United States of Federal Europe, anyone?

[thecrashingisles]

 

I have no objection to legal migration.  I think you've confused me with a bigoted racist caricature that was promoted by the Remain lobby when they struggled with other arguments.

I do not think that governments should pursue policies that necessitate (mass) migration.  I think all governments should pursue stable economic environments in which citizens can flourish without being forced to migrate.

Why does free movement across the EU necessitate mass migration any more than free movement across the UK?

[NobodyInParticular]

 

 LOL.  Perhaps you hadn't noticed... the electoral system does not allow me to vote against a candidate - just for a different candidate.  I can't "vote them out" because my only option is to vote for another candidate - who, also, doesn't work for me.

True, and 'none of the above' would be a valid option to have, although complex if 'none' wins.

 

Debt is not a resource, it is an obligation.

Debt is a resource if you use it appropriately as well as an obligation.

[A.steve]

 

Why does free movement across the EU necessitate mass migration any more than free movement across the UK?

🙂  Are you talking about 'freedom of movement of labour' or 'freedom of movement by people'?

The EU pillar requires freedom of movement of labour to be absolute.  This requires that governments refrain from policies that may interfere with the migration of the demand for labour.  I think this is undesirable as it encourages companies to engage in location oriented arbitrage (for tax etc.) to seek advantage. There is a cost to ordinary people who find they have to migrate if they want to continue to pursue their career.

The UK applies national taxes - so there is limited opportunity for arbitrage between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.  If devolution in the UK led to significantly differing tax and regulatory regimes, it would likely be very desirable for there to be policies to discourage migration of requirements for labour.  Even if the regimes were identical, I still think there are advantages in encouraging businesses to commit to their their local community and to establish relationships of trust for mutual benefit.

Freedom of movement of Labour within the EU is distinct from within the UK as the latter is a single sovereign nation with a single fiscal policy and national legislature... while the former involves many sovereign nations, with distinct fiscal policies (for now, at least); distinct national legislature and (broadly speaking) distinct languages, heritage and culture.

[thecrashingisles]

 

🙂  Are you talking about 'freedom of movement of labour' or 'freedom of movement by people'?

The EU pillar requires freedom of movement of labour to be absolute.  This requires that governments refrain from policies that may interfere with the migration of the demand for labour.  I think this is undesirable as it encourages companies to engage in location oriented arbitrage (for tax etc.) to seek advantage. There is a cost to ordinary people who find they have to migrate if they want to continue to pursue their career.

The UK applies national taxes - so there is limited opportunity for arbitrage between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.  If devolution in the UK led to significantly differing tax and regulatory regimes, it would likely be very desirable for there to be policies to discourage migration of requirements for labour.  Even if the regimes were identical, I still think there are advantages in encouraging businesses to commit to their their local community and to establish relationships of trust for mutual benefit.

Freedom of movement of Labour within the EU is distinct from within the UK as the latter is a single sovereign nation with a single fiscal policy and national legislature... while the former involves many sovereign nations, with distinct fiscal policies (for now, at least); distinct national legislature and (broadly speaking) distinct languages, heritage and culture.

Free movement says nothing about governments implementing policies that might impact the demand for labour. You've made that up.

As for heritage and culture, you're aware that the UK has more than one native language?

[A.steve]

  

 

Free movement says nothing about governments implementing policies that might impact the demand for labour. You've made that up.

I have not made up that the second " pillar" is "freedom of movement of labour". The non-negotiable absolute is not "freedom of movement for people" - though that has been a popular misconception.  Allowing people to move around the EU and live/work in any country they chose is a policy, but it isn't a fundamental, non-negotiable, principle.  The rights of citizens are not the foucs of the pillars.

 

As for heritage and culture, you're aware that the UK has more than one native language?

Tha - agus cuideachd, ann an cleachdadh, chan eil ach aon air a chleachdadh airson rud cinneasach.

Oes - a hefyd, yn ymarferol, mai dim ond un sy'n cael ei ddefnyddio mewn gwirionedd ar gyfer unrhyw beth o ganlyniad.

[Cockney rhyming slang translation left as an exercise for the reader.]

Edited October 13, 2020 by A.steve

[thecrashingisles]

 

  I have not made up that the second " pillar" is "freedom of movement of labour". The non-negotiable absolute is not "freedom of movement for people" - though that has been a popular misconception.  Allowing people to move around the EU and live/work in any country they chose is a policy, but it isn't a fundamental, non-negotiable, principle.  The rights of citizens are not the foucs of the pillars.

You're still twisting it in a very bizarre way. Free movement means individuals have freedom. It doesn't mean that member states are obliged to implement labour policies that encourage migration.

Edited October 13, 2020 by thecrashingisles

[A.steve]

 

You're still twisting it in a very bizarre way. Free movement means individuals have freedom. It doesn't mean that member states are obliged to implement labour policies that encourage migration.

This is not how the second pillar of the EU puts it.  The EU pillar does not talk about individuals and their freedoms - it talks about labour and obligations on government not to hinder its movement between countries.  The EU pillar about freedom of movement of labour has at least as much in common with the idea that (if slavery were to be permitted) that slave traders should not be taxed when moving slaves between jurisdictions.  The pillars are focused on forms of taxes, levies and tariffs that are unacceptable to the EU - they do not confer individual rights.

None of the four EU pillars are statements about individual liberty. All four are absolutist ideological ideas intended to control and constrain governments.  One might argue that these constraints are desirable - but that would be an argument from a particular political perspective.

Edited October 13, 2020 by A.steve

[thecrashingisles]

 

This is not how the second pillar of the EU puts it.  The EU pillar does not talk about individuals and their freedoms - it talks about labour and obligations on government not to hinder its movement between countries.  The EU pillar about freedom of movement of labour has at least as much in common with the idea that (if slavery were to be permitted) that slave traders should not be taxed when moving slaves between jurisdictions.  The pillars are focused on forms of taxes, levies and tariffs that are unacceptable to the EU - they do not confer individual rights.

None of the four EU pillars are statements about individual liberty. All four are absolutist ideological ideas intended to control and constrain governments.  One might argue that these constraints are desirable - but that would be an argument from a particular political perspective.

Of course they are about individual liberty. They restrict the ability of the state to control the individual. Your analogy with slavery is quite revealing about the way you see that relationship.

[A.steve]

 

Of course they are about individual liberty. They restrict the ability of the state to control the individual. Your analogy with slavery is quite revealing about the way you see that relationship.

I disagree with your assertion that the 4 pillars restrict the ability of the state to control the individual.  If your idea of individual liberty is that it is synonymous with requiring that government place no tariff on cross-border transactions... then I could see why you hold your opinion.

I chose the wording of my (admittedly emotive) example of slave-trade tax carefully. If there is a relationship analogous to slavery today, then it would be the exploitation of staff by corporations that, in turn, are left with scant alternative by the motivations arising from the regimes within which they operate.

I don't think I am blase about the risks of state over-reach... but I also don't think the solution is to empower the global corporates.  I don't think the state is the only entity that presents a risk to the liberty of individuals.

[A.steve]

 

Debt is a resource if you use it appropriately as well as an obligation.

No. Credit is a resource. Debt is an obligation.

[Pindar]

Look not at what the EU is doing but at what the bankers are up to. This is irrelevant to the UK since it left the club. It will be business as usual afterwards though, since with banking, there are no borders as such. Expect house prices to be propped up no matter what until they're ready to pull the plug globally. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Pindar

[thecrashingisles]

 

I disagree with your assertion that the 4 pillars restrict the ability of the state to control the individual.  If your idea of individual liberty is that it is synonymous with requiring that government place no tariff on cross-border transactions... then I could see why you hold your opinion.

I chose the wording of my (admittedly emotive) example of slave-trade tax carefully. If there is a relationship analogous to slavery today, then it would be the exploitation of staff by corporations that, in turn, are left with scant alternative by the motivations arising from the regimes within which they operate.

I don't think I am blase about the risks of state over-reach... but I also don't think the solution is to empower the global corporates.  I don't think the state is the only entity that presents a risk to the liberty of individuals.

You are just veiling an identity-driven argument behind a smokescreen of guff about unrelated issues.

[erat_forte]

 

Why does free movement across the EU necessitate mass migration any more than free movement across the UK?

Well considering the Irish populations in Liverpool Glasgow and London (from before the UK split up) I would say free movement across the UK does cause mass migration.

That mass migration is probably quite normal in human societies, and trying to stop it or seeing it as a problem is probably a fairly recent and unusual thing.

After all how many English people would there be in England, if it wasn't for mass migration in the past?

[A.steve]

 

You are just veiling an identity-driven argument behind a smokescreen of guff about unrelated issues.

I think that the phrase 'identity-driven argument' is (at the very least) deeply misleading... if not outright disingenuous.

What you consider 'guff about unrelated issues' are the points I make.

I can accept that your political posisition is different to mine.  I can even accept that my position (not being a fan of the EU on account of its 4 pillars not appealing to me) does not nominate a preferred alternative.  I even understand why you might consider national governments to be a threat to individual liberty. I just think that dominant supranational organizations and international corporates are also a threat - and establishing the correct balance of authority is important.

My observation is that 'fiscal union' in the EU is significant. Assuming it comes to pass, as is suggested in the article, I expect it to have considerable consequences (some positive, some negative) for politics - both throughout Europe and in the wider world - and, as a consequence, the global economy.

[thecrashingisles]

 

I think that the phrase 'identity-driven argument' is (at the very least) deeply misleading... if not outright disingenuous.

What you consider 'guff about unrelated issues' are the points I make.

I can accept that your political posisition is different to mine.  I can even accept that my position (not being a fan of the EU on account of its 4 pillars not appealing to me) does not nominate a preferred alternative.  I even understand why you might consider national governments to be a threat to individual liberty. I just think that dominant supranational organizations and international corporates are also a threat - and establishing the correct balance of authority is important.

My observation is that 'fiscal union' in the EU is significant. Assuming it comes to pass, as is suggested in the article, I expect it to have considerable consequences (some positive, some negative) for politics - both throughout Europe and in the wider world - and, as a consequence, the global economy.

You are absolutely comfortable with the four freedoms when the border around them is contiguous with how you see your identity.

[A.steve]

 

That mass migration is probably quite normal in human societies, and trying to stop it or seeing it as a problem is probably a fairly recent and unusual thing.

Mass migration is definitely precedented throughout history - and features prominently in stories from the past.

Steady or intermittent migration (of individuals) is (almost?) exclusively beneficial to all concerned.  Mass migration (arising, for example, from entire demographics fleeing wars, fleeing natural/man-made disasters, fleeing persecution by rogue governments and seeking to escape failed economies/societies) is not exclusively beneficial.  It represents a considerable hardship for the migrants and represents a practical difficulty in access to the facilities we associate with a humane, modern, civil society.

In summary:  "Ensuring freedom to migrate" - Good.  "Constructing de-facto obligations to migrate - especially for large portions of an existing community" - Bad.

Edited October 14, 2020 by A.steve

[A.steve]

 

You are absolutely comfortable with the four freedoms when the border around them is contiguous with how you see your identity.

No.

I do not believe that it should be a 'pillar' of the UK that particular biases in government policy should be non-negotiable and beyond democratic influence. I believe that we should strive for a government that is democratically accountable - and that this government should be in a position to adapt its policies to best serve the electorate.

If the foundational 'pillars' of the EU had been expressed in terms of individual freedoms (as opposed to constraints on governments) then I might interpret them more favourably.

I don't think the situation in the UK is ideal - though I had (previously?) thought it to be stable.  I would not be opposed to a declaration of fundamental individual liberties... something comparable in structure to the US Constitution, perhaps? (No, before you troll me, I'm not demanding an inaliable right to tote guns!)

[thecrashingisles]

 

No.

I do not believe that it should be a 'pillar' of the UK that particular biases in government policy should be non-negotiable and beyond democratic influence. I believe that we should strive for a government that is democratically accountable - and that this government should be in a position to adapt its policies to best serve the electorate.

If the foundational 'pillars' of the EU had been expressed in terms of individual freedoms (as opposed to constraints on governments) then I might interpret them more favourably.

I don't think the situation in the UK is ideal - though I had (previously?) thought it to be stable.  I would not be opposed to a declaration of fundamental individual liberties... something comparable in structure to the US Constitution, perhaps? (No, before you troll me, I'm not demanding an inaliable right to tote guns!)

The concept of citizenship is not a bias in government policy.

[A.steve]

 

The concept of citizenship is not a bias in government policy.

Correct, but I fail to see the relevance of the statement.

[PeanutButter]

 

After all how many English people would there be in England, if it wasn't for mass migration in the past?

But it’s not the past. It’s now. It’s 2020 and we’re closing in on 8 billion humans on the planet.

In 1999 there were 6 billion.

In 1970 3.5 billion.

We can’t have open borders + a dying natural environment without huge unrest. 

 

[thecrashingisles]

 

Correct, but I fail to see the relevance of the statement.

It relates to the fact that the four freedoms are an expression of EU citizenship.

[ForGreatLager...]

 

But it’s not the past. It’s now. It’s 2020 and we’re closing in on 8 billion humans on the planet.

In 1999 there were 6 billion.

In 1970 3.5 billion.

We can’t have open borders + a dying natural environment without huge unrest. 

 

Those are shocking figures! No wonder the world is in such a mess. 

 

Koyaanisqatsi

[A.steve]

 

It relates to the fact that the four freedoms are an expression of EU citizenship.

That is tenuous - at best.  Citizenship is not a bias in government policy... but the four pillars (which you insist on calling the 'four freedoms') are principles that result in a particular bias in government policy when adopted.

[thecrashingisles]

 

That is tenuous - at best.  Citizenship is not a bias in government policy... but the four pillars (which you insist on calling the 'four freedoms') are principles that result in a particular bias in government policy when adopted.

That is contradictory. Is the principle that someone can freely move from Aberdeen to Southampton, or invest their capital, sell their services and goods an example of bias in government policy?

[A.steve]

 

That is contradictory. Is the principle that someone can freely move from Aberdeen to Southampton, or invest their capital, sell their services and goods an example of bias in government policy?

I don't see any contradiction - only your nonsequitur.

The bias in policy arises from the EU pillar making it a fundamental (non-negotiable) principle that some specific activities must never attract government tarrifs/taxes.