Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?
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.
24601 didn't say that all supporters of free movement are EU federalists, he said that EU federalists support free movement.Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?
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.
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.
Why does a person have to be an EU federalist to believe in equality of opportunity ?
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.
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:
The legislation makes it very clear that the free movement of people should not create a burden on the host state.
- 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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.How many Irish, Chinese and Indians are working in Silicon Valley? Brits in Hollywood and Wall Street?
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.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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
"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.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.
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 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?
"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.
Accordingly, living standards within the US are such that you don't have a Britain-Poland type difference
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.
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 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.