I do understand why the EU doesnt want to give in on this issue during the Brexit negotiations.

My argument is that free movement should not be a core principle of the EU in the first place. My argument is that elevating free movement to a core principle was an arbitrary and ideology-driven decision by the EU which has almost nothing to do with economic reasons and which has proven over time to be impractical if pulled off in a pure, uncompromising way.

It was a mistake to insist on unmitigated free movement between member states with such a huge gap in economic level as between the UK/France/Germany on one side and the eastern european countries on the other side. All I'm saying id that it was a mistake, and that doubling down on it like the EU is currently doing will only make things worse.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 5 2018 03:35pm

Doesn't seem like you've read anything on Chequers then, because it splits physical goods with services and only proposes something resembling free movement in goods, which represents 20% of the UK economy.

Another white paper that further dilutes our current negotiating stance would be too unpopular domestically to be feasible. In current polls, support for no deal over the chequers deal is 2 to 1, which is astonishing. Keeping the £40bn brexit divorce bill would soften the blow of a no deal scenario though, and WTO tariffs on exports could be manageable with the weakened pound.

3 months
http://britainelects.com/polling/europe/

thats pretty much all they do, the euro currency is also an ideology only project that simply can not work for the same reasons that you have posted

but hey, it was a complete surpise that many eastern europeans would some day realise that the german welfare state offers more than they could ever earn back home and that these people would pack their stuff by the tens of thousands
who would have thought?

everyone should know its stupid and these EU guys are not stupid, so they are clearly doing this on purpose
they cant possibly accept a member that refuses mass migration and the influx of cheap labour

thats why i dont agree with your point that it has nothing to do with economic reasons, just look at the german craftsmanship market, cheap labour and its exploitation everywhere

ideology driven? for sure.
arbitrary? not really, it's both incentive for the less industrialised and saturated economies, as well as benefit (to a degree, again i'm not talking about a net gain) to economies in demand of workers. flawed, idealistic, and shortsighted in its implementation? without a doubt, but it's not as random and unconnected as the people opposing it try to portray it as.

it was a 'mistake' from a purely economic perspective, agreed.
doubling down making things worse is pure bs though, at least if you're fair and look at it from an EU perspective. NOT insisting on maintaining the principle would inevitably lead to a swift collapse of the union, how something so obvious is even a point of debate is seriously puzzling me...

well, if these guys really had the best intentions for all of us there would be no shame in correcting mistakes

the frustration about the EU is growing and actual reforms would help to get popularity and trust back
but yeah, i guess they cant go back anymore

for the few I know europe is not Bruxelles or some kind of mysterious technocratic entity but the EU members,. and only them are deciding.

not really. remember when Italy tried to end the drowning in the Mediterranean in 2012 by bringing every migrant they pick out of the water back to africa? it was an EU court from Strasbourg that went "you cant do that, we are imposing this and that rule which effectively means that you cannot control your borders anymore, trollololol." (see the "Hirsi ruling" by the EU ourt on human rights.)

in many areas, the EU is usurping power from the national states - this has been the main purpose of the EU since its inception!
the EU is a vehicle for taking power away from national parliaments and put it onto some EU authorities or bodies which are subject to a much looser democratic control.
the EU is a vehicle to facilitate corporate rule / "corporatocracy", or as Angela Merkel likes to call it: "market-conformable democracy". Which is an euphemism for "multinational corporations first, the people second."

"not really" ?
Countries are entering in EU at their own will for the few i know; if theres a real problem then the country LEAVE European Union. This is democracy isnt it ?
Eu also maintained an absolute peace in-between european countries. Do we need to list the benefits of european union ?
I would point out what happened in UK (Democracy?) : No a single one of those cowards, NO ONE, tried to face the consequences excepted this courageous woman...

Joke: Eu cost us 350M£ per week, and mexico will pay for it.

obviously, but the EU right now isnt what countries signed up for back in the day
not to mention that the EU constantly breaks its own laws, the maastricht and lisbon treaties (among others) are complete worthless

illegal state financing by the european central bank? no problem
dump hundreds of billions into bankrupt countries despite a clear no bail-out rule? fuck yeah lets do this

the current EU is undermining state sovereignty and ignores the rules its member states have imposed on it