1. I’d like to correct a few myths about the European Union in relation to bureaucracy and red tape.
2. The purpose of the EU is not to create more bureaucracy. The purpose is to cut holes in the bureaucracy of member states to make it easier for members to do business with each other and be mobile.
3. Because it does that, they don’t want one member cheating and dropping production standards to gain an unfair advantage. That’s why there is some regulation of standards. (This is what they mean by a level playing field)
4. To decide if those EU standards add an unreasonable level of red tape or not, you first need to look at what standards you would want to have anyway in the UK. Do you want stuff in your shops that isn’t safe?
5. Even if you decide you want stuff in your shops that isn’t safe, if consumers can’t tell by looking at it on the shelf, then it creates a competitive advantage for sellers of unsafe products who have lower costs. Good producers then go out of business.
6. There’s no real reason why the EU commission couldn’t allow members to produce goods that are unsafe if they are clearly marked as “for export only”. But why would you want to export unsafe goods and how do you stop unscrupulous people relabelling and reselling them at home?
7. Do you want an international reputation as a country that makes and sells unsafe or poor quality goods?
8. Companies that want to export typically need to demonstrate their goods are safe and manufacturing to EU (or “British” or “German” standards) is generally a good idea. Divergence of British standards therefore isn’t a good idea.
9. Now, UK companies based outside the EU not only have to worry about domestic UK red tape (which might now be different to EU rules), they also need to comply with the rules of 27 different countries if they want to sell internationally in the same places as before Brexit.
10. So Brexit can only create red tape for Brits and subject them to much more European red tape (and new British red tape).
1. I put a lot of effort into raising awareness of Freedom of Movement and the benefit of it and I help people make the case for better mobility arrangements after Brexit.
Mobility and immigration for non EU citizens is a country matter not an EU-wide matter.
2. If you don’t agree that change happen, that’s fair enough. But **please unfollow me**.
3. If we genuinely want change for the better we have to be willing to ask for it. (It’s neither exceptionalist nor cakeist to want your rights back or for general improvements)
1. Here are my ideas on how the you can use Twitter to change the course of Brexit…
(Expect trolls from doing this so be prepared to ignore and block them)
2. This works because political parties use social media sentiment monitoring tools to analyse the public mood.
3. The aim of paid troll disinformation farms is
(a) to demoralise you,
(b) to ensure they get more tweets out than you that are negative about what you are calling for,
and (c) ultimately to destabilise society and make you think your fellow countrymen are idiots.
2. The UK government claims to want to take back control of borders.
But did they mean control of settlement immigration? Or actual control of border crossings?
Do they even know what they want to control?
3. In reality, as a non-Schengen country, and as an island, the UK has always had full control of its border crossing points. UK is surrounded by water which helps. The only exception perhaps is the open Irish border but that’s down to the Good Friday Agreement not EU membership.
1. Freedom of Movement of People isn’t “uncontrolled immigration” despite what some politicians want you to believe.
This thread explains some of the benefits of it.
2. It’s superior to visas because:
- it’s quick (shorter queues)
- on demand (not months of waiting)
- reciprocal (not one-way immigration to the UK)
- not tied to a particular job
- cheap (no wasteful fees)
- conditions in event you want to stay more than 90 days
3. It’s superior to visa-waivers because you get:
- treated as national
- more certainty at borders (no reliance on whim of border guard so long as you have valid ID that’s valid and don’t present a threat.
- no day counting (although UK has no outbound checks)
- faster borders
1. The reason I champion the rights of per year dwellers, itinerant workers, seasonal workers and even general travellers is that Freedom of Movement was so much more than IMMIGRATION. Mobility is about staying where you are and temporarily being somewhere else.
2. I think the idea of MOBILITY has been lost and misunderstood. Thrown away in haste in a futile and misguided attempt to limit or control permanent immigration.
3. The biggest champions of FOM in the UK tended to be people who had used it once to emigrate permanently. For them it avoided a one-time visa.
1. The online abuse I’ve received in recent years has been quite phenomenal. It’s easy to block some of it out but it does get a bit wearing after a while. Nevertheless I want to help correct some of the deliberate disinformation perpetuated about Freedom of Movement and Europe.
2. Freedom of Movement of people isn’t the same as “uncontrolled immigration”. It matters to people all over Europe and it gives them freedom from abusive employment where visas are conditional on jobs.
3. Freedom of Movement ended purely because of UK government choices. Not because Brits voted for that. Not because UK left the EU and not even because UK left the EEA.