That Corbyn fella...

more importantly from a moral perspective, the left should be defending freedom of movement.

Wuuut

Workers of the world, unite and all that.

Freedom of movement also allows UK pensioners to easily marry EU citizens, live in EU countries, have access to rights that UK immigration will not grant them, be able to retire easily in the EU AND get low cost healthcare...

...and it turns out that if it is put like that, with the comment that people with no cash/nobody they can live with to pay the bills/and don't have a job can already be evicted, the UK is actually OK with FOM.

The idea that freedom of movement suppresses wages is a fallacy; I think the left should be defending it (although no one seems to be doing a very good job of this at the moment!)

Here's an article that makes the economic case for open borders if you're interested: https://theconversation.com/the-us-100-trillion-case-for-open-borders-72595

Surely the fact that the proletariat are forced through their lack of means of production to migrate and sell their labour in order to live is something every Corbynista should be rallying against.

I'm not sure that isolationism has ever been the left's answer to the pressures of capitalism, but it's certainly a novel approach

That seems like an economic case rather than a moral one :)

Money can buy people’s conscience!

(I totally agree with you)

So the left wing argument for FOM is an increase in global GDP and to increase quality of life through capitalism and free markets?

I'm half taking the piss. IMO framing the FOM debate in terms of left/right is a bit like going to the bible to support your view point - you'll always find something to support your view.

There is nothing inherently left wing about FOM.

Yeah, that's fair. The idea of the proletariat rising up for more restrictions on where they can go and what they can do did make me lol, though.

Yes. So closing the door to them here is the solution?

I mean, if mainland EU had done that to the English when things were not going so well here in the 70s, would that have improved anything?

If I were Labour, I could think of a lot of useful things to do in the EU, but shutting the door for people isn't one of them.

Beside, the nasty right started this conversation in the UK, why adopt nativist and xenophobic projects? May as well be redkip then.

So closing the door to them here is the solution?

The left wing solution should be the redistribution of capital to prevent the need for movement.

Once you do that FOM ceases to have any economic argument, and becomes a purely social one. The social discussion of the benefits of migration are between pro-imigrationists and anti-imigrationists, not left/right.

It ought to be hardcore free-marketeers like JRM defending freedom of movement. Wages are higher one country over? People move until wages equalise. Supply and demand (of labour) and all that. Restricting FOM is restricting the free market.

But of course they just handily ignore their own principles when people who don't speak English are involved

Edit: agree with ^ - the left wing solution is redistribution whereas righties are supposed to leave things unrestricted and let workers figure out what's best for themselves

The left wing solution should be the redistribution of capital to prevent the need for movement.

But in the meantime, one would advocate the removal of peoples ability to move freely?

Yes, if it means your mates get to keep their unionised jobs.

"The left wing solution should be the redistribution of capital to prevent the need for movement."

That ain't gonna happen any time soon. And I am talking about Labour here, the hard core socialists I know have no problem at all with immigration. Labour now has.

Besides, Labour is OK with "acceptable immigrants" that "fill gaps" but just letting people find their own work (EU rules) is not good.

And with canning FOM much will be lost for Brits. I have to agree that left/right is somewhat irrelevant.

Washing machines and financial instruments should be able to travel freely, workers should not.

Sounds legit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/lib-dems-refuse-to-support-future-labour-no-confidence-votes

At last the Lib Dems are doing something useful.

It is noise anyway, the lack of control on the global banking system combined with local policies that drive up cost of living VS wages are more at fault than some Romanians. It is bad economic policies like austerity and the fact that betting on house prices can tumble down from the USA to the rest of the world.

But the banks cannot fail, because if they do all the pensions held there will devalue and you can strip a good value of your housing market too. And you -could- go there, but you a shitload of people end up bankrupt/with no pension. So then you could make an exception for that, but then what do you do with your currency? There are no easy answers.

But you can easily control immigrants eh?

JRM

But of course they just handily ignore their own principles when people who don't speak English are involved

Not the sort of person I want to defend, but has he expressed any anti-imigration views? I had him in the same camp as BJ with the UK as dirtier version of Singapore with shit weather, but FOM extended to the ROW.

@fussballclub just posted this Younge piece in the EU thread (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/theresa-may-survival-conservatives-brexit-labour-power). I think this is on the money:

So more than 100 Tories voted first to get rid of her, and then to keep her.

It’s not difficult to see why. Corbyn is a socialist and has proved himself to be an effective campaigner. The last 10 polls show the parties are close, with the Tories leading in four, Labour ahead in four and two tied. Given that Labour managed to close a 21-point gap during the last election campaign, May has vowed not to lead the party into another election and any successor would deepen already infected wounds, the Tories would rather muddle through than double down. So the last few months have illustrated less confidence in her than a lack of confidence in their own party to find a viable successor or prevail before the electorate.

The DUP got a billion to prop up the Tories. Vince gets.........what? A new hat?

Nothing, I suppose. I also doubt it will help Corbyn to do what he said he would do when he became labour leader, represent the views of the grassroots membership.

But let's forget about the rest of the marginals or Tory seats Labour would then definitely lose in an election.

It's easy for the Lib Dems to take that position when they only hold 11 seats.

Remain politicians from all sides have failed to sell the case for staying in the EU and explaining the benefits. This is long before Cameron kowtowed to the potential UKIP defectors in his party. Corbyn could have made the case for staying in the EU, campaigned hard and made an impact in those Labour leave areas but he didn't. Should politicians reflect public opinion or shape public opinion?