To what purpose? Because the administration costs money.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
fair play enough, but the EU can't be that keen on free movement to save a bit on admin, that in no way makes it close to been as important as free trade.
We are keen on saving money and time, particularly for the companies since they are the ones that create wealth. That's why despite the fact everyone think that the EU are in bad shape, it's still the richest area. For Brussel pretty much everything is about money, the things that aren't almost always come from the UN and by principle the EU decided that they will be the first to respect International Laws and will be a leader in terms of Human rights.
to be fair we all have a jumbled view on immigration because it has benefits and problems so expecting a whole party to come togther its hard, not mention because they represent diffrent parts of the country which faces diffrent problems.
ive spent alot of time trying to figure out the issue where i stand how i feel, i mean i think ive seen benefits and negatives from immigration in my life, and would never say immigration is bad or good it depends of circumstances.
on the hole high immigration seems to be good when a country is booming and has an excess of jobs, but is a negative when a country is economically struggling. but even then thier are exceptions, like cheap labour in a struggling economy is good for business, but bad for workers as it keeps wages low.
i don't no the answer, but its complicated but i don't think we have been getting it right.
The parliament are happy to be out of the EU. I was watching the house of commons earlier and there was next to no mention of the 48% who wanted to remain. A second referendum was batted out pretty quickly and there was no talk of a further debate among MPs considering the referendum is only advisory and not a final decision. Yet they were all to happy to point out the bullsh!t spewed from the Leave camp and BoJo to sway the votes. 52-48 really shouldn't be binding on a poll of this magnitude and the whole thing is feeling like a sham.
It really is infighting with little consideration to what the public really need.
Seems a bit quick, should at least wait until we hit the one month since the vote mark
i get all that, but you still havn't really answered why free movment is an important as free trade, beyond saving some money on admin, in terms of money free trade seems to win hands down?
Nigel Farage worried promises aren't being fulfilled
It is. 3 of the 5 main players were - until very recently - known for their Euro-scepticism.
You are one of those people you dickhead.
free trade means no customs fees, which means no automatic customs controls at the borders. Free movements means no Visa fees, which means no automatic controls at the borders or at least light controls.
Free trade without free movement means that you have a very heavy custom administration that is not financed by the customs fees. And if you don't have the heavy administration and heavy controls, you are basically allowing free movement.
So you basically saying the eu wouldn't allow free trade because it is scared of admin fees at epically at customs ?
That doesn't seem to add to me...... Maybe I'm wrong :s
Hey Nytram, have you read this? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2.1.3.html
I admit it may not answer some of your queries, but it could explain the EU's rationale.
Hodgson will sit well alongside Boris and gove
Hope you lads can negotiate a trade deal better than your footballers can negotiate a heavy favourites knock out match.
No, it will just cost you more money or the EU will negotiate a good trade agreement. You don't need to have access to the free market to trade with the EU.
Also, this is quite a good primer on free movement, from Oxford University: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/policy-primers/uk-eu-citizenship-and-free-movement-persons
Damn foreigners. England would have won if the Iceland players didn't showed up and stole their chance of winning the tournament
Free trade and freedom of movement are not necessarily joined at the hip though. For instance, Mexico and the US are both signatories of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) and there's no freedom of movement between the two countries. No legal freedom of movement anyway
I think the EU have linked two distinct ideas as part of their ultimate political project of European Unity. They're both steps along that road. Countries can't get one without the other because the EU don't want the real advantage of EU membership, The Single Market, to be available without signing up for the political project as well. If offered a free choice, too many countries would take the Single Market and leave the political stuff on the table.
I think the EU have linked two distinct ideas as part of their ultimate political project of European Unity. They're both steps along that road. Countries can't get one without the other because the EU don't want the real advantage of EU membership, The Single Market, to be available without signing up for the political project as well. If offered a free choice, too many countries would take the Single Market and leave the political stuff on the table.
The US alone are an example of why free trade and freedom of movement are linked in some cases.Free trade and freedom of movement are not necessarily joined at the hip though. For instance, Mexico and the US are both signatories of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) and there's no freedom of movement between the two countries. No legal freedom of movement anyway
I think the EU have linked two distinct ideas as part of their ultimate political project of European Unity. They're both steps along that road. Countries can't get one without the other because the EU don't want the real advantage of EU membership, The Single Market, to be available without signing up for the political project as well. If offered a free choice, too many countries would take the Single Market and leave the political stuff on the table.
I'm not denying there's a certain logic to it. Just saying that you can have one without the other.
You can when you have the US market in the first place. We want to emulate the US market not the trade agreement between the US market and Mexico.
Yes. You want political unification.
Man England are really doubling down on this European exit here. First the Brexit vote, then a very convincing reenactment to follow up.
We want a strong common market first, the rest is far in the future and not guaranteed.
I was saying Boo-oris
But you talked about Europe aspiring to emulate the internal US market, whose character is shaped by the country's political unity.
I know... and therein lies one of the huge problems.
And once again, not an EU problem, but a UK one.
Emulate was the wrong word, the EU wants to have a market as big and as powerful as the US market.
But you talked about Europe aspiring to emulate the internal US market, whose character is shaped by the country's political unity.
Fair enough. But the philosophical question about Europe, I guess, is whether true economic unification is possible without political unification. In my opinion, if it wants to survive, Europe will have to settle for something less grandiose. Wider, deeper, bigger >> explosion.
Bullsye doing a bit on the EU on challenge tv. That must be 20 years old at least.
Someone has a sense of humour.
Someone has a sense of humour.
In my opinion the EU should have been smaller but with a stronger political unification. I don't really like the 28 members thingy.
Gibraltar in talks with Scotland to stay in the EU
There was (in my opinion) a great documentary made by Robert Reich called Inequality for All that highlights this as one of the key factors in growing wealth inequality in the US.
In fairness, the transitional period in the middle where share of income going to upper ten percent is flat and union membership is declining is forty years. It's not a conclusive cause and effect demonstration.
Helen Thomas on Newsnight looked like she was about to cry giving a financial summary of the day. Someone give that lady a hug!
Yeah watched that last summer - was really interesting
Aye, hence why there really isn't the same lower class in Sweden.
And as I say, it's a UK issue, once again bizarrely blamed on Europe.
I show it in my Econ class. I think he does a good job breaking it down for anyone to understand.