,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The problem with this sort of comment is the vagueness about what “regulation” of “labour supply” (a significantly de-humanising term, as if labour is comparable to widgets) people like @PaulEmbery actually want.
Does he want, for example, a bureaucrat to be able to stop a French nurse or IT worker moving to Manchester to be with his girlfriend?
Or - since UK regulation will be applied against us - does he think a bureaucrat should be able to stop a British nurse or IT worker moving to Toulouse to be with his boyfriend?
Does he object to a Spanish teacher retiring to Wales to be with her children? Or a couple of retired Scottish teachers selling their house and retiring to Spain for the climate?
Does he object to a Newcastle brickie taking a better-paid construction job in Hamburg? If not, does he object (and if so on what grounds) to a German brickie taking a better-paid job in Newcastle?
It isn’t enough to complain in vague terms about FOM. Set out your precise alternative. And see how workable it is. Who will have the power to take these fundamental decisions about people’s lives, closing down opportunities and life chances, and on what basis?
And when exposed to the light, how popular will the detailed proposal be with the voters Labour needs to hold onto if it is serious about winning power?
It may be that Paul has no problem with any of the examples I gave (it’s hard to see why they adversely affect the “traditional working class”). He may want quite modest tweaks.
If so, then the question is whether the loss of U.K. services trade to the EU (a loss that will affect many working class jobs and reduce tax revenue that could be spent on schools and training, and which is a necessary concomitant of ditching FOM) is remotely worth the candle.
