EU free movement under attack from MACRON

[SueEllen]

Germany already does that...

So the German civil service and government actually understands the Directives it's MEPs, civil servants etc agree.

[Lost It]

Micron pipes

Staintunes every time...

[Big Blue Plymouth]

Staintunes every time...

Hayling Island! How's the Inn on the Beach these days?

[m0n1k3r]

Germany already does that...

And Sweden. And Denmark. And Finland. And Poland (yes!). And...

[m0n1k3r]

So the German civil service and government actually understands the Directives it's MEPs, civil servants etc agree.

They turn the EU directives into proper, clearly written laws. The UK, on the other hand, mostly implement the EU directives as incomprehensible SI's (Statutory Instruments, aka secondary legislation) which nobody understands.

[vetran]

Micron pipes

A to I ?

[Lost It]

Hayling Island! How's the Inn on the Beach these days?

Still there. They do some kind of Windsurfing thing every year there now.

Wouldn't know what it's like, I can't touch anything that might have gluten in it so I can't eat out, drink bear, drink much af anything breally. Gluten gave me cancer. Don't want that again.

[chopper]

So, riddle me this.

Given that the the British government chose not to change stuff whilst remaining inside EU rules (i.e. expelling EU migrants no longer in work, adding a residency requirement on benefits such as child benefit, etc), why did it choose not to do this, knowing that it was one of the things fuelling anti-EU feeling amongst British people, and allowing political support to drift towards UKIP?

[Lost It]

Well, in Blair times the Politicians were trying to turn into tories, and in Con times, they were busy trying to sell all the profitable bits of the UK to their sponsors. So they wouldn't have had time to do anything sensible.

[meridian]

So, riddle me this.

Given that the the British government chose not to change stuff whilst remaining inside EU rules (i.e. expelling EU migrants no longer in work, adding a residency requirement on benefits such as child benefit, etc), why did it choose not to do this, knowing that it was one of the things fuelling anti-EU feeling amongst British people, and allowing political support to drift towards UKIP?

Complex socio-economic and political reasons.

Back in the Seventies, things were grinding to a halt. Not just here, but globally. Oil embargoes, unionisation, etc. In the early Eighties Thatcher broke up unions and closed mines, but didn't replace that industry with anything else in those areas. The timing coincided with the rise of yuppies, every man for himself and make money at any cost. This led to what we have today - a massive disparity in wealth between London and some of the regions. 9 out of the 10 poorest regions in Europe are here in the U.K.

The poorer regions have little else to cling to except distant memories of a "winning" Britain - WW2, a World Cup for England.

To expel EU migrants means being able to identify them, which means ID cards for everyone. Cue an uproar from the huddled masses and a hark to that distant memory - "we didn't fight in a world war so that we all need to carry ID cards!". The government now can't identify non-Brits easily and simply (and cost-effectively), and besides, both sides of the house actually want more immigration for different reasons - the Tories want increased cheap labour to keep business costs down, and Labour want more Labour voters and to ease their Socialist consciences by helping all the external poor.

So it's a catch-22. Can't identify them or bring in ID cards or they'll lose political support, can't keep the floodgates open. Stuffed either way. And unfortunately the current lot are all lightweights with no clear vision of Britain in the future, they're all reactive rather than proactive, just trying to cling to power.

Discuss.