your source for this "poach even more jobs from the EU" reference?
The UK is out competing the EU in terms of job creation, largely because it avoided the financial disaster that was the euro. It cannot be blamed if the rest of the continent engages in massive job destruction and anti-employment practices. Look at the strikes in France when it tries to go one step in the same direction as the UK when it comes to making it easier to hire and fire.

What's to stop the trade agreement between the EU and the UK (and Switzerland, and Norway) from specifying rules on state aid?
Why doesn't the EU have a trade agreement with Canada, if it's so pro free trade?


----------



## TLO (11 Jul 2016)

Hi all

There are "four freedoms" at the heart of the European Single Market:

1)  Free movement of goods.
2)  Free movement of capital.
3)  Free movement of services.
4)  Free movement of people.

Acceptance of the "four freedoms" is a requirement for a country wishing access to the European Single Market.  Three countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway have accepted the four freedoms and have access to the European Single Market, even though they are not members of the EU.

The United Kingdom electorate have tasked their government to "cherry pick" the "four freedoms".  The electorate appears to want free movement of goods, capital, and services but not people.  While there is an economic argument, as Brendan pointed out in Post #1, for allowing the United Kingdom free movement of goods, capital, and services, it is not legally or politically possible for this to happen without accepting free movement of people as well.  Switzerland, for example, is at risk of losing it's access to the European Single Market following a 2014 referendum which was narrowly in favour of limiting immigration, which is mainly from EU countries.  The Swiss government has until 2017 to implement immigration quotas and it remains to be seen how this will play out.  

The British Government has been placed in an impossible situation by the UK electorate.  The British Government could negotiate out of the EU, whilst signing up to the "four freedoms" and keeping access to the European Single Market, but it would be a fudge of enormous magnitude as it would mean accepting free movement of people which the UK electorate appears to be against.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jul 2016)

TLO said:


> There are "four freedoms" at the heart of the European Single Market:
> 1)  Free movement of goods.
> 2)  Free movement of capital.
> 3)  Free movement of services.
> 4)  Free movement of people.



You seem to have missed the main point of Brendan's question though, in a single word, "Why?"
What's to stop the EU and UK coming to just such a deal?
I have zero respect for what's deemed "legally possible" or "impossible" in the EU, given how the ECB has been conducting itself for the last 10 years.
So it comes down to what's politically expedient.

And also, we don't have free movement of services. It's now 2016, and for a freedom "at the heart" of the Single Market, EU member states seems to be doing a very good job of cherry picking how much of that particular freedom we are allowed.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/

Perhaps the real problem with the UK is that they are too honest and open in their dealings with the EU. If they sign up to a deal, they mean to honour it. Whereas too many EU member states sign up in public but then in private and in all their adminstration and bureaucracy thwart it.

If you think there's free movement of services, try to service the French insurance sector from Dublin and see how far you'll get.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jul 2016)

Also, in relation to "free movement of people", the UK joined the EEC in 1973. Full freedom of movement did not arrive until 1992 with the Maastricht Treaty. So for almost half of its lifetime in the EEC\EC\EU, there wasn't full freedom of movement for workers between the UK and EU member states. It could hardly be the end of the world if the 1973-1992 situation was returned to, could it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Or is there some economic argument which says that you can't have a free market without free movement of people?



Just to restate my question Is there an economic argument for the free movement of people? 

There might be a political argument.


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is there an economic argument for the free movement of people?


I just . Answers include labour market flexibility (avoiding shortages and surpluses of labour), fixing demographic imbalances, skill sharing, and so on. Along with the benefits to the host country come responsibilities such as social welfare, healthcare and equal access to housing opportunities. I presume one problem with allowing post-Brexit Britain access to the free market without free movement of labour is not that it would disallow immigration, but would allow it on its own terms. That would mean the possibility of accepting migrant worker but denying access to the normal rights, or deporting them if they lose their jobs. Apart from the denial of workers' rights, that would represent an unfair economic advantage to Britain.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Jul 2016)

Hi dub_nerd

Great, so we are getting towards an answer. 

So if wages are too high in Ireland, Eastern Europeans will come in and do the work for a lot less. 
In Ireland we can build a financial services centre because experienced Europeans would be free to move here where Irish people wouldn't have the skills. 

So the Poles might say "We will let you sell your cars to us, but we don't really have anything much to export to you except our surplus of people."

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Jul 2016)

dub_nerd said:


> I just . Answers include labour market flexibility (avoiding shortages and surpluses of labour), fixing demographic imbalances, skill sharing, and so on. Along with the benefits to the host country come responsibilities such as social welfare, healthcare and equal access to housing opportunities. I presume one problem with allowing post-Brexit Britain access to the free market without free movement of labour is not that it would disallow immigration, but would allow it on its own terms. That would mean the possibility of accepting migrant worker but denying access to the normal rights, or deporting them if they lose their jobs. Apart from the denial of workers' rights, that would represent an unfair economic advantage to Britain.



How can it be unfair, if the EU can treat UK and non-EU workers in the same way that the UK can treat EU and on-EU workers?
The UK already issues visas to non EU workers, as does Ireland. One assumes that means we already have an unfair advantage?


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi dub_nerd
> Great, so we are getting towards an answer.
> So if wages are too high in Ireland, Eastern Europeans will come in and do the work for a lot less.
> In Ireland we can build a financial services centre because experienced Europeans would be free to move here where Irish people wouldn't have the skills.
> ...



If the Poles don't have anything to export to the UK, how are they going to pay for imports from the non-eurozone UK?


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Jul 2016)

I think if Poland had nothing to export other than its people it would not have much money with which to buy anyone's cars. Actually Poland is Europe's biggest exporter of electrical appliances having overtaken Germany and Italy. By attracting German manufacturers to relocate, it also built up its industrial base and experience, and ended up attracting additional Asian manufacturers, Samsung and LG etc. I wonder if this is one of Britain's disadvantages when it comes to the EU -- its manufacturing base has been eroding for decades, and it doesn't have (for instance) Berlin's proximity to the border municipalities of Poland, a short drive away.

Unable to avail of this continental advantage, I suspect Britain has meanwhile fallen foul of its other problem -- income inequality between London and the north. If the Brexit vote had been based on the economic advantage to Britain as a whole, it would surely have stayed in. But those advantages are distributed unevenly amongst the population, with a significant subset of lower paid workers finding themselves in competition with even cheaper migrant workers. Unfortunately for those upset Londoners, there is one vote per head of population, not one vote per euro of economic advantage.

This leaves Britain in something of a dilemma. It's competitiveness within Europe depends on migrant labour, but income disparity within the population makes migration politically unacceptable. This is something Britain is going to have to face up to, regardless of what sort of deal it can cut with the EU.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Jul 2016)

OK, so Poland and the UK can enter a mutually beneficial trading arrangement without the free movement of people? 

The Poles can sell their electrical appliances and buy the UK's cars. 

Happy days.  No need for Poles to have free movement into the UK. 

Brendan


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Jul 2016)

Polish wages are lower than the UK. More Poles want to work in the UK than Britons want to work in Poland. The UK will still be able to accept immigrant Poles but not give them the same economic rights as previously. This gives them an unfair advantage.


----------



## newirishman (12 Jul 2016)

The question on the ballot paper wasn't "do you want opt out of any of the 4 freedoms", it was simply put: leave the EU yes/no.
The 4 freedoms are the fundamental core principles upon which the European Union is build. It doesn't matter whatsoever if this was different before Maastricht. 
The freedom of movement says that all EU citizens have the same rights in any EU country (doesn't mean that the rights are the same in every country). 

I genuinely fail to understand why people object to this - because a worker born in Poland might work for less (in Britain) than a worker born in Britain and therefore puts the Britain-born out of a job? That's it? So why not fix the underlying issue, i.e. apparently the British person doesn't want / can't afford / whatever / to work for the same wage, so either fix the underlying wage (minimum wage agreements, sector-wide pay agreements, etc), or the cost of living, or other motivators that might be necessary to have "the local" take the job. Or seeing differently, apparently British companies can't afford to pay "higher" wages to get the locals to do the job. I would be surprised if British companies suddenly can magic up more money to pay higher salaries - they will just end up less competitive.

If "the foreigners" get "too much" from the welfare system, then (see point above) the "local" get too much from the welfare system as well - again, same rights. If there is "too much" welfare spent, change the rules.

There is no issue with entering into bilateral trading arrangements once the UK is out. Don't expect this to be a slam dunk affair though.


----------



## Firefly (12 Jul 2016)

Hi Brendan,

In economic terms there might be some gains resulting from the free movement of people in the EU, but I would think gains from the free movement of capital & goods would be far more significant...for example exports to non-EU countries has a big benefit to our economy.

I would doubt the economic reasons for allowing the free movement of people has anything to do with the current mess that has resulted in Brexit. 
If Britain opt out then eastern europeans have one less "rich" country to move to which would see them opting, in even greater numbers, to the likes of France and Germany. Is it any wonder Marie le Pen is ratcheting up the votes. Immigration of eastern europeans results in increased competition for lower paid jobs which is the "market" for UKIP, Sinn Fein, Front National and others. 

Whilst it may be nice in theory, I don't ever see the EU becoming a USA.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Jul 2016)

newirishman said:


> I genuinely fail to understand why people object to this - because a worker born in Poland might work for less (in Britain) than a worker born in Britain and therefore puts the Britain-born out of a job? That's it? So why not fix the underlying issue, i.e. apparently the British person doesn't want / can't afford / whatever / to work for the same wage, so either fix the underlying wage (minimum wage agreements, sector-wide pay agreements, etc), or the cost of living, or other motivators that might be necessary to have "the local" take the job. Or seeing differently, apparently British companies can't afford to pay "higher" wages to get the locals to do the job. I would be surprised if British companies suddenly can magic up more money to pay higher salaries - they will just end up less competitive.



A lot of people who voted to Leave, I think their point of view was, well what am I getting from the Polish person coming here and working for less?
Maybe it'd be better if we create less jobs, but they pay more, and are filled from the ranks of the British unemployed?
Likely there are some British companies that will not be able to compete at those wages, but from the point of view of an unemployed Leave voter in Manchester, those jobs are no use to him anyway. So clear the field for the ones who can.

It sounds like there is a mutual incompatibility between generous social benefits, and a country receiving mass immigration via the free movement of labour?
So why is it wrong for an unemployed Leave voter to say, no to free movement of labour, I don't want to see social benefits being cut?
Throw into the mix that there is only X amount of social housing, places in schools, hospital capacity to go around and is it any wonder people in that position are opposed to free movement?
What's the point of having a census every 5 years to plan social needs, if every year a small city can arrive from other EU countries?
I'm not an employed Leave voter in Manchester, but I'm trying to picture things from their shoes.

And I'm not disputing the logic of you underlying issue fix, but if it's so easy to fix an economy to get the unemployed working, why not fix Poland's?
Maybe if Britain isn't as competitive, some of those jobs will go to Poland instead? And everybody's happy?


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Jul 2016)

newirishman said:


> I genuinely fail to understand why people object to this - because a worker born in Poland might work for less (in Britain) than a worker born in Britain and therefore puts the Britain-born out of a job? That's it? So why not fix the underlying issue, i.e. apparently the British person doesn't want / can't afford / whatever / to work for the same wage, so either fix the underlying wage (minimum wage agreements, sector-wide pay agreements, etc), or the cost of living, or other motivators that might be necessary to have "the local" take the job.


Once the disparity is great enough, there is no easy fix. Suppose an eastern European can earn more at bartending in the UK than as, say, a teacher in his home country. He can do any job for less than a UK worker wants, and he is vastly more qualified at anything he chooses to do. The UK worker hasn't a chance. Meanwhile a bunch of other more fortunate UK workers get great benefit from the EU -- selling financial services and manufactured goods. Exports have increased at nearly 7% per annum since the GFC. There is bound to be two very different perceptions of the merits or demerits of immigration. You'll probably find the same all over Europe, with local variations.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Jul 2016)

There are other threads on Brexit generally. Please keep this thread for the very specific question:

Is the free movement of people essential to a single market? 

You might agree or disagree with the free movement of people. But discuss that in another thread.


----------



## TLO (12 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There are other threads on Brexit generally. Please keep this thread for the very specific question:
> 
> Is the free movement of people essential to a single market?
> 
> You might agree or disagree with the free movement of people. But discuss that in another thread.



The free movement of people is essential to the European Single Market as per the treaties that provide the legal basis for same.  Is the free movement of people essential to a single market?  Depends on what the single market is.  If it is just a goods market then the answer is no.


----------



## trasneoir (12 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is the free movement of people essential to a single market?


No. They are two distinct ideals. They are only connected because the EU considers both to be desirable. 
For countries that aren't wild about immigration/regulation, a spoonful of (free trade) sugar helps the medicine go down. This is why the EU is reluctant to offer one without the other.


----------



## newtothis (12 Jul 2016)

trasneoir said:


> No. They are two distinct ideals. They are only connected because the EU considers both to be desirable.



It's a bit more complex than that: they are connected in the sense that having free movement of people greatly facilitates the free movement of goods and services. Consider an Irish SME that wants to start selling into France. There are numerous ways of doing this, but one is to have someone just go there for a couple of years and get a local presence up and running. With free movement of people, this is very straightforward - no work visas required, no need to prove a need to anyone, just hop on a plane and do it. That's just one example. It's not essential to free trade, but makes it so much easier.


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Jul 2016)

There is another reason that free movement of labour is more than a "nice to have" added extra. Not all moves are permanent. Remittances from people working abroad back to their home country are a major part of how the home economy grows, which is ultimately good for the whole market since it increases purchasing power rather than just having a brain drain. Non-permanent movers are protected (and therefore encouraged) by not having to sacrifice health or welfare entitlements in either country.



Brendan Burgess said:


> There are other threads on Brexit generally. Please keep this thread for the very specific question...


Just a thought -- is there any way deleted posts can be moved to some sort of recoverable trash can? I'd have been happy to move mine to elsewhere, but not to write it again from scratch since it involved a bit of research. (Apologies, as this is probably for another thread too).


----------



## Jim2007 (13 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is the free movement of people essential to a single market?



Of course it is fundamental, there is a very big difference between a free market and a single market and the objectives of the EU to build a better community for all it's citizens.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is the free movement of people essential to a single market?



I have always understood that the economic case for free movement of people was to encourage economic development in the less developed areas of the EU.

Countries with a better educated workforce, greater capital formation, larger domestic markets etc. have a significant advantage over less developed economies.

Free movement of people allows individuals to travel to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the more developed economies. This can also benefit their home countries by creating a diaspora with experience working in the more developed economy. This seems to me to have been part of irelands success in the late 90s.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Jul 2016)

cremeegg said:


> I have always understood that the economic case for free movement of people was to encourage economic development in the less developed areas of the EU. Countries with a better educated workforce, greater capital formation, larger domestic markets etc. have a significant advantage over less developed economies. Free movement of people allows individuals to travel to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the more developed economies. This can also benefit their home countries by creating a diaspora with experience working in the more developed economy. This seems to me to have been part of irelands success in the late 90s.



I don't see how this can be so. The people who are going to get opportunities in the destination countries are skilled, young professionals - the kind of people that any country will want, visa based or via free movement of labour, that are as much in demand in other EU countries as non-EU countries such as Canada and Australia. The people who free movement is allowing in are low skilled, exactly the type non-EU countries also wish to exclude. Was the Irish experience of low-skilled workers on UK building sites in the 1980s what free movement of labour was intended for? We'd been doing the same thing since the 1950s. I don't think these are the diaspora you have in mind for the 1990s success.

Besides, unless the source country reforms its economy, as Ireland eventually had to, there's nothing for the diaspora to come back to. And *not* having an energetic, frustrated set of educated young professionals looking for opportunities makes it easier for less developed countries to avoid reform.

I remain completely unconvinced by the proposition that the free movement of people is *essential *for the operation of a single market, and that lack of free movement would undermine operation of the single market to an appreciable extent.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't see how this can be so. The people who are going to get opportunities in the destination countries are skilled, young professionals - the kind of people that any country will want, visa based or via free movement of labour, that are as much in demand in other EU countries as non-EU countries such as Canada and Australia.



Yes and a coterie of such people pressures their home country to reform and creates a pool of people to support that reform politically and provide skilled workers to staff it.




odyssey06 said:


> The people who free movement is allowing in are low skilled, exactly the type non-EU countries also wish to exclude.



In general the people being "allowed in" are highly motivated people attracted to the greater opportunities in a more developed economy. That the UK economy attracts low skilled workers to intensive farms in the east of England is a refection of the gap between much of the real UK economy, low skilled low productivity, and the economy they think they have.



odyssey06 said:


> Was the Irish experience of low-skilled workers on UK building sites in the 1980s what free movement of labour was intended for? We'd been doing the same thing since the 1950s. I don't think these are the diaspora you have in mind for the 1990s success.



Ireland exported a large contingent of well qualified engineers to English building sites in the 1980s as well. Many of them came home to drive the Celtic Tiger.

Of course at heart I believe in equal opportunity irrespective of where you were born. Which is of course an ethical argument and not an economic one.

So the answer to Brendan's question is probably that you can grow richer through trade and not share.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Jul 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Ireland exported a large contingent of well qualified engineers to English building sites in the 1980s as well. Many of them came home to drive the Celtic Tiger.



They came home when things picked up. They were not the ones who restarted the economy and got growth going. If we hadn't made reforms to our economy and tax system, they would have stayed away. Their return was most welcome, but it was conditional.

Ireland has exported a large contingent of well qualified professionals to the USA, Canada and Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East in the last 10 years. We don't have free movement of labour or a single market (or even free trade afaik) with any of those countries. Yet somehow they still want our well qualified professionals. In 2014, 14000 residency visas were granted by Canada alone to Irish citizens.

What we have is a demand in country A for well qualified professionals. These demands tend to find a supply.
Visa restrictions are precisely to ensure that only well qualified (e.g. Green Card) workers are allowed residence, or seasonal workers (e.g. J1) are allowed in for a limited time on a temporary basis.
So why does a single market need free movement of labour, if well qualified professionals can find opportunities in destination countries under visa based schemes?


----------



## 24601 (13 Jul 2016)

The answer appears to be quite simple, there's not much of an economic argument but there is a strong political one; at least from the point of view of an EU federalist who sees the political union as superseding the common market.


----------



## trasneoir (14 Jul 2016)

24601 said:


> The answer appears to be quite simple, there's not much of an economic argument but there is a strong political one; at least from the point of view of an EU federalist who sees the political union as superseding the common market.


Here's a thought - mass emigration is a relief valve that could help prevent a bursting national bubble turning into a national economic collapse.


----------



## cremeegg (14 Jul 2016)

24601 said:


> The answer appears to be quite simple, there's not much of an economic argument but there is a strong political one; at least from the point of view of an EU federalist who sees the political union as superseding the common market.



Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?


----------



## trasneoir (14 Jul 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?


24601 didn't say that all supporters of free movement are EU federalists, he said that EU federalists support free movement.


----------



## 24601 (15 Jul 2016)

trasneoir said:


> Here's a thought - mass emigration is a relief valve that could help prevent a bursting national bubble turning into a national economic collapse.



That's a fair point but it's a separate argument to unfettered free movement. There'll always be population flows between nations, whether there's a political union or not, but I think the question is around whether free movement within the EU has any economic rationale that underpins the common market? I don't think it does.


----------



## newirishman (15 Jul 2016)

24601 said:


> That's a fair point but it's a separate argument to unfettered free movement. There'll always be population flows between nations, whether there's a political union or not, but I think the question is around whether free movement within the EU has any economic rationale that underpins the common market? I don't think it does.



Of course it has. Limitation in free movement does cost businesses and economies money: lots more paperwork involved, lots more border controls, lots more administration, much higher barrier for people moving around to do business.
A simple example: I remember very well the summer traffic gridlocks on the Italy / Austria and Austrian / German border up until the early 00'ies where people where queuing for hours. And that was a inner-EU border before Schengen. Huge costs to individuals, economies, and environment.

This is on top of any perceived barriers in people's head that would prevent them from thinking about doing business abroad because of the true or perceived hassle of travel restrictions.


----------



## Delboy (15 Jul 2016)

Unlimited free movement also costs money and eventually impacts on the everyday lives of citizens


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Jul 2016)

newirishman said:


> Of course it has. Limitation in free movement does cost businesses and economies money: lots more paperwork involved, lots more border controls, lots more administration, much higher barrier for people moving around to do business.A simple example: I remember very well the summer traffic gridlocks on the Italy / Austria and Austrian / German border up until the early 00'ies where people where queuing for hours. And that was a inner-EU border before Schengen. Huge costs to individuals, economies, and environment.
> This is on top of any perceived barriers in people's head that would prevent them from thinking about doing business abroad because of the true or perceived hassle of travel restrictions.



We're talking about the right to work not the right to travel or transit. The UK and Ireland are not part of Schengen yet today we are in the single market.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2016)

I think we are overplaying the 'immigration cutting wages' reason for the Brexit vote. It tipped the balance maybe. But two thirds of Labour voters voted Remain. This all originated and was essentially driven by anti European right wing Tories.  And they are not in the least threatened by Polish immigrants, indeed they probably benefit from them.
Hence this is all essentially political and there will be very little good will for Britain's position even if it made economic sense all round to do as Brendan suggests.


----------



## 24601 (15 Jul 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?



They don't. I think the political union is more im


newirishman said:


> Of course it has. Limitation in free movement does cost businesses and economies money: lots more paperwork involved, lots more border controls, lots more administration, much higher barrier for people moving around to do business.
> A simple example: I remember very well the summer traffic gridlocks on the Italy / Austria and Austrian / German border up until the early 00'ies where people where queuing for hours. And that was a inner-EU border before Schengen. Huge costs to individuals, economies, and environment.
> 
> This is on top of any perceived barriers in people's head that would prevent them from thinking about doing business abroad because of the true or perceived hassle of travel restrictions.



There's a huge difference between people physically travelling across borders relatively hassle-free and people relocating to another state to reside and work (or not as the case may be). For what it's worth I'm in favour of the principle of free movement, but it's support for a political goal, not an economic one.


----------



## Jim2007 (15 Jul 2016)

Delboy said:


> Unlimited free movement also costs money and eventually impacts on the everyday lives of citizens



Except there is not unlimited free movement, this one of the biggest lies sold to the the people of the UK!  If the UK or Ireland for that matter applied the legislation like other countries then the steps would be as follows:

An EU citizen has the right to travel to another EU citizen for up to three months to seek employment
If after three months that person has not found employment they are entitled to apply for an extension of a further 3 months, however the state is entitled to refuse if it feels there is little likely hood of the person finding employment
If at the end of the 3 or 6 months the person has not found employment then the state can require them to return to their own state
And it does not stop there, EU citizens are entitled to be granted permanent residence status after 5 years, but again this is only if the can show that they have established an economically viable life style - permanent employment contract, no social support claims etc....
In the case of people wanting to retire abroad, you can only do so if you have sufficient funds to do so and even then your home state (the one that pays the biggest portion of your pension) is liable for your healthcare costs.
The legislation makes it very clear that the free movement of people should not create a burden on the host state.

So why has the UK not applied these rules as they have been done is say Germany for example????

The reason is this, the UK is required to treat EU citizens the same as UK citizens, so EU citizens in low income jobs are entitled to tax credits etc...  What the UK wanted to do was with hold such credits from EU workers and that is blatant discrimination and was never going to fly.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Jul 2016)

Jim2007 said:


> Except there is not unlimited free movement, this one of the biggest lies sold to the the people of the UK!  If the UK or Ireland for that matter applied the legislation like other countries then the steps would be as follows:
> 
> An EU citizen has the right to travel to another EU citizen for up to three months to seek employment
> If after three months that person has not found employment they are entitled to apply for an extension of a further 3 months, however the state is entitled to refuse if it feels there is little likely hood of the person finding employment
> ...



Thanks for posting some real information. Those restrictions seem eminetly sensible. One wonders why the Remain side didn't put that on a leaflet and letter drop it to every home in Britain!

But, if the UK is required to treat EU citizens the same as UK citizens, why are they allowed to deport them after 6 months if they haven't found work? It seems to be the distinction between denial of benefits and deportation is arbitrary, surely the fundamental point is that EU citizens in the host country do not have the same rights as citizens of the host country.
If it's blatant discrimination to deny benefits to someone just because they are a citizen of an EU country other than the host country, I am at a loss to understand why it's not blatant discrimination to deport someone just because they are an EU citizen of a country other than the host country.
The UK seem to feel that by obliging them to make the same level of benefits available, free movement of people is creating a burden on the host state.

If anything, these limitations on free movement strengthen the argument that the single market does not depend on free movement of labour. If these restrictions can be applied, why not others?


----------



## darag (17 Jul 2016)

I work in a small profitable office which is made up of a team of experts from over 10 different EFTA countries.  Assembling such a team would simply be impossible without freedom of movement.  There is no way a European company could compete in this business area with one from the US, say, using people drawn from a single country.  A big reason why places like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc. are global economic centres of specialist business is because they attract talent from a pool of 300 million.

If you want European companies to able to compete with American or Chinese ones, then it's vital they can draw on a large pool of talent.  London is a good example; it was a backwater in global finance until it found itself within a single market of over 400 million people.  Since then London has grown to be the biggest financial centre in the world by attracting the best bankers, lawyers, etc. from all over the EU.

A single market is NOT just free trade.  It allows specialization - the UK has become more service oriented in the last couple of decades while Germany and others have taken up the manufacturing slack. As a result, German cars are globally competitive as are UK financial services.  This is a healthy development for Europe as a whole.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Jul 2016)

darag said:


> I work in a small profitable office which is made up of a team of experts from over 10 different EFTA countries.  Assembling such a team would simply be impossible without freedom of movement.  There is no way a European company could compete in this business area with one from the US, say, using people drawn from a single country.  A big reason why places like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc. are global economic centres of specialist business is because they attract talent from a pool of 300 million.



The US is issuing 1 million green cards a year. Why is it doing that? Because they are attracting talent from a pool of 7 billion.
How many Irish, Chinese and Indians are working in Silicon Valley? Brits in Hollywood and Wall Street?
The US isn't in a single market with any of those countries. 



> If you want European companies to able to compete with American or Chinese ones, then it's vital they can draw on a large pool of talent.  London is a good example; it was a backwater in global finance until it found itself within a single market of over 400 million people.  Since then London has grown to be the biggest financial centre in the world by attracting the best bankers, lawyers, etc. from all over the EU.



Strange, every other European city found itself within a single market of over 400 million. Why did London became the biggest financial centre in the world and not some other major European city? What other European city in the 1960s was an important to global finance as London?
Let's assume London had some historic advantages, and perhaps some natural advantages - timezone, english language...

Somehow I don't think London will have any trouble getting staff, in or out of the EU, for those kind of positions. If they are world class bankers or lawyers, they are not going to have any trouble meeting prospective visa requirements.

Money talks, and it's up to London now to rely on those same advantages to maintain its position and attractiveness as a place to work for such in-demand talents.



> A single market is NOT just free trade.  It allows specialization - the UK has become more service oriented in the last couple of decades while Germany and others have taken up the manufacturing slack. As a result, German cars are globally competitive as are UK financial services.  This is a healthy development for Europe as a whole.



The whole point of free trade is specialization. New Zealand Lamb, Chilean wine, Japanese and Korean cars and electronics...

World class talents - the kind capable of keeping a european industry globally competitive - don't need unrestricted freedom of movement. They are going to qualify for any kind of points or visa based scheme going. So it's a false dichotomy to equate "no free movement" with "native talent pool only".


----------



## darag (17 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The US is issuing 1 million green cards a year. Why is it doing that? Because they are attracting talent from a pool of 7 billion.


I thought you did not see any economic benefit to allowing people to bring their talents to other countries?  So not only does the US benefit from a national talent pool of 300+ million people, they also allow immigration.  This is exactly the reason freedom of movement is integral to the economic well-being of Europe.  By the way, have you ever tried to get a visa to work in the US? 



odyssey06 said:


> How many Irish, Chinese and Indians are working in Silicon Valley? Brits in Hollywood and Wall Street?


Exactly - if restricted to "local" talent, neither Silicon valley, Hollywood nor Wall Street would be global powerhouses in their respective business areas.  The numbers of Brits in Hollywood are dwarfed by the numbers of non-Californian Americans.  Ditto for Wall Street.



odyssey06 said:


> Strange, every other European city found itself within a single market of over 400 million. Why did London became the biggest financial centre in the world and not some other major European city? Let's assume it had some advantages.
> 
> Somehow I don't think London will have any trouble getting staff, in or out of the EU, for those kind of positions. If they are world class bankers or lawyers, they are not going to have any trouble meeting prospective visa requirements.


I'm getting more and more confused.  The subject here is what are the economic benefits of having freedom of movement of people.  You seem to be objecting to my argument that to be globally competitive you need access to a large pool of potential workers.  Yet with each statement, you just re-iterate that workers from elsewhere is vital.

Could you clarify your position please?  Do you agree that allowing people to move to work in areas where their expertise is valued and relatively better paid, is of economic benefit?  If so, then I don't understand why you are arguing with me, since this is exactly my position and the reason for the EU to embrace such movement.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Jul 2016)

darag said:


> I thought you did not see any economic benefit to allowing people to bring their talents to other countries?  So not only does the US benefit from a national talent pool of 300+ million people, they also allow immigration.  This is exactly the reason freedom of movement is integral to the economic well-being of Europe.  By the way, have you ever tried to get a visa to work in the US?
> ...
> Could you clarify your position please?  Do you agree that allowing people to move to work in areas where their expertise is valued and relatively better paid, is of economic benefit?  If so, then I don't understand why you are arguing with me, since this is exactly my position and the reason for the EU to embrace such movement.



I've never tried to get a visa to work in the US but given the number of my graduating class who are working there, and the fact that 1 million people a year are getting green cards, it appears to be non-trivial but attainable.

I didn't say that there wasn't economic benefit ... but that allowing the host country to control it in places like the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia does not seem to have hindered those countries economic prospects, or its ability to attract talent from around the world, or to specialise in particular fields.
The EU on the other hand does not allow the host country to control it, it is unrestricted immigration in that sense. So the question is whether the single market requires unrestricted immigration i.e. free movement of people. I am arguing no.
I am not disagreeing with you on the benefits, but on whether those benefits necessarily require unrestricted immigration or can be obtained (as the other Anglosphere countries obtain it) by means of visa and points based schemes and other controlled schemes.
All the points I have made in this thread are in support of that position.

So, why is unrestricted freedom of movement integral to the economic well-being, and how would that economic well-being be damaged by more restrictions on movement of people? What is the minimum level of free movement of people required to support a single market?
As noted earlier, NAFTA does not have free movement of people, for example. So why *must *EFTA?


----------



## darag (17 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I've never tried to get a visa to work in the US but given the number of my graduating class who are working there, and the fact that 1 million people a year are getting green cards, it appears to be non-trivial but attainable.


The vast majority of that 1 million are family - children, parents and husbands/wives of US citizens.  The H1B program (for skilled workers) is restricted to around 80k a year.  Your friends' experiences are not representative.



odyssey06 said:


> I didn't say that there wasn't economic benefit ... but that allowing the host country to control it in places like the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia does not seem to have hindered those countries economic prospects, or its ability to attract talent from around the world, or to specialise in particular fields.
> 
> The EU on the other hand does not allow the host country to control it, it is unrestricted immigration in that sense. So the question is whether
> the single market requires unrestricted immigration i.e. free movement of people. I am arguing no.


No it does not - this has already been pointed out.  The EU only requires members to allow residency to EU nationals if they have a job or have sufficient means to support themselves.  And by the way, the Australian points system has plenty of flaws - google it - it requires paperwork, time and a large bureaucratic apparatus to administer and it, in fact, has not controlled the numbers in the way desired; lots of people get in but then struggle to get appropriate work and on the other hand, companies cannot always get the specific people they want or need though the system.



odyssey06 said:


> I am not disagreeing with you on the benefits, but on whether those benefits necessarily require unrestricted immigration or can be obtained (as the other Anglosphere countries obtain it) by means of visa and points based schemes and other controlled schemes.
> All the points I have made in this thread are in support of that position.


"The EU seems to have an ideological attachment to free movement of people."  I think you said.  I am pointing out that the principle of freedom of movement for people is not based on ideology but on economics.


odyssey06 said:


> So, why is unrestricted freedom of movement integral to the economic well-being, and how would that economic well-being be damaged by more restrictions on movement of people? What is the minimum level of free movement of people required to support a single market?
> As noted earlier, NAFTA does not have free movement of people, for example. So why *must *EFTA?


Do you believe that if the Americans suddenly decided that visas were required for citizens to move from state to state, that this would damage the economy of the USA?  I believe it would.  And so would it damage the economy of the EU to introduce 28 different points systems, conditions, delays, etc. to allow people to take up work in another EU country.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Jul 2016)

darag said:


> "The EU seems to have an ideological attachment to free movement of people."  I think you said.  I am pointing out that the principle of freedom of movement for people is not based on ideology but on economics.
> Do you believe that if the Americans suddenly decided that visas were required for citizens to move from state to state, that this would damage the economy of the USA?  I believe it would.  And so would it damage the economy of the EU to introduce 28 different points systems, conditions, delays, etc. to allow people to take up work in another EU country.



So why not extend it, why doesn't the USA have free movement with Mexico and Canada? And Brazil and Argentina? Or the EU for that matter?
The USA is a single fiscal-political entity, with social transfers to balance movements and a common language. People in California think about people in Wisconsin in a totally different way that people in Britain or France think about Greece or Poland. Accordingly, living standards within the US are such that you don't have a Britain-Poland type difference. A better analogy would be the US admitting Cuba as a new state. Do you think the US would within 2 years allow free movement?
But if it admitted Canada, it might well allow free movement in 2 years. That is the difference.

Free movement of people was not an issue for the UK when the EU had 15 countries of closer-matched living standards. It became a major issue only in the early 2000s with the accession of eastern European countries of significantly lower living standards than the EU core.

Your argument is in favour of free movement of people, full stop. It is not an argument - at least you have not made the argument so far - for free movement of people as an essential component of a single market of EFTA states, with restricted movement of people from non-EFTA countries into EFTA countries. Should the EFTA open up their borders to anyone who can find a job in an EFTA country within 3-6 months?

Canda and Australia, draw on a domestic labour market of 20-30 million, and use visa schemes to attract global talent. Their economic wellbeing puts forth a favourable comparison vis a vis the EU states including uk, france, spain, italy. So whatever benefits accrue to eu states from unfettered access to 400 m workers - they are not game changing.

So, why shouldn't Britain have single mimarket access without granting corresponding access to people?
If free movement of people has economic benefits to the destination country, then Britain will be the big losers, so why should the EU make it a red line in Brexit negotiations???
A purely economic rationale would see free movement extended to non-EFTA migrants. A purely economic rationale would continue free trade with Britain in the event of Brexit, because free trade without free movement is surely better economically for both parties than no free trade???
That is why I am saying the EU appears to have an ideological attachment to "free movement of people" within the EU member states.

The original question on this thread is not whether there are benefits to movement of people, or benefits to free trade but whether "there some economic argument which says that you can't have a free market without free movement of people?" I haven't heard a compelling one so far.


----------



## darag (17 Jul 2016)

I don't really know what you're trying to achieve with this line.  

Of course you can have an economic block without all of the freedoms. We could have an EU with no free movement of services.  We could have one without free movement of capital.  You could even restrict free trade to goods that are covered by the WTO.  All EU core freedoms are there because they are believed to be economically beneficial.  Even you seem to agree on the economic benefits of people being able to work in other countries.

The EEA provides this package of economically beneficial freedoms - you accept them all or you don't.  The EU has bigger global fish to fry instead of wasting diplomatic effort and negotiation teams on giving each member a full ala carte menu for membership - this was partially possible in the past but is simply  not feasible now with 28 members.  And in any case the whole is weakening by fragmentation of rules and regulations.


----------



## Jim2007 (19 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Accordingly, living standards within the US are such that you don't have a Britain-Poland type difference



You clearly have never spent time in the poorer parts of the deep south such as Alabama or Louisiana,  if that is what you think.



odyssey06 said:


> The original question on this thread is not whether there are benefits to movement of people, or benefits to free trade but whether "there some economic argument which says that you can't have a free market without free movement of people?" I haven't heard a compelling one so far.



The answer is that the OP clearly does not know what the EU is about - it's about building a better future for all it's citizens not just economically, but in total.  The EU is a major force of wealth redistribution through it structural funds and so on.  And building a single market as opposed to a free market is the objective, that means the free movement of all the elements of production.  And yes of course there is an economic benefit for the average citizen as he is free to supply his labour to the highest bidder anywhere in the union, should he choose to do so.  Just because the economic benefit does not fall to a company, does not mean it is not an economic benefit.

Why should the UK or another third country for that matter gain the benefits for the single market, while at the same time depriving the average citizen of their right to supply their labour to any part of the same market????  If UK just want free trade, fine go join EFTA or accept WTO rules, but if they want to get access to the full EU Single Market then they do it on the same bases as the member states by joining the EEA or by applying for EU membership assuming they have invoked article 50.


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Jul 2016)

Jim2007 said:


> Why should the UK or another third country for that matter gain the benefits for the single market, while at the same time depriving the average citizen of their right to supply their labour to any part of the same market????



Because EU citizens will be better off if with the UK in the single market rather than outside it; or with a free trade that represents the same.
If the EU restrict future trade with the UK in any way versus what it would have been if in the single market, it will hurt EU citizens, who will lose out on those opportunities to trade with the UK.
The EU will be better off still trading with the UK and Switzerland as if they were in the single market, than if they impose any kind of restrictions on trade to match the restrictions on labour proposed by UK\Swiss.

The EU should be reacting in a positive way, looking at why the UK was able to offer these economic opportunities to the rest of the EU, and make the EU more like the UK, instead of trying to turn the EU into a prison.


----------



## Jim2007 (19 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Because EU citizens will be better off if with the UK in the single market rather than outside it; or with a free The EU will be better off still trading with the UK and Switzerland as if they were in the single market, than if they impose any kind of restrictions on trade to match the restrictions on labour proposed by UK\Swiss.



Well first of all we (Switzerland)  accept the free movement of people and we pay into the structural funds plus we contribute to several other EU projects, so we're not the same as the UK.

The basis of the single market is free movement of all the elements of producing, by allowing the UK access without obligations would hit the citizens of several levels:
- Unable to sell their labour into the UK
- Less structural funds for distribution
- Unfair competition in terms of labour law etc...
You want the single market with all it's benefits then you must sign up to the program.  If you just want the free trade then sign up the EFTA and WTO.



odyssey06 said:


> The EU should be reacting in a positive way, looking at why the UK was able to offer these economic opportunities to the rest of the EU, and make the EU more like the UK, instead of trying to turn the EU into a prison.



More like the UK, seriously!
- It's run a balance of trade deficit from more than twenty years
- It's the last but two when it comes to closing business contracts (just a head of Greece and Malta), taking about 190 days
- It's the only major EU economy that was unable to improve it's balance of trade, hell even Italy has managed to do start producing positive trade balances
- Despite have control over it's own currency it has been unable to avoid having to introduce austerity measures and has now been forced to abandon it's deficit reduction plans
- It has decided to abandon a relatively rich market, in close proximity, for what we have yet to see
- As result of the exit strategy it's companies are now on sale as we have seen yesterday with the take over of ARM by Softbank yesterday
- It's financial services sector now faces the double challenge of having to over come the lack of passporting opportunities combined with the transaction taxes of doing business in the EU or walk away from a major chunk of assets under management.

There is a lot wrong with the EU that is for sure, but there are definitely may better models to follow than the UK.


----------



## dub_nerd (19 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Accordingly, living standards within the US are such that you don't have a Britain-Poland type difference.





Jim2007 said:


> You clearly have never spent time in the poorer parts of the deep south such as Alabama or Louisiana,  if that is what you think.



That occurred to me too. (I _have_ visited some of those places).  But it seems appearances can be deceptive. When I went and checked the figures, at least in terms of median household incomes odyssey06 appears to be correct. The Britain-Poland gap is about twice as wide as the richest to poorest US states.


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Jul 2016)

Jim2007 said:


> Well first of all we (Switzerland)  accept the free movement of people...



No you don't. From the BBC:
_Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries._



> If you just want the free trade then sign up the EFTA and WTO



No you can't. As noted above. The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.
I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour. By denying the UK the deal that they want they will hurt the EU as much as the UK.
There's about to be a 10 billion hole in the EU's annual budget if they lose the UK's contributions. Why not say to UK and Switzerland (who had contributed over 1 billion euros to enlargement projects in last 10 years) if you want freedom of movement restrictions, we want solidarity payments? Let the haggling begin.



> There is a lot wrong with the EU that is for sure, but there are definitely may better models to follow than the UK.



The UK isn't perfect, what country is? But there are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who are voting with their feet to take advantage of opportunities in the UK that they cannot get at home. The flow in the other direction is retirees and expats, not the best and brightest qualified workers.


----------



## Jim2007 (19 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> No you don't. From the BBC:
> _Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries._



At the moment we accept the free movement of people, but if we can't come to a new agreement in the autumn we will either have to continue with the current situation or we will end up with nothing.  So most likely either there will be another vote in Switzerland or the Swiss government will ignore the last vote and challenge the SVP to call an enforcement referendum which they most likely will not do as they have been on a loosing streak recently on such issues.



odyssey06 said:


> No you can't. As noted above. The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.



Of course you can, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, but not a party to the EAA-EFTA agreement.



odyssey06 said:


> I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour.



No because it excludes financial services.



odyssey06 said:


> The UK isn't perfect, what country is? But there are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who are voting with their feet to take advantage of opportunities in the UK that they cannot get at home.



Which is exactly how the single market is intended to operate....


----------



## darag (19 Jul 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.


You've been given plenty of benefits of the right for EU citizens to work in other EU countries - which you acknowledge - but then you ignore these reasons and repeat the word "ideological" like a mantra.  It's no more ideological than insisting on the freedom of movement of microwaveable breaded chicken breasts.  

The goal of the EEA is to provide a common market which is not a 1950s era "free trade" area - which only provided duty free import and export of bulk commodities like steel and coal.  Part of being in a single market is allowing Italian bankers to work in London, British fashion designers to work in Paris, French engineers to work in Germany,  Polish plumbers to work in Ireland, Irish software engineers to work in Amsterdam, etc. 



odyssey06 said:


> I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour. By denying the UK the deal that they want they will hurt the EU as much as the UK.


This is delusional; it will not hurt the EU as much as the UK.  Less than 10% of EU exports go to the UK while 60% of the UK's exports go to the EU.  Sterling has lost 11% to the Euro since the referendum which indicates who the markets believe will be damaged by brexit.  Worse for the UK is that they are a service oriented and exporting economy - exactly what is NOT covered by WTO rules - and trade deals on services can take a decade or more.  The UK has already seen a massive contraction in inward investment - which has funded their trade deficit for years - and most economists and the BoE are predicting recession before the end of the year. 

The UK is facing negotiations where they have no trump cards and will simply be offered the EEA deal or nothing - and they will take the EEA deal which is effectively non-negotiable and includes free movement of people plus a hefty annual bill.  You should read the letter from the Norwegian minister for European affairs in the last Economist to get a picture for what the UK is facing.



odyssey06 said:


> There's about to be a 10 billion hole in the EU's annual budget if they lose the UK's contributions. Why not say to UK and Switzerland (who had contributed over 1 billion euros to enlargement projects in last 10 years) if you want freedom of movement restrictions, we want solidarity payments? Let the haggling begin.


They will not lose the UK's contributions - like Norway and the others they will continue to have to pay to have access to the single market.  I'm willing to bet money that the net UK contribution will be within 20% of what they are paying now when they take the EEA deal.  The EU can simply name their price and the UK will have no option - besides a return to pre-single market 70s stagnation - but accept.



odyssey06 said:


> The UK isn't perfect, what country is?


The UK was doing great; blessed by EU membership, as a service oriented exporter, to find itself in a position to be able to sell services to a continent instead of an island.  London was transformed from a crumbling backwater in the 70s to a genuinely global city because it could serve an economic hinterland of 500 million people; able to compete with the great American cities, which have always had the advantage of a large hinterland, for the first time in a century.  But all the benefits of being part of a huge market - last enjoyed when they controlled an empire - is threatened by the hubris of brexit. Just have a look at a historical graph of UK GDP and you will see a long post-war relative decline before joining the EEC.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jul 2016)

darag said:


> They will not lose the UK's contributions - like Norway and the others they will continue to have to pay to have access to the single market.  I'm willing to bet money that the net UK contribution will be within 20% of what they are paying now when they take the EEA deal. The EU can simply name their price and the UK will have no option - besides a return to pre-single market 70s stagnation - but accept.



Except the EU won't let the UK into the single market, because the UK want to apply restrictions on freedom of movement. So they will lose the UK's contributions, unless they come up with a creative fudge that balances the UK's budget contributions v the single market v additional labour restrictions.
The economies stagnating in the EU right now are ones trapped into an inappropriate single currency with an inflexible domestic labour market, which is why their best and brightest are going to the UK. It was the reforms the UK adopted in the 1980s that revived the economy, just joining the single market wasn't enough.
We have been a basket case economy several times in our lifespan of  single market membership.


----------



## darag (20 Jul 2016)

The UK will not reject EEA membership because of freedom of movement.  Over 70% of UK immigrants are from outside the EU - from ex-British colonies.  Admitting these people into the UK had nothing to do with the EU and if the UK wanted to restrict this immigration, the were completely free to do so by changing their own laws.  Even of the remaining 30%, nearly a quarter are Irish who are entitled to move to the UK under the Common Travel Area.  So the EU freedom of movement is responsible for just over 20% of UK non-nationals.

Funny enough, Teresa May was minister responsible for immigration and could have done something about this 70% but failed to deliver on her promises.  Like politicians all over Europe, she used the common tactic of blaming her own failure to deliver on Brussels.  And unfortunately, there is a large gullible audience willing to swallow this sort of anti-EU propaganda. 

EU freedom of movement was hijacked by the brexit campaign in order to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment and latent xenophobia.  When it comes to the realpolitic of negotiating brexit, it will be forgotten.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jul 2016)

My final post on this thread as I've already spent waay too much time on it...

I don't understand the attitude that it's xenophobic to seek to control EU immigration but not other immigration - what does it matter if the people affected are Polish or Pakistani? I don't think it's anti-immigrant or xenophobic for Britain to seek the same level of control over immigration in its borders as Australia, Canada or New Zealand has.

There is clearly opposition to allowing UK continuing access to the single market (EEA) without corresponding freedom of movement. It's less clear why the EU insists on freedom of movement for non-EEA countries who are in EFTA (e.g. Switzerland), whose basis is more 'free trade' rather than 'single market'.
It should be noted that Switzerland's contributions to the EU budget are much smaller as an EFTA member than they would be as an EEA member (e.g. Norway). EEA member contributions appear to be almost on the same level as full EU member contributions.

As noted earlier from BBC website:
"Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries."

But I haven't heard anything so far to convince me that if realpolitik dictated it, freedom of movement couldn't be thrown under the bus by the EU - if they wanted to ... or in some EEA-EFTA fudged bilateral deal where everyone agrees to look the other way - officially, the UK would not be in the single market, but to almost all intents and purposes, it would be.
We will have to see how the chips fall on the negotiating table between single market access, EFTA membership, EU budgetary contributions, and freedom of movement.


----------

