Anyone else baffled by this portrayal of the EU as progressive and liberal

[Roonerspism]

It struck me today watching the march that the EU is now being protrayed as this liberal force across European states promoting fair standards for all.

From the moment I knew I no longer believed in the EU, about five years ago, it was because I saw it as the exact opposite.

And it was this that underpinned my vote to Leave.

I'm essentially left leaning and feel increasingly lost in this sea of protests!

The EU has never meant "Europe" to me and is rather the desire for a distant superstate with power in the most powerful few countries. Indeed, the current austerity placed on the Southern European countries, to the benefit of the north seems to go unnoticed to the devastated UK youth who seem not to consider the hugely unemployed youth in south Europe.

This is a capitalist project and not a humanitarian one. The reason for free movement of people as a core concept is not because it's nice to travel but solely to ensure corporations have access to a mobile and cheap workforce this encouraging greater integration. Never mind if this decimates the country of origin.

The misery of the infliction of a single currency on countries as disparate as Germany and Greece and the subsequent power held by Germany will cause untold suffering for at least a generation.

The talks to promote TTIP have largely been held in secret and further underlines the utterly undemocratic nature of this regime.

Yet here we all are. Waving our EU flags.

I'm utterly bemused. Am I mad?!?!?!

even if you don't like freedom of movement, you have to accept it if you want access to the single market

I've heard that often, but while it may be a starting point for negotiations, it's certainly not necessarily the end point.

Grace, I don't see why freedom of movement is a requisite.
As a pp said, I don't want to be treated like a pawn to be pushed around, on a par with goods / services / capital. I'm a person, not a commodity.
Besides the EU manages to trade with the Rest of the World without needing to impose freedom of movement there. Why is it so important within its own borders?
I repeat: I don't see why freedom of movement is a requisite. Unless the EU wants it because it undermines / renders obsolete nation states.

Figment the point about TTIP is that we (the electorate) can't control or impact on how the EU negotiate on it. If the UK is leading its own negotiations then as an electorate we can lobby; we can petition for a debate in parliament.

If more countries threaten to leave then the EU may be worried their little club is going to fall apart, they will have to think about dropping or making changes to at least one of their 4 golden rules.

Freedom of movement means that rich countries can import cheap labour, and it help to keep wages down if there is supply of people from poorer countries willing to work for low wages

Exit It should not surprise you. Tony Benn would have as well, he was a staunch critic of the EU.

I understand that many people voted Remain because they think the EU is better than our Tory government. I really get that, it was something I wrestled with for a long time. But to argue this from a lesser of two evils perspective just seems terribly short sighted. Sometimes you have to play the long game.

For anyone who is in any doubt about the left wing case for Brexit from an ideological/anti-Establishment point of view, read this from Claire Fox, who nails it as usual:
politicalcritique.org/world/uk/2016/fox-i-am-on-the-left-and-i-want-to-exit/

figment The UK had no part in the TTIP negotiations - we were locked out of talks, and yet the impact on our lives & public services could have been huge.

I suppose from a purely economic point of view, freedom of movement of people is one of the fundamentals upon which free trade works. It enables businesses to fill vacancies with appropriate workers. It also allows workers from areas where the economy is doing badly to move where the work is, eg Germany has been a magnet for workers from Spain and Greece where the economy has been struggling. Now I'm not saying that freedom of movement to this extent is necessarily a good thing. We have seen many arguments on this thread from a leftist point of view that counteract that. As I said, it was a positive for me but I wouldn't expect the future of the nation to be decided by the fact that I enjoyed spending some time working in Europe.

However, I do think that I am a pragmatist. Freedom of movement is a fundamental tenet of the EU and I can't see them sacrificing it any time soon. The EC commissioned a survey of all member states a couple of years ago and the view of freedom of movement was overwhelmingly positive. The EU are taking a very hard line with the Swiss. There is talk of them allowing a cap on migration if unemployment in a particular sector is at a particularly high level, but that's it. And I don't personally have any truck with the concept of sacrificing the financial sector in favour of regaining immigration controls. Yes, there is the possibility of the economy doing ok within a decade or so outside of the EU, but that's not a risk I wish me and my family to have to take. Some people may be ok with this , but I've said before, I don't think it's fair to put an entire generation of young people's future at risk on the promise that it will probably all be ok somewhere down the line. I know there's a feeling that there are many young people in the country who have a fairly bleak future as things stand but I can't see how they'll be better off in a recession with an "austerity" Tory government. Yes, we could hopefully vote them out, but equally we may be stuck with them. I think I'm on a similar page to many of you ideologically on some of this but I just don't have the faith that we can elect a government that can achieve this.

Sorry, that was a bit long!

I think the concerns about freedom of movement miss far greater concerns, coming down the track, impacting on low paid workers - most obviously the threat of technological change. At the recent Unions21 conference this was recognised as probably the greatest threat.

In November 2015, Andy Haldane of the bank of England warned the TUC that upwards of 15 million UK jobs are expected to be "hollowed out" as a result of digitization and robotics.

This presents a much bigger challenge than freedom of movement ever did, - and it won't go away.

A far better response is surely to invest in education and training - but this needs both political will and tax receipts, both of which are likely to be in shorter supply as a result of the distractions and harmful economic consequences of Brexit.

Yesterday I was in the Halifax with a handful of cheques and cash notes to pay into the bank. I was directed to a machine that carried out the entire transaction without even needing my PIN number. This is a very effective job destroyer, I (somewhat pointlessly) commented to the lady giving me instructions on how it works. Yes. It's very efficient isn't it, she said. So it is.

X posted with lots of people while composing my epic missive! I think the long game is too uncertain. The only times we've been able to elect a leftish government in the past 3 decades is when they swung massively to the right. And a large proportion of the electorate seem quite happy to move even further to the right. I suppose we can only hope that once the dust has settled and negotiations are done, people will realise they can't blame the EU for all their ills and will have to start looking more closely at national government policy.

"Yesterday I was in the Halifax" - well it was Saturday, actually - time is running away from me - but in future, as banks like the Halifax increasingly function using predominantly machines and we cease to be bound by e.g. the working time directive, I have on doubt that I will be in there (assuming I have any cash and cheque to pay in, of course!) on Sundays too.

Shining I saw a report on the FT from a study that showed the freedom of movement in the EU had almost no effect on the depression of wages. Not sure how it was carried out but I'll try to find it.

GraceGRape The way I see it, we were on a path, and we could see where it was leading. Now we have taken a different path, which gives us the scope to at least be able to determine these things ourselves.

I honestly don't know about the immigration question. I just can't agree to a system where someone else tells you that you have to like it or lump it. I read a troubling story that EU rules allow migrant workers to be employed by companies with a foreign address, which would mean that they could be paid less than the minimum wage. I can't find it now though, so don't quote me on that!

The only times we've been able to elect a leftish government in the past 3 decades is when they swung massively to the right But what has happened is that there is no left wing party that is listening to the working class. That vote is up for grabs in my opinion. If Labour can just remember who they are and who they are supposed to represent, the support is there. It has drifted to UKIP because it doesn't see anyone else addressing their concerns.

Caitlin "posted workers" (workers sent to work in the UK temporarily but employed by overseas companies or employment businesses) still have to get the national minimum wage. All workers with a contract to provide their services personally in the UK must get the minimum wage.

The sorts of problems you are referring to (and I am not diminishing them)( are to do with HMRC enforcement, rather than the law itself.

What postal workers are not entitled to are any improvements on terms and conditions that have been negotiated by a national union through a collective agreement. This is less of an issue in the UK, where collective agreements are not legally binding, than it is on continental Europe. It Is an issue that the EU has been trying, although not very successfully, to deal with through changes to the Postal Workers Directive.

Now I must do some work!

"posted" - not "postal" workers!

I find it incredibly patronising to say 'it's bad for Eastern European countries when their workers emigrate so we're doing them a favour by limiting their right to work' Surely working class Eastern Europeans get to make their own mind up on what's better for them?

Globally, reparations (money sent back by foreign workers) are a bigger contribution to developing countries than aid. It's short sighted to say the effects of a brain drain counteract that, especially given so many people come for a short time.

The point of the EU is that it tries to make all countries have a similar standard: so yes, your workers can leave, but the countries benefitting from their labour have to contribute to projects to make their home countries better. The success of this was overwhelmingly clear in Ireland. Interestingly, despite the same high proportion of Eastern Europeans in Ireland as the UK, there's also no real protest against their presence. I think the fact zero hour contracts haven't taken over in such a way is something to do with that. I do think the accession of so many new Eastern European states could have been handled better, but the money spent on development projects by the EC is meaningful, and it is based more on actual need than country level intervention which is often political.

I disagree with the democratic arguments, it's constantly rehashed but essentially, the eu has a civil service, directly elected MEPs, and fora for directly elected heads of state to negotiate. That's it. There's no secret cabal making the decisions that those two groups don't ultimately decide. Everything is done to a strict percentage reflecting share of population.

It has brought about greater legal protection for workers than the UK. I have listened carefully to left wing arguments, I really was open to changing my vote. I've worked on workers rights and migrant rights, the latter may have swayed my view but ultimately I found the left wing brexit vote unconvincing because there's no proper alternative. Most of it was anti-TTIP: there's a strong alliance against it in the EU, the tories will implement it without question. There's people unhappy about creek austerity: so am I, and I have written to my MP: ultimately, the U.K. Government supported those measures.

It would be be nice if this will bring about positive progressive changes, I really hope it does. But I think most of the arguments people are making are very unconvincing.

Completely agree, appala, that is how I see things too.

Have been looking up 'immigration' on Wikipedia, thinking I might find facts that might contradict my belief that it's a good thing (I'm an immigrant and open to hard truths), and found that apparently, immigration is even better than I thought.
This first bit is about the US, but the article in general talks about worldwide trends:

''A survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.[52] A survey of the same economists also shows strong support behind the notion that low-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.[53] According to David Card, Christian Dustmann, and Ian Preston, "most existing studies of the economic impacts of immigration suggest these impacts are small, and on average benefit the native population".[54] In a survey of the existing literature, Örn B Bodvarsson and Hendrik Van den Berg write, "a comparison of the evidence from all the studies... makes it clear that, with very few exceptions, there is no strong statistical support for the view held by many members of the public, namely that immigration has an adverse effect on native-born workers in the destination country."[55]
Whereas the impact on the average native tends to be small and positive, studies show small but more mixed results (negative, positive or no impact) for low-skilled natives.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] Overall immigration has not had much effect on native wage inequality[64][65] but low-skill immigration has been linked to greater income equality in the native population.[66] Research also suggests that diversity has a net positive effect on productivity[67][68] and economic prosperity.[69] A 2011 literature review of the economic impacts of immigration found that the net fiscal impact of migrants varies across studies but that the most credible analyses typically find small and positive fiscal effects on average.[60] According to the authors, "the net social impact of an immigrant over his or her lifetime depends substantially and in predictable ways on the immigrant's age at arrival, education, reason for migration, and similar".[60] According to a 2007 literature review by the Congressional Budget Office, "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."[70]
Studies of refugees' impact on native welfare are scant but the existing literature shows mixed results (negative, positive and no significant effects on native welfare).[57][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]According to labor economist Giovanni Peri, the existing literature suggests that there are no economic reasons why the American labor market could not easily absorb 100,000 Syrian refugees in a year.[81] Refugees integrate more slowly into host countries' labor markets than labor migrants, in part due to the loss and depreciation of human capital and credentials during the asylum procedure.[82] Research on the economic effects of undocumented immigrants is even more scant but existing studies suggests that the effects are positive for the native population,[83][84] and public coffers.[70] A 2015 study shows that "increasing deportation rates and tightening border control weakens low-skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment of native low-skilled workers. Legalization, instead, decreases the unemployment rate of low-skilled natives and increases income per native."[59]'
Later the article expands on how migrants after two generations usually adopt the ways of thinking of their host country re: for instance gender equality.

Figment Interestingly even the arch-neoliberal IMF now accept that a decline in unionisation increases inequality and (probably) does not decrease unemployment IMF: Power From The People

"...economists argue that while stronger unions and a higher minimum wage reduce wage inequality, they may also increase unemployment by maintaining wages above “market-clearing” levels, leading to higher gross income inequality. But the empirical support for this hypothesis is not very strong... "

It is frustrating to hear people lamenting about freedom of movement, when freedom of movement is so fundamental within the UK that no one gives it even a second thought. Indeed, as an Irish person, as soon as I became resident in the UK, I was regarded as a permanent resident. This is far more freedom than any other nationality within the EU enjoys. Indeed my son was able to obtain a UK passport from birth.

It has brought about greater legal protection for workers than the UK. I have listened carefully to left wing arguments, I really was open to changing my vote.

I would agree and this gets poo pooed too much, I genuinely fear what the brexit world is offering at the moment. We have some pretty right wing Tories and Labour look close to a red-tory take over as well. With a no doubt united front austerity as Labour wants to break the trope of being the ones seen to be bad with money.

Its keeps being said we could bring in our own laws or even gold plate them so they are even better than the EU but we dont. Tribunal costs have been ramped up to put people off complaining.

There's people unhappy about creek austerity: so am I, and I have written to my MP: ultimately, the U.K. Government supported those measures. Did they though? The UK is not part of the EZ, and thus we had no say on what was done to Greece; afaik, those decisions were made in the EZ group with Djesselbloem at the helm.

It is frustrating to hear people lamenting about freedom of movement, when freedom of movement is so fundamental within the UK that no one gives it even a second thought.

I was just coming back to comment on this precise point. Fawfal posted the 'expert' view that immigration/movement is OK. It may be on a macro scale but people care about the micro scale. We already have such a movement of people in this country that you cannot give away a house in some depressed parts whilst we simultaneously have SEers complaining about paying ten-times their salary to buy a shoe box. That is the reality that people see, not 'expert' views.
Move the jobs, not the people, but make them real jobs that are viable.

Scaryteacher: that's right that there's no jurisdiction but a) the UK has influence it hasn't chosen to use because it supports these measure and b) there are steps they could have taken they haven't - see this campaign: jubileedebt.org.uk/actions/stop-debt-vultures-swooping-on-greece Britain and Germany were also the only two countries in the EU who voted against, rather than abstaining from, a vote allowing for a global UN led debt mechanism that would address the problem of vulture funds taking advantage of foreign courts and would take the place of the troika in situations like this.

The U.K. Have made their position on Greek debt clear, it is very much so at the less progressive end of the spectrum within the EU

Purits, it's only Wikipedia, and open to criticism, I'm not saying it's the last word in it.
I do have sympathy for how it must feel on a micro level. I can't be ignored.