-
How do I argue in favour of the freedom of movement?
Of goods or people?
If it's people then I would put it that first there is a fuzzy, unquantifiable benefit from people travelling and having exposure to different cultures. Second, for the recipient state there is a (presumably quantifiable) benefit to opening your labour pool to attract people who contribut to your GDP. Ideally these people require no initial investment (ie health, education, welfare upto the point of working age) and no ongoing net cost (ie future health/welfare). For the providing state, I am less sure, but I assume the argument would run along the lines that when the worker returns to their home/providing state they bring new skills which provide an economic benefit. They are also likely to bring back money which is spent or invested.
Also is the economy doing so badly?
You are reading a single comment by @yoshy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hugo7
@yoshy
How do I argue in favour of the freedom of movement? I feel like my agreement with it might be more ideological than anything else and it seems to be the most important issue for many. I think it's what will win or lose the referendum.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/07/01/the-uk-has-been-one-of-the-main-beneficiaries-from-free-movement-of-labour-in-the-eu/
I think it would be fair to argue that people are still feeling a squeeze as the economy is still doing so badly. Investment in large projects is low because there are no funds being given out by the government. When jobs are hard to come by, it's easy to look for someone to blame, and it's important that the EU isn't blamed for us not being able to employ everyone.