Freedom of movement o/t

Just wondering if I'm the only person who voted remain who actually thinks ending freedom of movement is not a totally bad thing - given most (all) countries outside of the EU don't have it? Let me just lay the argument out:-
For starters many talented people from America, Australia, India, etc, do not have a level playing field with their EU counterparts. Many British Asians voted for Brexit, remember that. The question is, is unrestricted immigration - for select countries only - desirable? There is nothing inherently offensive or racist asking this question. The economic argument for it is at best shaky.
Our economic growth over the last 10-20 years has been fueled by immigration, but who has gained from that? The benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners), not local workers. There are undeniably economic losers from this policy - sorry but its a fact. Public opinion, I feel, is that, like non-EU migration there should be restrictions based policy. I don't see much benefit from Brexit, but one area we can bring a more rational immigration policy.

What do others think?

 

You say unrestricted but majority of immigrants come from outside the EU.

 

But those coming from outside the EU are subject to restrictions/controls - and I think a big majority of those are on Study Visas only - not here to work.

 

What you appear to be arguing for is a form of protectionism. Leaving the EU will necessitate the formation of alternative trade agreements with the likes of America, China or India, any of which would probably require some form of preferential visa access. The alternative is a free trade deal with the EU which would probably require similar rights of access to those applicable during our term of membership, but without any ongoing influence on EU policy. We are not a big enough country/economy to be able to enjoy continued prosperity and influence without a strategic trade alliance with one of the larger powers. The EU was arguably the most benign trade bloc to align with in order to preserve our influence in the world. Leaving without fully assessing the consequences and preparing alternative strategies was, and remains, a terrible idea in my opinion. But it's a done deal.

 

hmm, "free trade" has always worked in favour of the West - France has a ridiculously high rate of farmers for a Western country - the reason is that the EU "free trade" involves them massively subsidising and protecting their crops against poor 3rd world imports - so lets not pretend the EU is some "benign trade bloc". In reality our foreign policy has always been about forcing trade agreements in our favour against the poor countries. Global "liberalisation" seeks total mobility of Capital and complete "liberalised" markets everywhere for trade, investment, services and much else. The governments goal of promoting "freedom" and "democracy", really means mass participation in choosing from a select elite insulated from actual scrutiny and merely being vassals for western hegemony. You can see why Corbyn wasn't keen tbh - its a global Capitalist stitch up at the end of the day.

 

Honest question, as I don't know the answer(and it's not a loaded one either). Is there anything in the EU rules that say the government can't make it easier for non-EU citizens to enter the country for work?

 

These things are relative, and I would maintain that so far as UK interests are concerned the EU is a benign trade bloc. During our period of membership we had an equal voice in terms of rules and regulations. A deal with America or China would not be on such favourable terms, as we will no doubt find out. I'm afraid I can't make head or tail of your last sentence.

 

BTW - I don't think we are as ashamed as we should be about this, for example:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Our war to impose the drug trade on China, not a great look - but, hey, global markets and all that,

 

The role of national governments is reduced to a "race to the bottom" in standards - and to administer policies favoured by transnational elites - the USA has participated in many conflicts due to the threat of countries managing their own affairs. "so far as the UK interests are concerned" - doesn't sound very 'liberal' to me - pull the ladders up - yes the EU is shafting the world, but we're ok? not very brotherhood of man is it?

 

Nope

 

Think whole immigration issue has been clouded - there are laws in place whereby you need to show you have a financial income to support yourself to stay long term in another EU country - not sure how strictly that is enforced

 

You’re right of course.

except...
the worlds not some altruistic entity that will reward us for playing with everyone else’s interest at heart. The world is unequal and we have the choice of taking advantage of that inequality or not.

Outside the EU we’re a minor power at the mercy of the US, EU and China.

 

We have a choice every day to take advantage of inequality, or not. Or to do something about it.

 

Only if you have enough power to do something about it.

 

Erm, currently over 60 countries currently enjoy FoM within their local trading blocs - EEA (30 countries ex UK) CARICOM (27 countries), MECOSUR (11 countries - will be fully adopted by 2021 but already partially in place) have it now (at least), and the African Union (54 countries) has adopted it and putting it into practice. There are other groups of countries with it (Gulf States, CA4, etc) with it already or looking at it. But in the near future, over 100 countries will have it.

The country that has the most people taking advantage of FoM within the EU, is actually the UK.

In my industry, it is very important. IT/Telecom services are sold from the UK, with experts based in the UK flying out to customer sites around the EU - either regularly (weekly) or at short notice to client sites around the EU. No visa, no waiting, we can be there the next day (or even same day depending on flight schedules and notification). That industry is currently worth over £40bn per year to the UK, and putting the UK on a level playing field with India will cause a lot of problems - not least a pay reduction in the sector due to oversupply of people.

On a personal level, it has allowed me to work in Dublin, while living in the UK and colleagues to work in France, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Netherlands, while enjoying the company of colleagues from Poland, Slovakia, Czech, Ireland and France (among others).

 

CARICOM - its the caribbean countries for godsake - hardly a radical idea.
MECOSUR - Basically more about protecting Brazilian and Argentine industries from global competition.- like the EU they don't even apply policies equally among members.
Africa - only four countries -- Mali, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe and Niger -- out of 55 member states have so far ratified the protocol,.......hmmm...wonder why?

 

Are the Caribbean countries less worthy than any other countries? They are sovereign states with the ability to choose the rights their citizens have.
MERCOSUR also includes the associate countries - basically most of South America with the exception of Venezuela.
How about Russia having FoM with Belarus? Or the Gulf States, Central American states?

You missed the East African Community from the AU as well - another 6 countries where it is implemented.

There are a lot of good arguments for - try getting a copy of this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39816258-open-borders

 

Russia/Belarus - they have freedom of movement - wow, its the same chuffin country more or less.
"the gulf states" - a totally false set of countries invented by the British, can go to each others countries? Well it certainly helps those Devout Saudi's to go to Bahrain and spend industrial amounts of money on booze and prostitutes.