My friend, colleague and co-author Colin Hines has been working on ideas on what he calls progressive protectionism for several years. In typical style he was doing so long before the relevance of the idea was obvious. Now it might be more so as politicians on the left, in particular, come to terms with the apparent rise of nationalist fervour in the face of open borders that appears to be driving many people towards the political right.
In the piece that follows, first published on Left Foot Forward, but shared here with Colin's permission, Colin argues that this rightward shift is completely illogical since it is the dedication of the neoliberal right to the free movement of capital and labour (which it has always perceived as a mechanism to control wage rates) that has created the problems we have, and that this political logic can never as a consequence provide a solution.
The issues Colin raises are difficult, but the time to shy away from them has gone, and that's why I am sharing this piece.
-----------
The free market fulminations of Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Juncker and Jose Manuel Barroso over Conservative and UKIP politicians daring to call for controls on EU migrants is sadly often echoed by those on the left, centre and greens. They hold their hands up in surrender at any proposals to change the EU Treaties to allow nation states to regain control of their borders.
They have become brainwashed into chanting that the free flow of goods, services, money and people has the unchallengeable, carved in stone permanence of the Ten Commandments. It will thus never be overturned by European member states. Ironically this is a ghastly example of kowtowing to Margaret Thatcher's most corrosive legacy TINA - there is no alternative.
Such a stance completely ignores the huge rise in pan-European public support for parties wanting to take back control of their borders to limit migration. The Labour and the Greens have been wrong footed by this and shown themselves out of step with public opinion by their support of open borders to the free flow of people.
The only way to see off the otherwise inexorable rise of anti-EU and often extreme right-wing parties is to start a debate about a radical new direction for Europe.
The latest pro-free market argument of ‘shut up, support open borders or it's Brexit' must also be challenged as it denies the possibility of a return of public support for an EU with a very different end goal. Non-market fundamentalist parties like Labour and the Greens must promote alternatives to the failings in the European model, but in a way that takes the public with them.
Their present support for the free flow of people is undemocratic, as it ignores the wishes of the majority, increases pressure on overstretched public services and is deeply non internationalist. Look at how the rich countries of Europe have stolen a third of Romanian doctors and how the UK is scouring poorer countries for staff to prop up the underfunded NHS.
What they should be calling for is a more progressive Europe that would allow countries to limit cross border flows not just of people, but also of money goods and services. This would allow countries instead to prioritise the protection and rebuilding of local economies and so provide a secure future for its people.
This is not such a huge step since free trade critics amongst the left and the greens correctly identify the underlying cause of today's economic, environmental and social malaise as economic globalisation.
Yet they have with no detailed ideas or programmes on how to tackle the entrenched worship of international competitiveness and export-led growth. Today's open borders in the EU are the interconnected, joint battering rams of neoliberalism and unless all are tackled at once the powerful will continue to increase their grip on the world's share of wealth.
Indeed it is the EU's open market that is rarely recognised root cause of the present European crisis. It allowed for example German banks to lend to Greeks to import German cars they couldn't afford, and then the national debts that resulted are being dealt with by taking money from pensioners and the less well-off.
Meanwhile, the flow of migration and the inability of countries to control their borders under the single market are increasing tensions across the continent.
So the key is to address these downsides of the free flow of money goods, services and people. This will be helped by the fact that people aren't just worried about uncontrolled EU immigration. Concern is also growing about the free flow of foreign capital buying up for example domestic housing, about foreign service companies pushing for privatisation of the NHS and the loss of UK industry to cheaper labour countries in the EU.
So what is to be done?
Political activists and Labour and the Greens should immediately begin discussions with their political partners in Europe, themselves under pressure from the extreme-right over immigration, to work to curb the EU's open markets.
Replacing that with an emphasis on rebuilding local economies, rather than forcing all countries into a competitive race to the bottom, will be popular with the public and have the additional advantage of dramatically lessening the need for people to emigrate in the first case.
In short what is required is to change the Treaty of Rome into a Treaty of Home, thereby transforming the EU from an anathema to a positive answer to voters concerns. Cross border issues like responding to Putin and the Middle East, climate change, pollution and crime would still require intra-European cooperation and so would become the main purpose of a newly popular European Union.
Such a sea change is likely to happen first in Europe as its populous has become the first to vote in ever larger numbers for parties opposing one aspect of open borders -the free flow of people. Those not wanting to see the growing power of such right-wing parties should consider urgently starting a debate about the need for ‘progressive protectionism' policies that allow local economies to flourish.
This would have advantages beyond our European shores. There is already growing worldwide opposition to the rising inequality inevitable under globalisation. To build on this requires rejecting an international open borders trading system that accelerates inequality and instead turning to an approach that increases economic security across the globe.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If instead of bailing out banks and a financial system that benefits from the race to the bottom (of which open border immigration driven by economic desperation is part) the EU had invested in socially controlled programmes for economic development across the continent things could be so different. Labour particularly come put badly on this as they support open border immigration which benefits the corporations and wealthiest who now control the party whilst also using immigration as a device to drive down real wages for all workers and shifting blame onto immigrants for society’s problems. Further proof they are not a party of the people. Meanwhile UKIP and Tory policy would and is moving the people in the UK towards the very same position as most EU immigrants; economies run by an obscenely wealthy minority with no social security where people are forced into low pay/no pay jobs which don’t meet living costs where the only alternative to that is to emigrate. In that case closing open borders means working populations are then held captive in a state of total slavery to the 1%. In my view people should be able to move around the globe as they wish, just as the wealthiest are able to; that movement shouldn’t be driven by economic desperation used as a whip against society by the world’s richest.
The EU’s regional aid programme was intended to be precisely that “socially controlled programme for economic development” you wish for. However, these take time to work. The original Member States didn’t become rich countries overnight after the destruction wrought during WWII and the 2004 Accession States, most of whom were blighted by the economic mismanagement of their former Communist rulers also couldn’t expect to be transformed overnight. Perhaps their local programmes would have been more effective had the UK not been one of the few countries to have eschewed transitional restrictions on free movement of workers, as indeed might our own.
Even with the wealth and development of West Germany, the process of rebuilding former East Germany wasn’t easy and isn’t even now anywhere near complete. It wouldn’t have got anywhere at all if there wasn’t free movement of people, goods, capital between East and West Germany – it would have been as if the Berlin Wall hadn’t been dismantled despite a unified government.
In a world of desperate economic polarisation (yes even in Germany) who has that free movement really benefitted? I agree with the report up to the point that the movement of labour out of economic desperation only suits the needs of the wealthiest in pursuit of their neoliberal agenda. Where I disagree with the article is its advocating the need to close borders; within the limits of capitalism all that would lead to is enclaving workers within a regime of increasing exploitation. In my view people should be able to move around the globe as they wish, just as the wealthiest are able to; that movement shouldn’t be driven by economic desperation used as a whip against society by the world’s richest. Borders would not need to be restricted or closed if people were moving out of predefined borders for reasons other than economic necessity driven by capitalism. That’s why in my view we do need what is popularly called ‘revolution’ and a overthrow of capital.
I think Colin is quite clearly also arguing for capital controls
I think that an essential part if any such change or exploitation us inevitable
At last, some sober analysis and a remedy.
As someone very much of the libertarian¹ left, I find myself instinctively in favour of open borders. I’m simply not at ease with the idea of nation states, founded as they so often are on entirely arbitrary boundaries, and both encompassing and dividing various cultural (e.g. the Basque) and economic (e.g the North/South divide in the UK, USA, etc) regions. If we’re not willing to countenance free movement of Labour between EU nation states then why should we countenance free movement of labour between economically disparate regions of the UK, or Spain, or France, etc? The answer ‘because that’s the way the borders fell’ simply doesn’t cut the mustard.
That said, I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced regarding free movement of labour with respect to it’s (ab)use as a mechanism by which labour is forced to compete with labour to deleterious ends. This was of course always the aim, with respect to our neo-liberal foes support for open borders, as many on the left correctly identified at the time.
To my mind the issue here is the opening of borders between economically disparate regions. Remember though, there exist economically disparate regions within nation states. This is not an EU-only issue, and it’s not something that can be solved wholly through the opening and closing of borders. In my opinion the long term goal should always have been open borders and free movement of labour (i.e. free movement of free people). The key difference being that it’s immediate implementation should have been via open borders between economically similar (i.e. regions with similar labour prices, disposable income, etc) regions of the EU with strategies to bring each of these regions into parity in the long term. Each region should have had it’s own identical minimum wage, aimed for tax parity (as opposed to tax competition) and regions should only merge after a sustained period of economic parity. Of course this would require precisely the sort of transfer of sovereignty that makes the right crow, an quite probably currency, banking and tax/political unions. I can’t see our vision-less, supine, power-hungry political class going for that (particularly here in the UK), and the population at large appears to have been indoctrinated to despise any new or ‘alien’ political or civil structure in spite of how dire and unrepresentative our own traditional political structures are.
On the whole however, the issue of labour competition is an international one. In my opinion It can only be resolved by restricting movement of capital with respect to labour and nation states the world over co-operating to limit or even abolish the deleterious effects of tax competition. Again, with our current political class, I don’t see that happening. Even the so called ‘Communist’ party of the Peoples Republic of China is complicit in the capitalist erosion of labour and labour rights (both internationally and domestically)²!
I read an interesting article regarding the potential de-globalisation impact of peak oil. The impact of peak oil on international trade would make it far more economical to manufacture goods locally than to transport globally (to my knowledge we’ve yet to develop viable non-fossil fuel modes of international cargo transport). Precisely the opposite of the financial environment that has spurned this particularly destructive form of capitalist globalisation. Another more worrying effect of peak oil would be the impact on nitrogenous (through shortage of feedstock for the Haber—Bosch process) and phosphorous (through increased transportation costs) fertiliser prices, which have become vital following the Green revolution. It would seem that our governments (not to mention industries themselves) aren’t doing enough to prepare for peak oil, given that in all likelihood we won’t identify global peak oil until a couple of years after the fact.
1. I do despise how the right has hijacked this word.
2. If I’m honest, I’ve never expected much actual socialism (not to mention communism) from any of the self-professed ‘Communist’ parties of Leninist heritage.
Thanks
Appreciated comments
There may be a case for changing the Treaty of Rome to a Treaty of Home but it isn’t one which can be made without dismantling the entirety of what has been built up over the life of the EU/EEC/Common Market. The left favouring the EU is a recent fad, largely motivated by a wish not to appear loony (in moving Labour away from its 1983 position when it advocated leaving the Common Market in order to enable a Britain-first government to support and subsidise industry) and because it was just such fun watching the Tories tear themselves up over it. Miliband could have pulled off a reversion to the Old Labour position here more consistently with his policy pronouncements and and in tune with more radical left wing thought than his maintenance of the status quo – http://botzarelli.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/is-miliband-quietly-leading-the-uk-out-of-the-eu/ .
It involves arguing that the founding four fundamental freedoms (movement of goods, capital and people, of establishment) were bad all along, rather than being the basis for the EU and what it has achieved through its history. Whatever that would create as a successor would not be at all like the EU but rather its inverse image. The only role for a Union in this model would be to tax nations which were successful in protecting their national economic interests in order to subsidise those which were not. It is difficult to see how that would be more popular in any country apart from one that was happy to live off aid than there being no EU at all.
You are “sharing” this piece on your blog without offering any personal opinion;I am not surprised.
Personally I believe the free movement of people and their labour is incredibly economically beneficial and is also, more importantly in my view, a fundamental moral imperative. But then I’m also very keen on standing up and being counted; you Richard have offered no personal opinion.
I published the piece because Colin has convinced me this is an issue I can no longer avoid
I do not accept that free movement of capital is beneficial: there is enormous evidence to suggest it can be and is extremely destructive beyond the boundaries of the power point presentations in which its supposed benefits are taught
It follows that I cannot see benefits to unlimited freedom of movement for individuals – which we have in any event never had
Colin knows I do not agree with all his arguments – but they are important and I think he is right to raise them
1. “It follows that I cannot see benefits to unlimited freedom of movement for individuals”
Well thank you, I didn’t think you would have the courage to say that openly. As I say, I regard it as a moral question every bit as much as an economic question. So you can’t expect me to be impressed with you and Colin any more than I am with the Ukippers I occassionally scrap with on Tim Worstall’s blog; I see you all the same here.
2. I do agree with David Kirkham’s observation that immiagration is “…a device…drive down real wages for all workers…” although I would note that the real wages of the migrant are nearly always increased; that’s the point, isn’t it. I do take great exeception, however, to the parties of the Left who have argued against this fundametal truth for decades.
3. If you “cannot see the benefits to unlimited freedom of movement for individuals” then perhaps, as an Englishman who has used an accident of birth to claim an Irish passport, you can set out where you do see the limits. Again though , I’m afraid you can’t expect me to be impressed.
“I do take great exception, however, to the parties of the left who have argued against this fundamental truth for decades”.
What fundamental truth? The evidence that immigration has been the cause of falling wages in the UK is rather limited. See e.g. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration
That’s not to say that there are no effects whatsoever, but the effects are small, at least judging from existing research.
I know it’s asking a lot for the hard right to take account of actual evidence when claiming “fundamental truths” (no such thing in economics anyway), but you could at least try. The fact that you mention the Worstall blog gives some indication of the level you’re operating at…
¨They may also tell you that if a EU state restricts freedom movement for citizens of other EU states, then it’s in breach of the Lisbon Treaty.
This, though, is incorrect¨
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2014/10/24/a-left-liberal-approach-to-restricting-workers-freedom-and-outflanking-ukip/
Ta for reference, John. Mine is the lay version. The legal contours are actually very well set out in the govt’s own (quietly ignored/unread) Competence Review of the the Internal Market from Aug 2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226863/bis-13-1064-competence-review-internal-market.pdf). See esp. pp. 15 ff. This is careful to stay in remit and makes no recommendations as to policy but it also makes clear there is scope for use of derogation around freedom of movement as long as Cassis stuff is carefully observed.
Of course in the end it’s all a question of proper, respectful negotiation at inter and then intra-state level, so it’s not going to happen under the Tories. It’s unclear to what extent Labour is aware of the potential.
None of this is to say I favour FoM restriction, unless it is part of a widely agreed (by peoples not just states) set of measures to bring the convergence the original single market could never bring because of path dependencies etc.. To that extent, I agree with Richard about restrictions on capital and goods, but only where it is temporary tillconvergence or agreed point near-convergence.
You have hit on a key issue: convergencies
We do not have them
Frankly this makes little sense.
People of the left in the richest countries disparaging freedom of movement because it drives down the wages of workers in the richest countries? Have you asked those workers in the poorest countries, including those Romanian doctors, whether they agree that restrictions on their movement drives down wages?
Simply, restrictions on labour without corresponding restriction on capital will cause workers in rich countries to be come richer, those in poor countries to become poorer. This is neo liberal. It is not left wing (unless national socialism is now classed as left wing). That is why UKIP support it. All good leftists must oppose any restrictions on movement of labour.
Hang on….why should we deny Romania its doctors?
I am sorry: all pragmatic leftists ( and I am a pragmatist) have always accepted limitations on movement
The question is what the restrictions should be and why
Perhaps the Romanian doctors should be afforded some choice on where they practice their trade if there is a demand for it elsewhere.
Yes, pragmatist leftist limitation on movement as in East Berlin. Very pragmatic.
Again, it is inconceivable to me that any true person on the left can support restrictions on selling one’s labour without corresponding restrictions on capital.
I have nade clear for a very long time that I believe in restrictions on the free movement of capital
Sweden has had an equal if not higher influx of immigrants per capita than the UK and average wages have still increased to their highest ever point.
There is actually NO proven causal relationship between the movement of labour and decreasing living standards and wages.
What does cause worsening work conditions for ordinary workers are poor labour laws, low wages, weak trade unions.
Improve those and you’ll have better paid, happier workers.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/sweden/
“There is actually NO proven causal relationship between the movement of labour and decreasing living standards and wages.”
How can a massive increase in the supply of low-skilled labour not have at least a stagnating effect on wages?
Don’t you think at least part of the reason we have so many people stuck in low wage, low-skilled work is because bosses have so many people they can turn to?
I have never heard a boss of a single FTSE 100 company, or any business leader from organisations like the CBI, complain about the free movement of labour. That surely is nothing if not revealing.
Big business loves immigration because it keeps labour cheap. Government loves immigration because it expands GDP (though not per capita). The people who hate it are shire Tories yearning for ye olde England and the low-skilled whose wages are depressed.
In a word, unions, or the lack of them
That’s the explanation
“How can a massive increase in the supply of low-skilled labour not have at least a stagnating effect on wages?”
If there are strong unions, better employment rights, decent terms and conditions enshrined in law.
Anyone seriously wanting to improve those things must start to discuss how to achieve them and stop focussing on the chimera of “it’s all immigration’s fault”. And, if they believe that stopping immigration is suddenly going to cause employers to offer improvements to pay/T&Cs, they will be very disapointed.
I agree
No recognition that I can see in either Colin’s piece, Richard’s or anyone else’s comments, that the EU is not a fixed entity, when it is constantly being expanded to include lower wage countries.
This either happens through formal accessions (latest Croatia, after Romania and Bulgaria), or, now, because, as the Commission admits, there is ‘no appetite for further accessions’ within the ‘EU so-far’, via de facto accessions with Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements.
The Ukrainian civil war kicked off when the President pulled back at the last minute from signing the DCFTA with the EU in Feb. Those who control the EU mechanism finally got what they wanted when the shonky Ukraine president finally signed up in the summer, before himself resigning and just before the whole ‘government’ did the same.
D&CFTAs are being negotiated with countries to the east of the existing EU and also along north Africa.
These deals all include visa free access and/or Mode 4 temporary movement of workers across borders. Indeed for the partner countries this is the main aspect, both to sell the deals to their populations (as migration opportunities) and, related to that, because the potential remittances are in those governments’ interests.
These deals are indeed an EU responsibility, negotiated effectively secretly by the EU Trade Commission, when formal accessions would be out in the open.
This is just one aspect of the corporate deceit going on behind facade of an EU that is undeniably a corporate mechanism. There is no reforming it. There are no means to effect the pie-in-the-sky changes to the EU that Colin hopes for. So with this strategy we will get no change – but those proposing it will maintain a ‘nice’ facade.
We do not have to be part of this corrupt EU mechanism, used by the transnational financial service industry to get what they want (nb the American Chamber of Commerce is a major voice in EU policy making, in order for institutions working in our interests to co-operate.
I hesitate to say unions because in the union pyramid as it exists, the ETUC sits at the top, but that is funded and hand-in-glove with corporate Europe.
However, any call that serves to move the LP and the Greens from a stupid (LP) and self-serving (Greens) position which is contrary to what people want, is useful.
I find it difficult to believe, Richard, that you have published this article, or that you take the ‘pragmatic’ attitude that you do to the free movement of labour, which I regard as morally repugnant. That you should have published it at this time, when the EU has decided to end the ‘Mare Nostra’ Operation in the Mediterranean is singularly unfortunate, to say the least. The callous attitude and indifference to human life displayed in that decision is reflected in this disgraceful article. Its author should be ashamed of himself, and so should you.
The majority, so Mr Hines argues, are in favour of restricting immigration. So it is ‘undemocratic’ to oppose them. The ‘majority’ were once (and probably still are) in favour of hanging. Is that a reason for reimposing the death penalty? No, it is not. I have never heard a more stupid argument in my life. Majorities can be, and frequently are, wrong – ill-informed, ignorant and plain wrong. Those who are better-informed and more intelligent must make the decisions for them. That is why we do not have direct democracy in this country, but Parliamentary democracy, or what Max Weber called ‘élite pluralism’ – offering the electorate a choice of political élites at each General Election.
If we have low wages in this country, that is not the result of immigration, but of loss of trades union collective bargaining power, restrictive labour laws that stymie unions and make it far too easy for employers to dismiss workers without fear of being sued in Employment Tribunals for wrongful dismissal, and a prolonged period of high unemployment and under-employment. The changes to the social security system do not help, when people can be forced off JSA and into zero-hours contract ‘jobs’ under threat of benefit sanctions.
Romanian doctors, like Polish plumbers, have the perfect right to exercise their labour wherever they like. The idea that people should be restricted in their movement, and confined to their nation of origin is racist, and should be called such. I would expect it from a Nazi, I wouldn’t have expected it from you, Richard. The fact that you can even entertain the idea makes me wonder about you, and think that there is something very seriously wrong with your politics. No liberal or libertarian could ever countenance any restriction on free movement of peoples across national frontiers – indeed, we want to do away with national frontiers!
I am an internationalist, and as an internationalist I am utterly appalled by this article. It is disgusting, it is vile, it is racist and it is fascist. I will NOT be publishing it, either on Twitter or Facebook. If you ever publish anything like it again, Richard, our association will be at an end.
Richard
We must differ
We have, and will always have, immigration controls in the UK
Whilst I do not doubt for a moment that the real crisis in wages is due to weak unions this ignores the cultural impact of immigration
I am from a largely immigrant family (the Irish were deeply unwelcome, after all) so I have some idea on these issues which persisted in that case even in my own lifetime. I am not denying that there are personal advantages to immigration – there are. But there may also be limits to the rate of change a society can manage
I have differences with Colin – and have made that clear. Equally, he is raising an issue that is of enoprmous importance to a great many people – whether you or anyone else on the left likes it or not. I spoke to a person yesterday who came from the county where I live – Norfolk – originally and said he could never come back from Yorkshire where he now lives as there are far too many foreigners
He may be wholly wrong – I think he is – but unless we discuss the issues and what we can do to make immigration manageable – which is the aim – then I think the left is out of debate altogether. And yes in that sense, noting that for a large part of society this issue matters is respecting democracy
So I posted a controversial piece that tries to address the issues from a non-neoliberal perspective. I think that necessary. Equally, I am quite sure I do not know the answers yet and I am not sure Colin does either.
But to say this is vile or fascist is, respectfully, just rhetoric and utterly meaningless rhetoric at that. Similarly, to say it is racist is simply absurd. Sorry, but I have to say so and leave you to make your choices. But if you want to suggest such issues cannot be discussed because such allegations will be levelled is akin to saying we have no freedom of speech and that I do not agree with
I do agree with you there Richard.
If one wants to explain the rise of UKIP they should look no further than Richard Blaber’s post.
If wealth was distributed around the world economy fairly, we would not have the problem of so much immigration because there would be sufficient services and opportunities in those countries that would make leaving unnecessary. That cheap food we buy all year around in the supermarkets comes at cost. This immigration issue is just us in this country peeing in the wind – only being able to see to the end of our noses and not the bigger picture beyond. That cheap mange-tout works out as more expensive in the long run.
If we were on the other hand paying proper prices for these and other commodities, then the those countries exporting this stuff might be able be able to raise more money to enhance the lives of their citizens so that they could have a good life where they live now (for example, a decent Health Service). So thank you to the supermarkets for creating an artificial market of competition based on price. Someone is going to lose, and let’s face it, it isn’t going to be the investors is it (unless you are a Tesco shareholder, cough cough)? It’s going to be the producer.
I don’t think Richard’s piece above is at all racist – he is raising a difficult issue because there so much crap spoken in the media about this it is hard to get to the bottom of it. What I do know is that for me, the real villain is business itself. Because it is business that does the hiring and firing and which are quite happy to undermine the indigenous population’s minimum wage using it as a threat to fire or lower wages and conditions. And why are they doing that? Because it will increase their profits and this in turn will increase the return on capital for the investor. So as it is said above, the capital flows and immigration share a dynamic or two – there is a relationship. It’s wage arbitrage surely?
And even this sordid government gets in on the act, saying that public sector wages need to be lowered so that the talent pool in it can be hired by the private sector at much lower rates. So we are moving wages down (instead of up) for everyone except the elite so that we can compete with other countries for ‘inward investment’.
I’d like to think that being able to move around Europe was not conceived to aid business in controlling and reducing wage costs but part of the European project now seems to have been hijacked by American style neo-lib orthodoxy. This seems to be what has actually happened and it is worth talking about it – even if it is unpalatable because the way things are now helps investors and corporations – not real people.
You have got the point
Thanks
Yes, but the point is that restrictions on capital need to be put in place BEFORE restrictions on people’s labour.
Interesting thoughts.
The free movement of people and capital within a politically connected club, and within a sub region of the club a currency union, is inherently bad for all the reasons stated.
Taking that step further to another similar club doesn’t that mean that the neoliberal movement of people and capital within similar club such as the UK is equally bad? I worked with loads of Scots and Irish in England and the fact that they are here must, surely, be a neoliberal imposition on them and us? Same for my |English friends working and living in Wales, Ireland and Scotland?
Similarly I, a Yorkshireman who lives in North Dorset and does part time work in London, must be stopped as I have taken advantage of the neoliberal free movement of people within England?
I had the pleasure of working for this guy in South Africa:
http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=5571
https://www.facebook.com/AncylBushyKelobonyeBranch/info?tab=page_info
I’m sure if he were alive today he would point to the similarity with South Africa’s pass laws.
You are denying the existence of the state and community
If you wish to argue from the surreal you will look ridiculous
Which State and community am I denying?
I am accepting the proposition that the EU is a State and a community and that the EU State should restrict the movement of individuals within that State and community to the benefit of the poor within that State and community.
All I’m doing is asking why that the same principle shouldn’t be applied to the UK, a State and a community, to provide the same benefits?
I went on to make the point that restrictions of internal movement of people
The EU is factually not a state
A lot of comments. Without free movement and the like one is very much more reverting to nation states – in which case the question for the Eurocrats is why are they needed!
Very radical of you to side partially with some of the points made by the far right.
One does feel sympathy for those “stolen” Romanian doctors.. but how do they differ from Malawian nurses?
They don’t differ
And the whole point is I am not in any way agreeing with the far right
The need is to create a left wing possibility for progress
not sure you can say free movement is a neoliberal creation. Capital movement yes but was under the impression that pioneers for movement of people were definitely on the left…
Yes of course it isn’t now but in the scenario set out it would need to be to enforce the non-movement of people and capital and it is within that premises that I was making the point.
Which still stands BTW, If the non movement of goods and capital within the EU is a good thing why isn’t a good thing within the UK?
Because this is a nation state
Teflon Don – I’m not saying that economic migration is a neo-liberal invention. What I am trying to highlight is the use the neo-liberal system puts that migration to which is essentially (in this context) to reduce existing wages in areas where inward migration occurs and thus increase corporate profits.
As to what a more left wing solution would be, then forgive me since it’s been such a long time since I’ve seen a genuine left wing policy in this country about anything, I have trouble thinking about what they might look like!.
I’d like to think that co-operating countries would work together to limit movement as the country losing people might face consequences (see Richard’s Romanian doctor scenario above). The receiving country would surely have to set a quota for immigrants. You’d think that immigration might be based on a lack of skills in the host country. However, what makes me heartily sick is the way in which the CBI harp on about how British workers are not skilled enough to fill the posts their members advertise. This is maybe true; but I also believe it’s a great way to hide the actual fact that it’s not the skills immigrants bring but their desperation to earn peanuts that really counts to the CBIs’ members.
When I lived in London in the mid to late 90’s, all the Burger Kings and even Hamleys had Africans working in them; when I visit London now I see mostly East Europeans. I find that very interesting and troubling. Goodness knows what wages are being paid for this labour (and, how many zero hours contracts that entails)?
As for SimonF – I think I know what he is getting at (I will give you the benefit of the doubt Simon). I mean look at the increasingly overcrowded south east and London. No-one can deny they has been inner-migration from elsewhere in the country. However, Why?
Because the regions do not get a fair crack of the whip investment wise and also they are made up of ex-industrial centres that suffered some of the worst economic vandalism ever when the Tories tried out their new monetarist economic model in the early 80’s. It’s hard to believe that back then, even the CBI fell out with Thatcher about this (this was when the CBI was about REAL industry – not the Financial industry as it seems to be now). So people left those Northern areas because basically there was not enough opportunity. The way to stop this? Redistribute – whether it is because of endogamous (inner) flows of migration or exogamous (international) ones, it is the ‘R’ word that will be the moderating variable.
I think(?)
You hit the nail on the head
We do not have open borders, as a matter of fact. It would be liberal to gave them but politically impossible, whatever the economic evidence. There is more to life than economics. So there is a need for left wing thinking on this issue and to say it is racist, etc.m to even discuss it is not just inappropriate, it also irresponsible.
I would rather not think about going near it. I am sure many feel the same. If I was at a dispatch box (and I have no such plans) I know I would have to address the issue in a credible and int life R fashion because necessity would demand it. I refuse se to think it racist as some have said to do so
Colin has tried to do that and he will attract opprobrium for doing so. I risked publishing his piece as did Left Foot Foward because the left does have a duty to discuss this positively and pragmatically. He may not have the solution but the left has to debate it, like a lot if other issues it has long ignored.
The whole premise is still wrong.
The treaty of Rome and its rights predate neoliberalism.
The right for free movement of labour was included as a balance to the free movement of capital within the European economic area. It was in order to get the unions and socialists on board.
As with the current attack on the state, the parties of the right (UKIP & Tories) see the current crisis as a great opportunity to roll back rights won for working people in the 1940s and 1950s. Repealing the right of movement of labour is a key part of this.
It is that simple really, and I’m afraid any left winger who goes along with this is actually a useful idiot for the forces of neoliberalism.
And sometimes things change, and they have
I would not wish to end movement.
I would not end the movement of capital.
Both are beneficial.
But if they begin to cause problems it’s fair to ask how they can be better managed for social good
Anyone who does not at least recognise that is a useful idiot for the right
I’m sorry Richard buy this whole posy and comment string is an exercise in cowardice or idiocy; you show us which.
“When they begin to cause problems…”
What problems exactly does free movement of people cause? The cards answer is “it’s obvious” thay is what I expect from you frankly.
This whole exercise is the exact opposite: it took courage to publish this as it would be much easier not to have done so
Immigrants do not cause economic problems in the UK: it is clear that they add value to our economy
But there are, I am told by many – including those I meet in an area where immigration is a major issue for some (but not me) – that the rate of change created by immigration is at present creating social stress
As a matter of fact people like change (the first differential)
And as a matter of fact if the rate of change of change (the second differential) is too high they can become uncomfortable
I personally feel it is the second part of this equation that is the issue that has to be addressed
I will always favour policy in favour of allowing the UK to provide a home to as many people as it can, and I want people to have the freedom to travel work and live where they can, if possible
But if populations and communities are destabilised as a result then how to address the issues that arise is a poroper issue for debate and not doing so is cowardly
I think that is an abundantly clear answer that explains the need for debate
It is also clear that it means Colin and I differ on some issues – as I made clear from the outset
But it is only cowards who resort to name calling – as you are doing
Here’s some more name calling.for you
then; horribly confused. Confused because the very title of your post indicates this is caused by neoliberalism. Yet you haven’t shown any neoliberalism at work here, only people wishing to make better lives for themselves.
Read what Colin wrote
And stop wasting time
Colin’s wrong. The neoliberals (e.g Tories and Ukip) are trying to end free movement of labour not encourage it. His entire premise is false.
I have not accepted that premise
And nor ha Colin as far a I can see: he is saying we may need to restrict it
Jean
I do think that UKIP probably do want to stop immigration. I hate them but they do seem to be focussing on the rate of change issue and the other issues like how immigrants are lowering wages for everyone and using those factors to reach the electorate who probably are feeling the effects. Then there’s the even more dodgy stuff like benefit claims and NHS use by immigrants that get roped in as well.
But are you sure that the Tories do want to stop immigration? Cameron has said he wants the UK to compete – meaning lower corporate taxation and lower wages for workers too in order to attract inward investment (don’t forget our neutered unions). All these traits are traits of neo-liberal thinking. Flood an economy with cheap labour and watch the price of it come down.
The Tories are just jumping on the immigration band wagon because they want to retain power but we still get reports that immigration is high – just like we end up finding out that the deficit is worse than they predicted because of their plainly stupid management of the economy.
The modern Tory always says one thing but does another – right from when Thatcher said “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony” – a total lie. How can the Tories control immigration when they cut immigration control staff? Is this stupidity or is intentional?
Finally this isn’t about the ‘free movement of labour’. It is about the desperate search for a better life that wouldn’t be so if there was more control of markets by governments world wide.
There is no way the Tories would stop migration
No serious party would, or could