Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt4077 | Hacker News Reader

In this case, there are two factors:

- The European Central Bank (may) insist on certain services only being offered by banks in their jurisdiction, to avoid becoming dependent on companies they can't regulate

- The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour. They won't allow Britain to pick-and-choose only the first three.

View on HN

>The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour.

So basically all the kinds of freedoms for commerce and employers, and none for the people ("freedom of labour" being an euphemism for "lesser job protections").

They say, don't feed the troll. But I will answer you. Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK. "freedom of labour" actually means you are free to move and work or open a business as an EU citizen within the EU.

Always an entertaining thing to say, never true though. UK labour protection exceeds that stipulated by EU regulation. And it is likely to continue to do so.

The UK has not historically been at the forefront in terms of labour protection, and the EU did nudge it in that direction.

>They say, don't feed the troll.

They say it, but which part of my comment made you think I don't believe what I say (which is the necessary condition for it being a "troll")? Not to mention, that whether you disagree or not, it is a very common criticism against EUs policies, driven by big capital?

>Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK.

Maybe, maybe not, can't speak for the UK.

What I do know for certain is that EU regulations have unmade decades old worker protections and labor rights in mine (and other) EU countries.

That said, here's what a UK person writes: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/eu-doe...

I don't know the Newstatesman but it sounds like a very biased magazine.

"This same economics is being inflicted on Britain – cuts and austerity. Living standards have fallen, wages reduced as a proportion of total economic output (GDP) and in real terms, and inequality and poverty increasing. " This actually may be true. And indeed. It could be partly be caused by the EU. Have a look at the UK's debt: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/19/article-0-1AE4486F...

The UK had serious problems. Then, under Thatcher, the UK rose again and had comparably low debt. Some say this is due to Thatcher. I would have said this at one point, now I say that it was because of oil found in the Northern Sea. The UK's debt exploded after 2007, also, because the UK had a huge, potential unhealthy financial sector.

So if you say that the EU is causing the problems in the UK this may be in fact true, since it allowed "The City" to live unreasonably from grains from the Financial Industry while some parts of the UK did very badly. I can not exclude the possibility that loosing a huge chunk of the financial industry and do a re-balancing may actually a good thing for the average Joe who does not live in "The City". London voted "stay" by the way.

Au contraire – "freedom of labour" actually ended up being something of a euphemism for freedom of movement, sold in in such economic terms to make it palatable to conservatives (and to fit the theme).

"Freedom of movement" as in "let's bring in cheaper foreign workers and lesser wages and the collective working bargaining powers of workers in each country".

The same freedom of movement that SV companies celebrate when they bring in foreign IT workers with H1B Visas, and then pay them less.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/fixing-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-h-1b_us_5890d86ce4...

As in "if you can import your cheaply sourced products I can export my labour"

or as in "if you manufacture abroad, let me compete with that with moving my talent somewhere else"

or as in "freedom to sell my labour anywhere in the EU"

or as in "you can bring factories to my poorer country, but I can move to your richer country and also benefit"

or as in "part of the 4 freedoms that actually balance each other - they're not a set of 4 freedoms because of identitarian reasons, they exist because they're practical and work well together"

I am a migrant working in the UK and it's quite offensive that you would suggest FoM only lowers wages (HINT: It doesn't, look up the LSE's study about it), suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper.

>(HINT: It doesn't, look up the LSE's study about it)

Hint, besides a brief stint in the 60s-early 70s, the LSE has for many decades be an establishment institution. It's not going to rock any boats with its research. It's like expecting the bankers to be critical of the banking system. Using immigration to bring cheap labour in has been going on since at least the industrial revolution.

>suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper

I'm not suggesting anything about you in particular. Well skilled professionals do migrate and command equal or bigger than local average wages too. In pointing out what is the case in general, not for outliers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com