Is freedom of movement in the EU a good reason for a EU exit? Is free movement of Europeans bad for Britain? Join our debate and vote in our poll (see below)
Debate speakers
For freedom of movement and EU membership:
- Lisi Freeman Alarcon is the Academic Student Representative and Secretary General of the Mansfield Law Society at London Metropolitan University. Lisi has lived in different countries in Europe, Asia and Africa and Speaks English, Spanish, French and Arabic. Lisi is a member of the New Europeans.
- Bright Amponsah is a teacher who has been working in Further and Higher Education. He was involved in the Scottish Parliament's Community Partnership Project and presented the report "Social Integration and Cultural Exchange". He speaks English and Italian and is also member of New Europeans.
Against freedom of movement and EU membership:
- Daniel Oxley is the treasurer of the London Borough of Newham UKIP branch and stood as UKIP candidate for the parliamentary constituency of East Ham. He is a long serving school governor and has had been directly involved in curriculum development. He currently works in tourism, specializing in cultural travel involving opera, concerts and ballet.
- Phil Sheppard studies History at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a member of the Conservative Party and Chair of London Universities for Britain, a group supporting the "Vote Leave" option in the Brexit referendum. Phil is born to a British father and a Russian mother and speaks English, Russian and French.
EU freedom of movement
The pros and cons of being in the EU are currently being discussed daily in the UK. The referendum on European membership has brought to the fore a myriad of arguments in favour and against EU membership. The free movement of persons is one of the four founding principles of the European Union alongside the free movement of goods, services and capital. However, the EU freedom of movement principle has come under close scrutiny in the context of the current refugee and migrants crisis and of the growing popularity of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Bordering policies are key in political debates.
The Eurozone crisis and the alleged marginalization of Britain by EU decision-making bodies have become regular arguments in the Brexit debate. In the wake of the wave of terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, many have claimed that it is time to "take back control of the UK's borders." For them, the Home Office should have the last word in deciding who can come, live and work in the UK or who should not. British jobs and security are at stake at the moment and the principle of national sovereignty over the territory should prevail. There are also concerns on the integration of immigrants and their impact on local culture and socio-demographic landscape. Often those against free movement of workers have taken a stance against EU membership and are supporting the "Leave EU" campaign.
On the other hand, many argue that, precisely, the UK is the country that has benefitted the most from the free movement of workers in the EU. Britain has managed to develop a service economy grounded on the talent coming from all over Europe and beyond. The new increased diversity in Britain is the result of its open labour market driven growth over the last decades. The lack of bureaucratic barriers has served to attract the brightst and best. These "migrants" from other EU countries are disproportionally well-educated and skilled and cultural diversity has made the UK a more interesting destination. The UK is already a non-Schengen country and security would be hindered if police collaboration with the EU would diminish. Exiting the EU or introducing new bureaucratic barriers or visa requirements for EU citizens would likely make Britain less appealing to multinational companies and start-ups. Moreover, it will also create difficulties for the more than 1.3 million British citizens currently living in other European countries.
What do you think? Should Britain leave the EU? Is free movement of persons in the EU really a problem? Should border control and restricting migration be a priority for the UK government? What about free movement of goods, services and capital? Join the debate, leave your comments and questions you did not have the chance to ask during the event below.
Check out these videos with Professor Simon Hix, Department of Government, London School of Economics, and Professor Catherine Barnard, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
If you want to promote your own scholarly debate, lecture, research project or academic article, contact us: university[a]netivist.org
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
31 xp
4 posts
I believe that I covered that in my comments. What is baseless is the general free movement that is not associated to the business requirements. I was not arguing against employers needing to move expert staff between their establishments in different countries. That is reasonable, as long as it is not dishonestly exploited.
As far as manpower is concerned, employers should not be allowed to recruit from other countries in order to exploit the people on low pay, which not only blocks people already living in the first country from finding employment, but also has the effect of depressing pay for them generally. It also has, at least a tendency, to deprive the countries involved of people that they need. That surely is wrong because it must aggravate the problems of development for those countries.
1110 xp
341 posts
Linking free movement of people to that of capital, goods, and knowledge is not baseless. Even from a pure economic point of view, those believing in free markets need to acknowledge that people, manpower, is a crucial element in the equation. Also a balancing mechanism to prevent tensions and foster growth. Free movement of people has a strong impact on competition. If people could not move, countries with scarcity of manpower would see their labor costs increased dramatically and those we abundance of people would be able to keep people living in horrible conditions to keep labor costs low (social dumping). Without movement of people capitalism does not work properly.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
