Do you support free movement of labour across Europe?

Given the strong feelings generated by my earlier post the above question seems a good candidate for Monday's ConservativeHome poll. Grateful for advice on wording in the thread below and for suggestions of other questions...

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[The Bishop swine]

No

[will.b]

I'm glad Ronaldo was free to ply his trade over here. I hope you enjoyed your evening!

I'd like a question on whether Conservative members support a third runway at Heathrow?

[Atiq Malik]

No

[Paul Oakley]

Seconded. No.

[Helen Smith]

No

[Tristan Downing]

I am not convinced this free Labour movement across the EU is such a good thing. People have mentioned the British workers in other countries, but they could work in Europe with a work permit. I think also there is a difference between individuals getting jobs overseas, and foreign workers being imported in bulk. It may be legal, but when people are losing jobs left, right and centre, you can see why it might seem to British workers that it is taking the piss. There are jobs right there where they live, and they are all going to foreign workers, not just migrant workers, but imported workers. Were it not for EU laws, it wouldn't happen. And it is those same laws that cause us to have open borders, poor security, housing problems, travel problems, failing services, and much more. Migration can bring more money, but when it is spread across all the people here, it amounts to no improvement in quality of life, and crumbling services. In this specific case, services may not be affected, but the money will be going to help the Italian economy, not ours, and it is our economy that needs the most help. I am also quite convinced that if it were the other way around, there would either be riots, or the European country would insist on the British company using local workers. For some reason the UK follows these European rules, whereas other EU countries rarely pull their weight.

With regards ConHome polls, for my own personal curiosity I would like to know the average ages of users, or at least the numbers of CF on here. I want to know the percentage of those that support Israel VS those that dont (with some more details as to the extent, eg is it full support or does it depend on circumstances?). What percentage suports abortion? Percentage of theists and atheists? Also, how many would agree that over population is a major cause of a vast many of our problems, how many think our government needs to do something to cap or reduce the population size here and on a global scale, and how many think a Tory government would be able to take that action politically?

[Umbrella man]

Please ask questions about whether Tory members support the auto industry bailout.

[HJL]

I'm completely in favour of the free movement of labour. I don't see what business governments have in telling people where they can and can't work. The free movement of goods, services, and labour is one of the few positive benefits of the European Union.

[Andy D]

Free movement of workers: yes

Free movement of scroungers: no

[James Robinson]

If it's wording your after I would propose that the fundamental issue on the free movement of labour is under who's laws the free labour should fall under that of the host country or the mother country.

I don't know if it's ukipesque scaremongering but I was under the impression that there are currently proposals to allow wagon drivers from Poland to only have to conform to Polish Wagon Driver standards on sleep etc.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Andy D @ 21.39 - 'Free movement of scroungers: no.' How would you propose that scroungers could be recognised?

My answer to the question is - No.

[Bishop Hill]

Yes. You don't own me.

[NorthernMonkey]

Yes, yes and triple yes.

Signing us up to the single market was one of the few good things Thaggie did.

It's laughable that it is now the Tory grass-roots who seem to be the most protectionist when it was their beloved ex-leader who pushed this entire process forward (which also inevitably led to the single currency as well)!

Oops!

[Martin Wright]

Let's draw a distinction between:

The free movement of individuals - yes within reason, thought the East European influx was too much in one go for many communities to absorb.

The right of companies to ship in whole blocks of workers (almost as bonded labour) to the exclusion of local, fully skilled workers -no!

Workers should be able to come here and then compete with British workers in our local labour markets on a fair basis . But foreign workers shouldn't be entitled to by-pass fair competition by being shipped in.

[Super Blue]

Yes.

Next question?

[Tristan Downing]

"Yes. You don't own me."

It isn't the country you are leaving that would prevent you though, it is the country you are going to. And they may not own you, but they own their country. Just as this one belongs to us. It isn't a question of people ownership. If it were a question of all people being free to work where they want because they are "free", then why stop at Europe? Using that logic, we should allow all Nigerians to come work in the UK too. Would you agree to that?

[Tony Sharp]

I support free movement of labour allowing people to apply for work and relocate to undertake it.

I do not support the mass importation of labour by companies from overseas in the manner we have seen in Lincolnshire.

[Jaz]

Yes. Evidently for workers.

[Joe James B]

Yes - I think we have to.
Free movement.

This country has had free trade since 1979 when exchange controls were abolished. It's others in Europe and elsewhere who don't free their trade barriers up.

Free movement of people is a difficult one I agree, particularly in harsh times, and I wouldn't extend it beyond the EU. However, the long term solution has to be to slash taxes and regulations so more businesses can be set up in the older industrial areas. Sadly, the growth in recent years hasn't been done in the right way - too many areas are dependant on large public sector employers. We need to set up more businesses next time the economy recovers so people are not in this plight.

Most EU regulations I would probably strongly oppose and want to stay out of, but free movement of people is something of value.

[Jim Dodd]

Yes.

Is it not inconsistent for Tories to support freedom of good and services across borders but not freedom of Labour?

Your problem here is that the old worry about Tories is that many of the "Nos" above are because you just don't like foreigners...

[Stuart Turner]

I agree with the free movement of individuals, however individuals should have to apply for permits so that it is possible to know how many people are coming in, so that services are not stretched by an unknown mass population shift.

As for the shipping in of employees by companies this should be stopped, while I do not believe it is the governments place to dictate who companies may or may not hire, all potential employees should be able to compete for jobs.

This Labour government is also culpable for this new trade union unrest, by not reforming the welfare state so that getting back to work is actually beneficial. And also by presiding over a dumbing down of the education system, where an illiterate young man can gain seven GCSE qualifications.

[Robert Eve]

No

[Boudicca]

No. There isn't a level playing field.

English is the obvious and first choice foreign language for pretty much the whole of Europe. It is the passport to a job in the UK and in all the other English-speaking countries around the world. European children start learning it at school from a very early age and their standard of teaching is far higher than languge tuition in this country.

There is no obvious 'first-choice' foreign language for our youngsters and learning a language is seen as a tedious chore: not the path to business opportunities worldwide. This Labour Govt, in order to boost the number of dumned-down GCSEs our comprehensively-educated children sit, decided that it should no longer be compulsory for a young person to learn a foreign language to age 16. So much better for them to take a GCSE in Childcare or Media, than something that requires real study. So the chances of our youngsters ever competing for European jobs on an equal basis is getting worse, not better.

The upshot of this is that whilst most of Europe can speak English and could therefore aspire to come and work here, we cannot do the same in their countries. It's all very well saying learn the language - but if you are an adult with only a smattering of French or German it would be impossible to get any kind of job.

[Jaz]

Just want to justify this;

Firstly, it's a majority response that flexible labour markets are a good thing, evidently we have always supported this notion.

We should support a flexible labour market within Europe also.

Secondly I've very uncomfortable with "British jobs for British workers". It smells for xenophobia. Sure I agree with homegrown industry, but this is tapping into an us vs them scenario.

[billandben]

Thje logical answer is to support free markets in people and goods but the old accepted mantra of free trade = good, maybe dead. We need to face up to the fact that the conservatives must speak up for British people first and sod the rest.

[Yeah but no but yeah]

It depends what is meant by "free". Or, since I spend about a week a month working in Italy, on how hypocritical I'm prepared to be. Quite a lot, it seems, because my answer is a qualified "no". Or a qualified "yes". Every employer should be allowed to select who they want. But an entire community should not be expected simply to absorb the side effects.

There's something interesting to be written about the emotional hold that organized labour has on us. The company I work for- Global Mega Corp- employs about 100,000 people. In the last year it has shed thousands of jobs from its US and EU R&D organisation, and moved resource to China, with zero comment in the media. It also closed a small production factory in Kent with the loss of about 500 jobs, which made the national news headlines. Similarly with the Lincolnshire men- I feel sympathy for them- is this one of those ineffable matters that defies cognitive enquiry and makes you a Tory- but there wasn't a fuss when thousands of Polish people took up jobs in London's bars and cafes. And I don't want the Poles to go home, they make London better and I hope they stay.

Sorry. That's a lot of words for "probably yes but maybe sometimes no".

[IRJMilne]

I think it ought to say "across the EU" rather than across Europe. One could add questions about free labour movement in general, commonwealth free labour movement, and companies shipping in foreign labour.

Additionally, I think it would be worth asking a separate question on this Lincolnshire issue, and whether the government should intervene in favour of British workers. The Conservative Party is not habitually doctrinaire. Some may feel (for example) that the generally good principle of free labour movement should have certain restrictions imposed on it, on the grounds that ends do not always justify means, and we must not simply ignore the problems of British workers who are able and willing to work. Other variants on the theme may be imagined.

Apart from that, I suppose there has to be at least one question on Heathrow - I can think of at least two - a) should there have been a vote on the issue? b) should the government support the third runway?

[oliengland]

Labour mobility is an essential component of a single currency, to allow different parts of an economy under teh same monetary policy to run smoothly.

Since we do not currently use the Euro in Britain, it is unclear to me why benefit from taking on the labour mobility that is useful to that currency and its members.

[Raj]

Yes. Answering "no" is supporting protectionism, which should go against key Tory ideals.

[T. England]

Of course not! Look at the mess were in now!
If workers weren’t allowed to come here from Europe businesses here would HAVE to employ & train our own work force to do the jobs, the way I see it is, if labour can be shipped in because of free movement there is no incentive to train, with all the time & costs involved, our own people.
If those companies aren’t prepared to train us because it isn’t cost effective & also having to pay us a wage we can live on in Britain will raise their costs of production to a level that makes them threaten to leave our island, then I believe we should let them leave! If they don’t want to help us then any company that thinks that way deserves what they should get!!

I believe in free trade but we should trade with the goods our own workforce has made, isn’t that just how it should be?
If someone wants to work abroad & the country they want to go to needs them & wants them then let them go & support that country! We don’t own people do we, anyone is free to emigrate are they not?

No one knows how our new capitalist system will evolve, going back to basics & trading with the rest of the world as we mean to go on surely has to be the sensible & best thing to do?

I believe that the greedy, money hungry companies that only think of their profits & not the people is the OLD capitalist way, I believe the new will be putting people before profit even if that means we have to take a back seat in the world going forward.

Let China & India have a go at being top dog, were be back when were ready!

[Anthony Scholefield]

The question in the current oil industry dispute is a trade one. In effect the Italians are supplying the British market from Italy as although the Italaian workers are physically present in the Uk they will not be here after the contract ends and they are in specially provided housing on barges.The question then is as stated by John Stuart Mill-we know there are benefits from trade-the problem is working out which side benefits and Mill shows how this depends on supply and demand and also how these can be rigged.
It really is not as simple as free trade enthusiasts think.
As regards free movement of labour in the sense of immigration that is a loser for the receiving country unless as put by the US National Academy of Sciences-as a minimum-the incoming labour has at least the same average skills and brings the same share of capital as enjoyed by the natives and does not have skewed cultural or fiscal costs. In current British conditions this means that to benefit existing UK residents the incoming family would need to be earning about £70,000 p.a.(family of 4)

[Anthony Scholefield]

The question in the current oil industry dispute is a trade one. In effect the Italians are supplying the British market from Italy as although the Italian workers are physically present in the Uk they will not be here after the contract ends and they are in specially provided housing on barges.The question then is as stated by John Stuart Mill-we know there are benefits from trade-the problem is working out which side benefits and Mill shows how this depends on supply and demand and also how these can be rigged.
It really is not as simple as free trade enthusiasts think.
As regards free movement of labour in the sense of immigration that is a loser for the receiving country unless as put by the US National Academy of Sciences-as a minimum-the incoming labour has at least the same average skills and brings the same share of capital as enjoyed by the natives and does not have skewed cultural or fiscal costs. In current British conditions this means that to benefit existing UK residents the incoming family would need to be earning about £70,000 p.a.(family of 4)

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think perhaps one needs to qualify the statement - no I don't support free movement of labour across Europe. I do NOT think large groups of workers being moved across the EU, to work in one or maybe two companies, particularly at the expense of the local workers. And as some comments have suggested, if a large group of English workers went to a French or Italian company, at the expense of French or Italian workers, all hell would break loose!

However, I am not against individual workers coming here from the EU and working for different businesses. Of course not!!

As for Jim Dodd @ 22.22 'Your problem here is that the old worry about Tories is that many of the 'nos' above are because you just don't like foreigners.' Is a case of Labour getting its knickers in a twist!

[Anthony Scholefield]

Only the extremely simple minded can think there is free movement of goods and services throughout the EU.
What is allowed to come into the EU is defined by the EU and the trade within the EU is defined by rules set by the EU.There is a Common Agricultural policy a Common Fisheries Policy and effectively a Common Industrial Policy. These are highly restrictionist.In no sense do they mean free movement.
Incidentally Free Trade Agreements are a contradiction in terms.

[David_at_Home]

No!

For those who say yes I would ask:

Do you support free movement of labour into across the entire planet?

If you reply that you do then this spells the end of the meaning of nationality and the thus the end of the nation state.

So:

“With what would you replace the nation state to provide welfare, security, a criminal justice system and a sense of identity?

And:

“Are you prepared for the civil strife, disorder and revolution that will follow when our people are told their inheritance, including their very nationality, has been sold to bring on this new world order?

[Anthony Scholefield]

Only the simple minded could think there is free movement of goods and services in the EU. There is free movement provided it conforms to the norms of the Common Agricultural Policy Common commercial policy etc etc. This is by no stretch of the imagination free movement-it is regulated movement.
Incidentally the Free Trade Agreements often called for are ,if you think about, it a contradiction in terms

[John Moss]

Free movement of Labour across the world is a good thing.

What is a bad thing is free access to welfare based on residence, legal or otherwise.

Can we focus on root causes, please. Not symptoms!

[Jill, London]

Northern Monkey keeps abandoning his Labour Home – I wonder why?

And no wonder Northern Monkey is LOL on this thread because he’s seeing the Left’s aim of creating Global Marxism taking yet another step further.

[snegchui]

Individual free movement yes, in that as an individual you compete in the labour market of your host country. That means you have learnt the language, pay tax there, and to some extent fit in and know that what you do means something both to you and your host community. And when and if you leave , both parties have prospered.

Shunting in draft workers who may not speak the language and have no committment to the community they leave the results of their work in, NO.

What is the cheapest way of doing things will prevail over what is the best compromise that suits all stakeholders, Company, Workers, Govt and Local Community.

If you want to leave behind pollution because you don't care because none of you belong there and you won't be there to live with the results, this is the way to go.

Is the asker of this question a Conservative or a Libertarian idiot?

[No such thing as a free lunch]

Why stop at Europe? But then you enter the realms of one world government which is likely to be socialist so the answer has to be no. The question is also misleading, There is no 'Free' movement of Labour when there is such an inequality of living standards. Just ask the workers who are losing their jobs and being undercut and the taxpayers who must support the 'New workers' when the jobs run out.

[Jill, London]

On the condition foreigners come here to work [as opposed to arrive here looking for work], and they are denied instant entitlement to ‘state benefits’ that the UK taxpayer has paid for – yes. Otherwise – as a number of posters have commented – this country is a magnet for the impoverished of the world. Moreover, why don’t the ‘climate change/global warming’ brigade comment on the ecological damage created by even more people coming to live on this tiny, overcrowded island?

[Carol-Ann]

Tim, I am a strong Tory always have been and always will be BUT I completely disagree with your post. We should support the strikers on this issue. I cannot ever envisage a situation were British workers will be taking the jobs of foreigners in their own country. The EU has been a disaster for British workers. We just cannot carry on as a country, economically, when the whole of Europe is in theory entitled to come and work here. Along with generous working benefits we are in a nightmare. We have between 5-7 million British people currently out of work and claiming benefit yet the number of foreigners in work is growing, how can this be justified? It is no longer the case that there are jobs out there that Brits won't do. I have been unemployed for more than a year I desperately want to become a nurse and have the right qualifications for a diploma course at university but being a mature student I have to show experience of working in healthcare. I have applied for many many low paid healthcare assistant jobs in hospitals care homes etc but have not got the jobs. When I go for interviews the places are full of foreigners doing the non skilled jobs I want to do. I would never vote for a far right party but the Tories ahve to get a grip on this issue and fast. No other country would put upi with the situation we have got at the moment. The likes of the oil strikers are the very people the Tories need to vote for them and the people who would've voted for Thatcher.

[West Brom Blogger]

As I have posted in other threads, yes.

No self respecting free market advocate would ever dream of supporting laws that interrupt the free movement of goods and services across international boarders. But when it comes to laws that hamper the free movement of workers who produce those goods and services too many conservatives today abandon their free market principles.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A3q9K3NFRlI

[john broughton]

UK Government exists to look after UK interests, the definition of which has many interpretations. However, one national interest is to provide conditions favourable to optimise employment for UK nationals. It is obvious that this must include making provision for proper education/training for the workforce to enable it to fill vacancies.

Inevitably there is therefore a conflict with eu single market directives.

UK government needs to decide whether or not its prime objective is to look after is to look after its electorate (UK) or other extraneous matters.

So a long winded way, Tim, of sayind NO.

[West Brom Blogger]

"British workers will be taking the jobs of foreigners in their own country".

Open your eyes.

If you go to Spain and Portugal, you see tons of British teams of construction workers imported to work on projects run by Brits (or you did before the Spanish housing crash), and no one batted an eyelid. There are today still many 1000s of Britain’s benefiting from jobs across Europe – particularly in the engineering sector.

[Tommy]

No, I never understood what was wrong with a system of work permits.

[Tommy]

"Open your eyes.

If you go to Spain and Portugal, you see tons of British teams of construction workers imported to work on projects run by Brits (or you did before the Spanish housing crash), and no one batted an eyelid. There are today still many 1000s of Britain’s benefiting from jobs across Europe – particularly in the engineering sector."

But that really ought to be a matter for spain (or any other country for tht matter).

[West Brom Blogger]

Carol Ann said:

I cannot ever envisage a situation were British workers will be taking the jobs of foreigners in their own country.

Open your eyes Carol.

If you go to Spain and Portugal, you see tons of British teams of construction workers imported to work on projects run by Brits (or you did before the Spanish housing crash), and no one batted an eyelid. There are today still many 1000s of Britain’s benefiting from jobs across Europe – particularly in the engineering sector.

Carol Said:

"We have between 5-7 million British people currently out of work and claiming benefit yet the number of foreigners in work is growing"

Got any stats to prove that Carol? The number of foreign workers returning home is increasing.

[Jill, London]

The suggestion of another question – That it’s time to tell this current government to concentrate on running the country – and stop trying to interfere in people’s private lives [wasting ever more taxpayers’ money, and poking their collective noses where it’s unwanted].

Why does this government of all the Comrades act like collective oily rags giving the engineer instructions. [Ignoring that it’s the taxpayer who pays their wages, and theoretically is their ‘master’!] Indeed, we must be the most infantalised electorate in the so-called free world. Now I read that their latest bullying, and intrusive initiative is about to be inflicted on the electorate from an ‘exclusive’ story in 25 January’s News of the World headed “FRYING SQUAD”: “Councils across the country will be recruiting Food Police to knock on doors at dinner time and LECTURE families on their diets and about reducing waste. A Department of Health source said: “This scheme is designed to get people thinking about how to eat better. By hitting people at home, rather than in supermarkets, we can get inside their lives.”

Again – why does this government of all the Comrades think we want their local authority lackies to get inside our lives! Frankly, it’s about time we made them aware – and force them to stop this ‘unacceptable’ [to use one of their favourite words] intrusion!

Link:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/142026/Frying-Squad-Councils-across-the-country-will-be-recruiting-Food-Police-to-knock-on-doors-at-dinner-time-and-LECTURE-families-on-their-diets-and-about-reducing-waste.html

And this was picked up by the Daily Mail’s Richard Littlejohn on 27 January – link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1128642/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Open-madam-Weve-warrant-search-fridge.html

[Tom H]

Yes.

Global free movement of labour: yes (provided that education, healthcare, housing etc is purchased in the marketplace).

[Common Sense]

Never. Opposing free movement of labour within the EU is not 'protectionist'. If it is then opposition to an open door to Congolese, Bolivian and Indonesian workers is also 'protectionist'.

If you favour 'free movement of labour' only within the EU then you too are a 'protectionist' in global terms.

The right of workers to move within the EU only worked as a policy (note: NOT a principle) for as long as it was (a) not exercised enough to cause social disruption and (b) took place in times of plentiful employment.

Wake up fellow Tories - if the major parties unite in yuppie disdain for the legitimate fears of working people and their families then there will be only one beneficiary - the BNP.

[Conspiracy]

Like all EU rules, on the UK plays by them - there single market is a farce and we don't need to be in it to trade with other Nations. The EU (or EEC or EC) has and always will be about creating a European Superstate. The UK has always stood in the way of this idea (The Spanish Amarda, Napolean, The Kaiser, Hitler and the USSR) therefore we must be destroyed by those seeking to create the EUSSR (it's a there bar the shouting and Lisbon will complete the jigsaw) -this time not by war but by mass immigation, multiculuralism and political correctness which aims to supress our collective will and cohesion and allow our nation to be subsumed into the collective. Whether this dispute will be the begining of seeing this plan thwarted again only time will tell, but you can be sure it will lead to violence with the PC Police taking a tough stance in contrast to other groups that have recently demonstrated..........

[The Bishop swine]

"Your problem here is that the old worry about Tories is that many of the "Nos" above are because you just don't like foreigners..."

Well I will admit I did indeed say no, and I will stick with it. I don't agree with the "free" and "unrestricted" movement of labour across Europe. It has nothing to do with disliking foreigners, although I do dislike the way our towns have filled up with people who don't bother to fit in with British life. It has even more to do with the economic facts of life in 2009, we simply do not have enough work for those already here. For every EEC worker who takes a job here, there is one less Job for a Brit.
For every extra mouth there is a cost to our welfare state, and on and on. The Fact is Britain has been FULL for decades and we should recognize that fact and act accordingly. So yes I am against importing cheap second rate labour from outside of our natural borders.

[The Bishop's lovely wife (who comments to much(TIM))]

"If you favour 'free movement of labour' only within the EU then you too are a 'protectionist' in global terms."

A Killer point !

[Sally Roberts]

Dear Mrs Bishop,
I do admire your enthusiasm and your volubility! Don't let those Boys get you down.
Best wishes from another Feisty and Voluble Lady!

[Edward Huxley]

As far as Brussels is concerned, "British workers" don`t exist, we are all Europeans. Neither does Great Britain- it is just regions of a country called Europe.

As long as we remain in the EU we have no control over who comes here or works here, so all the arguing is just a waste of time.

80% of our laws come from Brussels; it won`t be long before it`s 100%: you can be sure they`re working on it. We can then pension off our MPs and turn the House of Commons into flats or a tourist attraction.

[Iain]

Answer to the question No, for the free movement of people ends up disenfranchising the electorate here from pursuing policies that are their interest.

William Hague has stated on the Marr program that there can't be a restriction on European immigrant labour because of the obligations and commitments we have with the EU. So the British political establishment place their obligations with the EU at a higher order than their obligations to the British people. They just don't get it , this crisis is going to very rapidly become a crisis of the British political establishment who are in danger of being found out , found out that they are the problem not the solution.

[rugfish]

No

[rugfish]

This 'Italian Job' highlights the significance of where we are now.
It opens up the political question as to WTF are British people supposed to get jobs in Britain when immigration is welcomed by their government, laws are there to protect them rather than us, we don't have the right to be interviewed for these jobs, we have to traipse off around Europe with £60 a week Job Seekers Allowance like beggars to find work, whilst Italians and other Europeans are sat in our country which suddenly belongs to everyone but us, working here in Britain on jobs we British didn't know existed, were not told about or even considered or able to apply........???

Sensible I guess if you happen to be roaming the streets of Italy looking for work instead of knocking two doors up at a British oil refinery door asking where the personnel manager is to be considered for one of the jobs he didn't tell you about and had no intention of inviting you along for an interview!!!

I ask what the social implications are here for British people in respect to family break-up, lower education, poverty, higher crime, more prisons, more benefits for those out of work, higher demands on our services, our environment and infrastructure, transport, roads, schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, etc etc etc, not least a bigger queue at the dole office or at the recruitment agency when it comes to British people finding work.

How is the family affected by dad roaming around Europe looking for work and where is the electorates decision in all this? - Do we people not count?

I can feel myself wondering who exactly amongst the trough eaters in parliament are actually looking after British interests. I can feel myself wondering if this is not all a box of soft soap we're being given in yet another ploy to win over the British public who are damned sick of being spun to by ideologues who haven't an ounce of interest in their interests.

Does anyone actually care?

[Jake]

This is an issue where Montgomery-style pathetic naivety and unblinking fanaticism combine to separate out the realists from the utter fools.

Yes, I believe in free trade and free movement of labour just as I also believe we should all love one another and think nice thoughts.

Back in the real world, any nation which wants to continue being so has to defend its interests and that includes above all the interests of its people including their employment. This doesn't mean publicly declaring any great principles, it just means doing the daily business of making sure your own lot are OK. That includes the jobs of construction workers in Hull who are easily able to do the work involved.

You know, it means doing what just about all governments throughout the world do all the time. Pragmatic, obvious things that escape the attention of the disdainful political class(unless its their own jobs).

Issues such as this are of huge importance.
It seems the London political class, many of them a certain type of Tory, are assuming that the electorate haven't noticed their jobs have been taken over wholesale by foreigners. The English are happy to deal with rest of the world on equal terms with a bit of give and take with. However, the colossal give away of national wealth and prospects which dangerously simplistic idiots countenance is not acceptable.

With the Conservatives having worked hard to 10% or more ahead in the polls you would imagine they would be motivated to safeguard that lead. Seems not. The lead could disappear quick as a falsh if the electorate
( you know , those people who a certain type of tory regard as canaille and are happy to see everlastingly cast on the dole queue)

cotton on to the fact that an incoming Tory governemnt would be just as bad or even doctrinally worse in defending their interests as Labour are.

[Steve Foley]

In a word, NO!

[The Bishop Swine]

Yes. Answering "no" is supporting protectionism, which should go against key Tory ideals.

No it isn't. Protectionism is about erecting trade barriers. There is no reason to offer our jobs to every person in Europe. There is nothing wrong with work-permits as they can be relaxed when there are surplus job's and tightened when there are next to none, as now..

[Malcolm Dunn]

No. Managed system of work permits but that's it.

[resident leftie]

Of course. There'll be a lot of displaced Brits coming home otherwise!

[Allan T]

Yes

[Wayland]

IMMIGRATING TO POLAND? - BEHOLD THE HYPOCRACY!

Free movement for Poles to Britain, but not the other way round it seems.

Poland is one of the few places in Europe where the economy is doing well and more jobs are being created. At the same time, Britain's economy is shrinking. So me and some of my folks who have been made redundant at our auto factory were thinking of immigrating to Poland in search of work.

For this we sought advice from a well-known Polish working colleague about how to apply for a job there. I was told that the healthcare system in Poland only covers polish citizens and foreigners are required to have private health insurance. Smart eh? It seems as if some EU member states are finding clever ways of deterring foreign migrants from coming to work in their countries.

In my opinion, I am against the EU because it is simply undemocratic. Nobody gets the right to vote out the politicians in Brussels if they don't like them. Free movement of labour? No. However, that's not to say that we shouldn't employ foreigners at all. We should rather have a permit system for a limited number of guest workers to do jobs where there is a genuine shortage of British people to do them.