RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Of course - but the deals they have are carefully managed. Take Chinese
steel for example.

Didn’t happen with the free trade deals with Israel and Korea.

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model

Yes, but isnt included in any but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

'Free trade' is nothing of the sort

It is in the sense that no tariffs or dutys or quotas apply so some of the
trade.

- it's just an agreement in which movement of labour is a part.

There is no agreement on the movement of labour with all but 3 of those.

- get cheap labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods.

The EU isnt about competitive goods, ever since the EU was
invented, the whole of the modern first world is completely
dominated by the service sector, not manufacturing anymore.

Primary and secondary industry is still a huge sector.

'Fortress Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

The EU isnt about Fortress Europe. If it was countrys like
Romania and Poland wouldn’t have been allowed to join.

Well, I would argue it is.

More fool you.

Poorer countries are allowed to join so that they get in debt (and pay
interest) to retool, then their economic potential can be tapped (labour
and materials).

That isnt what the EU is about.

The top table EU countries get the benefit of cheap labour,

Some like France have plenty of cheap
labour without the EU providing that.

and access to an emerging market.

That isnt what the more recent additions are about.

Plus one less 'competitor' in the world.

And neither is that with the more recent additions.

Certainly, there are social benefit arguments, as well as the practical
boundaries/movement. But overall, I think the EU was designed for
business.

Doesn’t explain the CAP which is essentially
a hybrid welfare/agriculture system.

UK workers are notoriously inert when it comes to moving to where the
jobs are - one thing we do lead the world in.

That mangles the real story too. British workers have in fact migrated
all over the world in a way that few other countrys have seen. There are
a few other countrys that have too like Norway, but not very many at all.
In fact americans migrate all over the world much less often. Same with
the Japanese.

Yes, there are also SOME groups in Britain that refuse
to move within the country, but plenty more like the
Scots and Irish and even the Welsh who do too.

I would agree with the notable exceptions.

Reluctance to move to jobs is more something I've been told than know a
great deal about - it's a big part of planning theory and policy,
apparently. Same with consultation - we're near leaders in not
participating in making decisions, but moan after they're made.

That mangles the real story too. The Industrial Revolution
wouldn’t have happened if that was true, let alone the Empire.