Mr Tony Blair was the biggest advocate of eastern expansion or ascension to the EU, not the UK electorate, and by declining our right to delay free movement of people from newly ascended east european states to the UK, he gave unexpected credibility to the populist political movement in the UK, for the seedling which cultivated into Brexit, we must be eternally grateful to Mr Blair.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
In my view, populist political movements in the UK have no credibility for peddling their xenophobic hateful nonsense about Eastern Europeans.
The dilemma is that BR was denationalised as a political principle , yet we arrived at the situation where nationalised railways of Europe took the place of BR
State railways from abroad can run our railway, but we as a nation cannot appoint our state to run our nations' railways
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That doesn't change that EU membership has not prevented their Governments from becoming much more authoritarian than the UK.
And you seem to be implying that it doesn't matter that those Governments are authoritarian, because their citizens can just move to other countries. Is that really what you're suggesting? (I'm pretty sure most people in most countries would far rather have good governance at home rather than having to move to a foreign country to get it).
I may be misunderstanding, but I took the point to be that Freedom of Movement places limits on just how extreme or authoritarian a government can get. Do you think the Kims would be able to rule the DPRK with an iron fist if the border with the ROK was open and easily crossed?
I am not aware of xenophobic statements coming from populist figureheads such as Nigel Farage, about eastern europeans who migrated to the UK. Such statements would probably be a crime in Britain, I am aware of people employed the low end of the pay scale in areas of high unemployment, who considered immigration to be an assault on their job security and wage levels, and detrimental to employment opportunities and access to social welfare such as schools and housing.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
If that's what @Berliner meant, then it may be a valid point in the case of completely extreme Governments, However, the very fact that Hungary continues to exist and be quite stable within the EU is living proof that IF open borders sets a limit on authoritarianism, then that limit is a very generous one! If I was looking for some extra-Governmental mechanism to prevent authoritarianism, I'd want that mechanism to be kicking in at a much lower level.
I think in the case of North Korea, you're correct that the Kims wouldn't be able to rule very effectively with open borders - because they'd just lose most of their population. However, I don't think that's primarily because of their authoritarianism: It's more to do with living standards being so awfully low there (to the point where loads of people have even died of starvation). There have been plenty of countries around the World in recent history that provide living proof that you can be extraordinarily authoritarian and still keep most of your population on side (or at least, preferring to live under your rule rather than emigrate), as long as you control the media and provide at least an adequate standard of living (Russia and China would be good examples).
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
This is at least partly true, but you may be conflating authoritarianism with governing without consent. Closed societies like North Korea and the DDR were authoritarian and also didn't work in a democratic way, by failing to govern with consent. There are some societies which actually quite like authoritarianism by consent. China is one. Britain is one of them too, in a much lesser way. British people love rules and government fiat much more than anyone cares to admit - at least as long as they're applied to someone else.
The future of society is almost certainly authoritarian and technocratic anyway; there are too many impending crises for this to be any other way.
The two are intrinsically linked - people "put up with" the low living standards in the DPRK because they literally have no choice due to an authoritarian government and an inability to leave.
As to Russia and China, you are correct that control over the media is a huge part of keeping the population under control. A very sizable percentage of Chinese and Russians who have access to independent media want to leave the country, however it's not an easy prospect since the countries that they want to move to have restrictive immigration policies where Russian and Chinese citizens are concerned.
I hope the future of our society is not to be rule by authoritarians, it is unworkable , authoritarian control existed in East Germany, such was the tension, it took a wall, "The Berlin Wall" and soldiers with orders to shoot on sight, to prevent the flight of the population to the freedom of West Germany
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,204
That may be true. But they surely do have some credibility when they suggest that it is foolish in the extreme to allow 450m people unfettered access to live and work in this country, regardless whether they are from Eastern Europe or not.
I believe you have it arse about face. Authoritarian governments may restrict freedom of movement. But allowing freedom of movement does not necessarily prevent the rise of an authoritarian government. In the case of the EU the rise of an authoritarian government is unlikely because their governance is restricted in all sorts of ways (witness the current dispute between Hungary and their EU masters). But that isn't because the EU sanctions freedom of movement.
Why exactly is it foolish? It seemed to work completely fine for many decades - until the tories started beating the drum of xenophobia to distract from their toxic legacy of deindustrialisation under Thatcher.
Foolish because it was a significant factor in the Brexit vote (if you didn't want Brexit, that is).
It may have worked for the previous two (not 'many') decades because the right had not be exercised in the quantity and speed that was experienced after the accession of the Eastern European states, who were in a considerably different economic situation to the UK.
Doppelganger
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 397
Emigration to the UK was massively skewed though, almost all other member states put restrictions on the new entrants and they couldn't freely move to the majority of the EU.
As the UK decided they didn't want to do this, the of course the UK was going to see larger numbers, this was a UK decision.
I didn't say it prevents authoritarianism, I said it puts limits on the extent. It's difficult to run a country with an iron first if everyone leaves.
Anyone else remember the sign at the East German border as wall came down: "Can the last person leaving please turn off the lights."
Just as protecting our borders, or indeed checking lorries more thoroughly coming from France, was down to us. We suck at things like that, and still suck today.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Sure, I think you're right that it was a UK decision. But does that matter? In 2016 we were in a position where it was evident that decision had bad ongoing consequences (EU immigrants were coming in numbers that lots of people felt were unsustainable for many local communities in the UK) but EU rules made it impossible for the UK to reduce the continuing large scale immigration from the EU, and negotiations to change the rules/allow the UK some exemption from them had proved fruitless.
Therefore we had a problem that was impossible to resolve other than by leaving the EU. Hence, lots of people voted to leave. The details of who had made the decisions 15 or so years earlier that lead to the problem weren't really important: It was that lots of people now wanted to fix the problem and (correctly) perceived leaving the EU as the way to fix it.
Annetts key
Established Member
Despite the mainland of the U.K. being an island with no land borders to any other country, people have been coming here unofficially ever since humans have existed in (what is now called) Europe. People have been coming (and going) from the islands that make up the British Isles for thousands of years. Sometimes in very large numbers, often as a small trickle
Obviously one method used to get here is by ship or boat. Unofficial arrivals via small boat are obviously often in the news, but it’s not something particularly new to this country.
And despite all the bluster from the politicians, a couple of years ago, a Channel 4 documentary demonstrated that it’s even easier (with the aid of helpful people) to enter ‘illegally’ via the normal ferry routes.
If you think our so called borders are well protected, you must live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Border control is obviously something that the U.K. government is supposed to have full control over. But they either don’t want to, don’t want to spend the money to do it properly, or they don’t really care.
Let’s take the argument a bit further, if Scotland or Wales, or say an English region decided to separate from the U.K. and put a border in place, with their own immigration policy, would that be okay or be wrong? What about if all U.K. regions did the same? We could have hundreds of administrations each issuing their own passports in the former U.K., each with a different set of visa requirements. Then we can control the awful free movement of people within the U.K. Surely that’s just a logical extension of the principles of brexit? To move so called decision making and sovereignty to a local level? Why should Cornwall/Scotland/Wales or any other region have laws imposed by a remote Westminster parliament? Why should well off people from elsewhere come and buy so many second homes in Cornwall and parts of South Wales which forces the local young people to move away from their families? And which creates ghost towns in winter, where local businesses struggle to survive.
It’s not like the system of democracy we have is particularly good. It’s rare for a government to have received a majority of the vote in a national election. The House of Lords is appointed not elected. The privy council is appointed not elected. The head of state is not elected. The government via Parliament can override all other parts of government if it wants.
IMHO, far too many politicians and some media organisations (mainly so called newspapers) have used ANYTHING to deflect away from the failings of our own governments. So have used the E.U. as a scapegoat.
Obviously one method used to get here is by ship or boat. Unofficial arrivals via small boat are obviously often in the news, but it’s not something particularly new to this country.
And despite all the bluster from the politicians, a couple of years ago, a Channel 4 documentary demonstrated that it’s even easier (with the aid of helpful people) to enter ‘illegally’ via the normal ferry routes.
If you think our so called borders are well protected, you must live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Border control is obviously something that the U.K. government is supposed to have full control over. But they either don’t want to, don’t want to spend the money to do it properly, or they don’t really care.
Let’s take the argument a bit further, if Scotland or Wales, or say an English region decided to separate from the U.K. and put a border in place, with their own immigration policy, would that be okay or be wrong? What about if all U.K. regions did the same? We could have hundreds of administrations each issuing their own passports in the former U.K., each with a different set of visa requirements. Then we can control the awful free movement of people within the U.K. Surely that’s just a logical extension of the principles of brexit? To move so called decision making and sovereignty to a local level? Why should Cornwall/Scotland/Wales or any other region have laws imposed by a remote Westminster parliament? Why should well off people from elsewhere come and buy so many second homes in Cornwall and parts of South Wales which forces the local young people to move away from their families? And which creates ghost towns in winter, where local businesses struggle to survive.
It’s not like the system of democracy we have is particularly good. It’s rare for a government to have received a majority of the vote in a national election. The House of Lords is appointed not elected. The privy council is appointed not elected. The head of state is not elected. The government via Parliament can override all other parts of government if it wants.
IMHO, far too many politicians and some media organisations (mainly so called newspapers) have used ANYTHING to deflect away from the failings of our own governments. So have used the E.U. as a scapegoat.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Or, to take the strawman to the opposite end of the spectrum, "why is there not a world government?".
Questioning the idea of the nation-state is a bit strange because you can end up at any number of undesirable conclusions.
Annetts key
Established Member
I don’t know about a world government, but a single worldwide currency and common trading arrangements could well make sense in the long term. It’s generally accepted that in a lot of areas, common (almost) worldwide standards make sense.
Though having a single currency takes away one of the ways economies have to adjust. It’s arguable that the Eurozone is too big, Northern Europe needs policies to stop overheating whilst Southern needs a kick to growth. If they were separate currencies then one could appreciate against the other.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Yes like agreeing what a metre is, but perhaps not for deciding what your laws are. Nation states exist for a reason.
Annetts key
Established Member
So is the U.S.A. too big? What we call economies are just symptoms of people, companies and governments trading and interacting. If this is easier because there is a worldwide currency and less procedures, paperwork (or electronic equivalent) and less bureaucracy, trade could be easier. Most countries would benefit from a higher level of trade.
Most countries already have areas that are already lacking behind, suffering from a lack of investment, or the loss of previous employers.
The key IMHO to trying to give “a kick to growth” in these areas, is to actually invest in them, and maybe use locally variable tax systems to encourage new businesses in those areas.
If it was so easy for governments to control “the economy” why do recessions happen?
I never mentioned laws. I see no reason why countries/nations should not be able to have some of their own laws. Just like Scotland does now. Just like there are by-laws in some parts of the rest of the U.K.
Yes, some laws would be worldwide, but in practice, there are already plenty of laws or the principles behind laws that are already very similar in democratic “western” countries.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's a dangerous question. If you consider how vast the disconnect between Government and people is there - far greater than is typical in European countries, and the evident problems that the Federal Government has in - well, doing almost anything really, I think you could plausibly argue that it is too big to provide effective governance - and there may be lessons there about the EU, which has a similar population size to the US (Of course, set against that is the vast loyalty and patriotism that US citizens tend to feel for the US as a single entity, and being big has some advantages in terms of military power etc.)
It's not easy for Governments to control the economy - and recessions illustrate that. But if you go for a single international currency, so that Governments no longer have any control over their own currency and associated policy levers, then it becomes even harder for them to control their economies.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,855
I've always advocated that there's a need to have two separate Euro currencies. I'd go with something like this:
Northern Euro: Ireland, Benelux, Germany, Finland, Austria, Slovenia, Estonia, Slovakia, France
Southern Euro: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece
National decision: Malta, Latvia, Lithuania
The two currencies could be pegged to each other, but with changes to the peg as needed.
This would have allowed the southern states to devalue the Southern Euro regularly in accordance with their needs, while the Northern Euro would be tempered by the presence of France and some smaller/weaker economies. There would be common rules governing the use of the currencies, such as SEPA (the Single European Payments Area) so that there would be no barriers: if the exchange rate was 1 NEuro to 1.5 SEuro, then you could pay electronic payments at zero cost at the interbank rate.
Unfortunately, this doesn't address the key problem: many of the poorer/weaker Euro members were absolutely desperate to get their hands on cheap German credit.
Okay, I shall a caveat to that, the Eurozone is too big whilst the constituent countries run their economies separately. The USA can do fiscal transfers where taxes are raised from rich states and spending focused on poorer areas. It’s also considerably easier to relocate within the US. The EU does that to a degree, but there are limits to how much the German taxpayer is willing to subsidise the Greeks for example.
I didn’t say it was easy for government to control the economy, but if you take away some of the levers of control then it gets even harder. Eurozone countries can’t depreciate to make their exports more attractive, they can’t alter their interest rates to attract investment as those are set by the ECB. I’m not saying this is solely down to their Eurozone membership, but half of them have inflation rates higher than the UK, the three Baltic states are over 20%
Annetts key
Established Member
If there is ONLY ONE currency, there is no other currency to devalue against!
And we should be eternally grateful to Gordon Brown for resisting St Tony Blair's attempt to make the UK adopt the Euro.
If it hadn't been for Gordon Brown, who specified criteria that must be met before we could consider joining the Euro, we would all have been using Euros by now.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,204
And Brexit may have been - shall we keep it simple and say - a little bit more tricky!
class ep-09
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 531
Yet before brexit and now most of the immigration was from outside of the EU .
I have not heard any complains from advocates of brexit but immigration to the UK is now highest than ever been from everywhere .
Also not long before referendum the issue of EU or immigration was very far on the list of the worries of the general population , and only giving air time to Farage and his ilk allowed to stir resentments among society towards “uncontrolled immigration” to build up ( where is that “ man of the people “ btw ?) .
Lets face it , UK has been duped by the very wealthy groups of people trying to avoid EU regulations in relation to tax heavens .
We are the first country that imposed trading sanctions on itself with biggest and wealthiest trading block on Earth , just to show to the “jonny foreigner “ how important and powerful we are ( we are not ).