UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Sheilbh]

No. The EU would rather lose the UK than desintegrate due to either making compromises on the very basic core values the whole thing was put together for, or for letting one member drop all the duties and keep all the benefits.

To go back to John Major's Berlin speech:

Free movement of people is a core principle of the Union and that must be so:  if we agree on free movement of capital and a free market, we cannot deny free movement.  Nor, as a matter of economic self-interest, should we:  across the EU, with its low birth rate and ageing population, our economies need young migrants with skills to power our economies.

I hear it said by eminent Europeans that freedom of movement is sacrosanct.  It is one of the four freedoms set out in the founding Treaty.  The argument is that if we tamper with freedom of movement, the other freedoms will fall.

I understand that view but it has a flaw.  Twenty five years after the Single European Act, the other founding freedoms are notfully honoured by the EU.  Not one of them.  If freedom of movement is immutable, when will member states complete the Single Market?  When will they end closed shops and protectionism, and open their markets to British services – especially our professional services?  When will they fully integrate capital markets?  Or the energy market?  Or digital?  Need I go on?  If these had been implemented in full, then Britain's case on free movement would be weakened.  But they are not.

...

The EU has a well-merited reputation for pragmatism.  It can pass a camel through the eye of a needle if it wishes to do so.  If France breaches her deficit limits – and this is not unknown – we all know time will be granted for France to meet her obligations:  no one doubts an accommodation can be found.  That genius for pragmatism – for compromise – is needed now.

That's their MP. Telling that people, of whom the vast majority is working here and contributing, would be handled an eviction notice from the country if he had his way. And he just got elected.

He later claimed he misspoke and was entirely at one with UKIP party policy which is anyone legally here (ie. Europeans) would be able to stay indefinitely.

He's been roundly attacked (though not enough) for straying into voluntary repatriation territory.

Edit: And of course the irony is the Conservatives went in so hard on immigration that he was able to pose as the moderate and accuse the Tories of running a 'BNP-lite' campaign

[Tamas]

Ok so Major's point is that we should just give up on the whole EU thing? Since freedom of movement is the only thing working as intended, and now the UK wants it out.

[Sheilbh]

Ok so Major's point is that we should just give up on the whole EU thing? Since freedom of movement is the only thing working as intended, and now the UK wants it out.

That's not his point, no. I'd suggest you read the speech. He's pro-European.

On immigration the Daily Mail printed this correction today:


I love that at no point did they ever think 'actually 32.9 million new immigrants in 2012 sounds a bit steep'

[alfred russel]

Ok so Major's point is that we should just give up on the whole EU thing? Since freedom of movement is the only thing working as intended, and now the UK wants it out.

From an outside perspective, it seems like the uk is getting a rather harsh deal regarding migration. English is increasingly the second and working language of europeans and many impoverished countries have entered the eu. If the eu is willing to compromise its other core principles but not work with the uk i can see how they would feel hard done by.

[Martinus]

You have to remember the freedoms are a package - UK may be getting a short end of the stick on migration while Poland is a net beneficiary - but at the same time Poland is in no way benefiting from the fact that a UK bank or an insurance company can freely open a Poland branch that does not need to comply with Polish regulations as long as they comply with the UK ones. Or that Germany can sell their manufactured goods here with no tarriffs.

Presenting the free movement of workers as a standalone freedom - and then arguing it does not benefit each EU member state - is extremely disingenous.

[Sheilbh]

Which a British bank or insurance company can't do. Financial services aren't included in the single market.

And as John Major points out our population has grown by 7% between censuses (I believe the biggest jump ever) not least because we're a country that attracts migrants and has a natural growth rate both of which are good. The UK's around the size of Romania, it's less than half the size of France or Spain. But we're projected, on current trends, to be the most populated country in Europe in around 30-35 years. I don't think it's entirely unfair for people to have concerns about the pace of change.

Here's the bit from the speech:

And the UK case on free movement is as compelling as it is misunderstood.  And it is misunderstood.  It is a matter of numbers.  Whereas some European populations are falling, the UK has grown by 7% in a decade.  Matching migrants to the size of host countries, the UK has accepted one of – if not the – largest population movement in peacetime European history.  That is our problem.

It is easy to see why the UK is such an attractive option.  We are an open society, with a flexible and open labour market.  We have a popular language.  We have a comprehensive welfare system.  We are probably the most diverse nation in the EU, and London may be the most cosmopolitan City in the world.

Many new arrivals are able to join existing communities of their fellow nationals.

All this, I understand.  I am not surprised that so many migrants wish to improve their lifestyle by moving to the UK.  It is a tribute to my country that they wish to do so.  And, if the numbers can be absorbed, we welcome them.  But the sheer scale of the influx has put strains on our health, welfare, housing and education services that we struggle to meet – and has held down wages for many of the poorest members of our society.

I hate having to make this argument.  I hate it.  As a boy, I was brought up among immigrants in South London.  They were my friends and my neighbours.  I have huge admiration for people prepared to uproot themselves to find work and a better way of life for themselves and their families.  It takes a great deal of courage to do so.  They deserve a warm welcome – not a chilly rebuff.

I do not wish to close our doors to strangers – especially strangers with skills from countries that are often allies.  But I do recognise – reluctantly – that our small island simply cannot absorb the present and projected numbers at the current speed:  it is not physically or politically possible without huge public disquiet

[Martinus]

Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

[alfred russel]

You have to remember the freedoms are a package - UK may be getting a short end of the stick on migration while Poland is a net beneficiary - but at the same time Poland is in no way benefiting from the fact that a UK bank or an insurance company can freely open a Poland branch that does not need to comply with Polish regulations as long as they comply with the UK ones. Or that Germany can sell their manufactured goods here with no tarriffs.

Presenting the free movement of workers as a standalone freedom - and then arguing it does not benefit each EU member state - is extremely disingenous.

Good point, equal access to markets like bulgaria and romania are key for british finance and industry.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

Still Marty's point is valid: free migration is the only EU aspect that is disadvantegous to the UK (supposedly, I think the jury is very much out on that). So getting increasingly demanding on it and threatening throwing your shoe in the soup bowl over it is not very nice.

[Sheilbh]

Still Marty's point is valid: free migration is the only EU aspect that is disadvantegous to the UK (supposedly, I think the jury is very much out on that). So getting increasingly demanding on it and threatening throwing your shoe in the soup bowl over it is not very nice.

But then in the EU as a whole? We're a net contributor and you'd be hard pressed to find less popular policies than the CAP or CFP in this country. And lots of other member states will die in a ditch to stop any liberalisation that might affect their vested interests that Britain tends to support. God forbid anyone tampers with the 800 regulated professions across the EU, or pushes the Dutch idea of a 'country of origin' in services.

So the issue isn't that we benefit it's that there's whole areas that the UK would like to see liberalised - such as services, agriculture, fisheries, energy - but nothing happens because of political opposition in other member states. The UK's unhappy about a free movement and is told to lump it or leave it. I don't think that's the right approach for the EU to take which is why, as Major points out, they generally show quite a lot of pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with states' objections to market liberalisation or to routinely flouting deficit rules.

As I say I think if we do renegotiate the EU's mind may well be focused by the fact that the centre right (polling at around 25%) in France want to re-write Schengen and that the far right (polling at 30%) want to leave the EU altogether. Their election will, after all, be in the same year as our putative referendum. The worry that we may be in the last days of France the good European will, I think, make British requests seem more reasonable. Especially as the UK doesn't want to end free movement but to amend it.

[The Brain]

What's amusing is that the EU would rather lose the UK than lose Romania.

No. The EU would rather lose the UK than desintegrate due to either making compromises on the very basic core values the whole thing was put together for, or for letting one member drop all the duties and keep all the benefits.

I don't follow.

[Martinus]

You have to remember the freedoms are a package - UK may be getting a short end of the stick on migration while Poland is a net beneficiary - but at the same time Poland is in no way benefiting from the fact that a UK bank or an insurance company can freely open a Poland branch that does not need to comply with Polish regulations as long as they comply with the UK ones. Or that Germany can sell their manufactured goods here with no tarriffs.

Presenting the free movement of workers as a standalone freedom - and then arguing it does not benefit each EU member state - is extremely disingenous.

Good point, equal access to markets like bulgaria and romania are key for british finance and industry.

I don't know about Bulgaria and Romania - but they do all come to Poland, so probably a 40-million market is not something to scoff at.

[The Brain]

I wish someone could take care of the Romanians in Sweden. No one deserves to live as a beggar.

[Martinus]

Sheilbh you are wrong. I have opened UK and French banks and insurers' branches in Poland before and they are not subject to Polish regulator's supervision. This is part of the EU wide passporting procedures. (the Polish regulator hates this by the way)

Ok, sorry.

But aren't they having to set up branches anywhere because, unlike in the market for goods, you have to establish a physical presence in a country?

He's not saying free movement's a standalone freedom, but rather that all of the freedoms are compromised and incomplete and it's misleading to set up this one as the sine qua non of the EU. If we had a perfectly free single market in all other areas then absolutely your point would be valid, but we don't.

They do have to set up a branch, yes, but this is much less onerous than setting up a subsidiary for example (a branch is effectively just an address with a director - it does not need to meet local funding/equity requirements etc. - which can be quite hefty, especially for banks and insurance companies).