I was distressed multiple times today when watching my recording of the Daily Politics.
I was first distressed with how much I agreed (again) with Frank Field. Could it be that Frank is more Conservative and reasonable that Mr Cameron?!
Then I was distressed by the other guest (Charlie Whelan) who turned suddenly nasty when asked to comment on Mr Field’s position. Political correctness and a naive determination that Labour voters will not mind their lower-paid jobs being made lower paid by, admittedly hard-working, immigrants from the new EU member states.
Freedom of movement is an important aspect of the European Union and I firmly believe that some of the repurcussions on the newer member states’ economies should have been considered before membership was granted. How can the urban, never mind rural, economies in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria survive with such numbers leaving?
But we cannot go over what might have been and hope to come out of it other than frustrated.
What have we learnt?
Probably, most importantly, that poor countries need to be helped by western nations before we offer them the mixed blessing that is EU membership. In fact, as EU membership is so attractive for the likes of Romania because of the assistance they are given for infrastructure improvements, why not make those donations of assistance so that the quality of life differential is not so massive by the time the barriers to movement are taken away?
The humane thing to do with the likes of Turkey and Croatia and Macedonia is to give them the assistance and representation etc. that any other EU country has without providing them with the crippling effect that is freedom of movement (it could be termed “freedom to lose your most productive citizens”).
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Dave on May 24th, 2007 - 12:36 am
Freedom to lose their most productive citizens?
Come on Gav pull the fkin other one.
These countries couldn’t wait to join the EU freedom of movement deal inorder to get rid of their gypsy populations, and undesirable criminal groups who will move on to richer pastures like erm… London.
They are loving whats happening. Its us who should be concerned.
#2 by jameshigham on May 24th, 2007 - 7:13 am
The whole biz of the “free movement” of peoples is a lie. It is always one way – Mexicans to the U.S.A., Eastern Europeans to the West and so on. It is never “free movement” or at least maybe it’s free but it’s not balanced.
#3 by Gav on May 24th, 2007 - 12:19 pm
Dave, there’s certainly that to consider, but the people who are most likely to emmigrate are those in their 20s and who are fit and healthy.
While that is a mixed blessing to the West, it cannot be anything but a bad thing for rural Romania/Bulgaria etc.
#4 by Dave on May 25th, 2007 - 1:10 am
I don’t see why getting rid of your most disloyal citizens leaving passionate patriots behind is such a bad thing. Their economy might suffer in the short term but they will be less likely to have the balkanisation that we are going to get, which will make them better off in the long term.