I remember the time without freedom of movement and it kinda sucked. I've enjoyed that part of the EU immensely. It's so pleasing to never have to deal with customs whilst traveling. Definitely one of the major perks.

So, maybe it's not a huge benefit. Got it, thanks.

lmao well said my friend

Does anyone in the UK still want the Brexit to happen at this point?

that you still didn't get it and only 'got' what your preconceived notion was out of that, is a bit disappointing (though not entirely surprising), mate.

again, it entirely depends on who you ask and what perspective they are coming from.


i am, however, still curious who the people were that allegedly kept telling you it's exclusively a 'huge benefit'. i personally heard both sides and plenty of in betweens, and in most cases it was at least comprehensible how they came to their conclusions...

So, it depends on the narrative the person saying it is pushing. Definitely got it this time, thanks.

to quote a wise man: "that you STILL didn't get it and only 'got' what your preconceived notion was out of that, is a bit disappointing (though not entirely surprising), mate."

it doesn't have to be some kind of dishonest narrative that someone is pushing (even though there are ofc plenty of ppl doing that - for BOTH extremes though, so your alleged experience is ironically exactly what you're trying to bitch about: pushing a certain narrative) - people's convictions and ideals are different, their economic and practical motives and circumstances are different, their personal experiences differ...
that i have to explain such basic concepts, leading to different points of view on this issue, is really sad.

so no, not everyone you allegedly heard speak out in favour of free movement was trying to push their narrative onto you, they might just have had different values, interests, or motivations than you. the more you post the more i understand how brexit ever had a chance in the first place though...




i would not be surprised at all if leave could get 40+% in a (hopefully not happening) 2nd referendum.

this time not even for the same reasons (completely uninformed voters, ridiculously misleading promises, low turnout amongst young people who generally oppose it...), but just out of spite and misplaced pride (and unrealistic expectations fueled by politicians that during the whole negotiations didn't have the balls to tell the brits what the EU would be able to agree to).

You're misunderstanding me. I agree with your conclusion that allowing one member state to abandon one of the four cornerstones would eventually lead to everyone else also abandoning this cornerstone.
What I dont agree with is your notion that the EU "simply cant afford to do that". Why? As I said, and as you partially agreed on, there is no pressing reason to insist on completely unrestricted freedom of movement.
The current EU does not want to abandon this principle, but outside of their stubbornness and their corporate overlords' desire for cheap labor, there is no real reason why they couldnt.

And that's my point: if faced with the economic and political costs of a no deal brexit, swallowing the pill of giving up on (complete) freedom of movement (first for the UK, but in effect for the entire union) might perhaps be the lesser of two evils for the EU. Months or even years ago, I have already made the same point in this thread: the economic pressure created by the brexit process might very well cause the EU to begrudgingly let go of ideological baggage which isnt grounded in real-world utility or necessity.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 10:42am

Freedom of movement for travellers or shopping abroad does not have to go hand in hand with freedom of residence and settlement, or with freedom of movement for workers.
And please note that I'm not proposing to completely shut down inner-european migration. All I'm proposing is to give the national states some wiggle room to steer EU-migration.

So for example, allow member states to shut out EU-foreigners who have never contributed to the national social state from welfare benefits, or allow member states to adopt quotas for EU-immigration if it gets out of hand. For example, in 2016, there have been about 488,000 immigrants from eastern europe who came to Germany. Would it really be the end of the EU if they allowed the German government to say "hold on, that's too much, we'll only allow up to 200k eastern european workers to come here per year"?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 10:59am

>loses argument
>bargain in shame