A fundamental flaw with removing freedom of movment while staying in the single market

[NotDavidTennant]

At the moment it seems that we're being presented that the ideal outcome for Brexit is for us to get rid of freedom of movement but to stay in the single market. Isn't there a fundamental flaw with this?

If British companies can't employ Poles or Romanians or whoever in the UK, what's to stop them relocating to Poland or Romania or wherever else in Europe has cheap labour and then exporting their products back to the UK via the single market? Obviously there would be a cost to shipping goods across Europe, but if the savings on wages and running costs are greater then why wouldn't they move to those countries?

Have I missed something?

No, apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely that we will be allowed to stay in the single market and prevent free movement of people (or at very least, workers).

I agree, but I think the more pressing argument will be that the EU is unlikely to allow us to pick and choose the parts of the EU we want. If we want to stop freedom of movement, we will have to give up something else.

I think they'll negotiate away the city passport, in return for freedom of movement - which means bye-bye to London as the financial capital. In the short term, people will be cheering what they see as the downfall of the bankers, in the long term the economic consequences will hit everybody, except the very rich probably.

Its not on the table as freedom of movement is tied to freedom of trade.

If people wanted to change this it should have been tried from within via MEP's but when you have a shower of %^& who dont even bother it wont happen.

First we need to work out if we going EEA or leaving completely. The latter will have massive ramifications.

And the world will still have just as many bankers but the UK will be paying for them instead of the rest of the world paying us. How do people think that we fund public services?