We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
We have free movement of people inside Europe, thanks to the EU Only we don’t any more. According to Stacy Meichtry in the Wall Street Journal, France has resurrected the border with Italy.
So, as Johnathan’s post below says, the euro is not working out so well, and now it seems that the Schengen Accord is being allowed to lapse. Remind me, what was the point of this EU thing again?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
To give a gravy train to latch on to to those members of the political class whose national voters have no further use for; what else!?
FD
This is a big story, and further evidence that when certain countries want to bend the rules, whether sensible or stupid, they will. France is, of course, a past master at this.
After all, when Sarko decided to press ahead with his military action against Libya, I don’t recall France making lots of attempts to get United Nations approval, or issue lots of brave statements about the “global community”. And yet they talk a great game in this regard if the US does the same, especially if it happens to have a Republican in the White House.
I must say, things are unravelling very fast now.
In terms of immediate impact, this is purely posturing, of course, Apart from a tiny area where this is being enforced, French and Italian borders to all other EU countries (and Switzerland) remain open. Anyone who might want to actually cross the border might have to take a short detour, but it is not going to stop them from actually doing so. The French also have a history of doing things like this. (See French deportations of Romanian gypsies, for instance). And things like the British refusal to admit Geert Wilders in 2009 (later overturned, admittedly) don’t set great precedents.
Symbolically, though, it is bad. It is “Since we are the French, we only have to obey these rules when we feel like it”, basically.
Full employment for Belgian apparatchiks?
(I say send ’em back to the Waffle Mines.)
Is this news? I have taken the train from France to Germany countless times, and while I was never bothered by the police that was on the train as it crossed the border, my swarthier fellow passengers were often asked to produce their papers, and some of them were detained when said papers were not to the coppers’ liking.
How is this different?
As far as I can tell, the main barrier to free movement in Europe thanks to the EU was in fact the UK – whihc has also contived to degrade the former common travel area with its local dependencies and with the Irish Republic.
One of the few things that has been really to like about the EU for freedom fans has been denied to us who live in Britain.
What Guy said. The fact that one can drive from Lisbon to Tallinn or Helsinki without anyone asking for your papers anywhere is a great thing, and it reflects very badly on British governments (and the fucking contemptible fucking fucks in the Home Office) that one cannot travel to Britain on this basis also). As an EU national I can go to and live in everywhere from Martinique to Bucharest whenever I feel like it without any bureaucrat or politician having the right to tell me I can’t. This is also a great good. If the EU were to collapse and we were to lose this, it would be a loss, and quite a big one.
The French have serious biases in this part. They are supposed to check passports of people coming from Britain, but if you get a ferry across the English channel they seldom do. Again, I suspect there have not been many French border checks carried out on anyone coming across the Rhine recently. (On the other hand, there are few things that give French police more pleasure than imposing speeding fines on German motorists who cross the Rhine and don’t slow down enough). However, French officials are miserable shits to people who have come from Morrocco, Algeria, Italy, or anyone vaguely from the south or east.
British officials, on the other hand, are equal opportunity shits to everyone. Which of these thing is better? I am not sure.
I live near to the border. My wife has an Italian friend, married to a policeman in Ventimiglia. She (the friend) says that the Italians have a system. When someone is picked up and cannot produce papers, the police explain to them that they are not allowed in Italy, their status is illegal. They are told to leave Italy within 24 hours. Then the police turn them loose so that they can leave. Makes sense really, if locked up they cannot leave, can they?
my swarthier fellow passengers were often asked to produce their papers, and some of them were detained when said papers were not to the coppers’ liking.
That is of course the point.
Free movement was and is intended for legal EU citizens.
The checks are intended against illegal (swarthy) non-citizens. So, these new checks do not represent a reversal or abrogation of EU principles. They are not a sign of the collapse of the EU.
Lock themsleves in a small room with a tape, running on loop. “A welfare state cannot have open borders with non-welfare states”
It is that simple.
A Libertarian blog happy about the end of a common border.
My irony meter can’t take this.
Where did I say I was happy about it, Daveon? I said that if the EU cannot even reliably supply open borders (one of the few things it does that I value), then it is pointless.
If we can have open borders with european countries and not face the collapse of civilisation what purpose do border restirctions to other first world countries serve? How it is possible to believe A) that free movement of people within the euro sphere is economically beneficial and also believe that that B) Strict immigration rules are required to prevent (for example) Canadians or Japanese from moving here
I am trying to understand how the establishment world view hangs together in this regard. I am supposed to believe that the polish laborer who comes to Britian is an economic asset but the influx of Canadian dentists must be strictly controlled. I don’t get it.
Then you do not understand that the Samizdatistas think open borders were one of the few GOOD things about the EU
There is a very real difference between the two. Labouring is a real job, in a free and open market. Dentistry, on the other hand, is a less real job, in that one can only do it with the permission of a guild that restricts entry to the market by suborning the state’s monopoly on violence. Much like doctoring, lawyering, or being a glorified supply clerk – AKA a pharmacist.
I should imagine that there was much frantic lobbying at the time as, for example, the dentists’ guild sought to argue that a Polish dentist couldn’t possibly be allowed to practice in England. Does anybody know whether that was the case?
“Dentistry, on the other hand, is a less real job . . .”
What a stupid comment. Just because dentistry is somewhat protected by a guild-like licensing regime doesn’t make it and “less a real job.” In fact, I would argue precisely the opposite: it’s more a “real job” than is laboring, because it requires that faculty which most defines human beings: intelligence. Laboring, in contrast, merely requires muscles, and thus is more akin to lower animals.
But Jay Thomas misses the point, too. Polish laborers are within the EU, and so have free movement within its boundaries. Canadian dentists, however, are not, and so do not enjoy the same freedom. That certainly seems reasonable to me. But using dentists as the point of comparison is a red herring: Canadian laborers would be under that same handicap. Which is as it should be. Drawing a line around Europe and treating all of the nations within it much as the US treats its constituent states is your decision to make. But having made it, if there are to be borders they should have some meaning, notably control over the entry of outsiders.
Symbolically, though, it is bad. It is “Since we are the French, we only have to obey these rules when we feel like it”, basically
That was my impression 25 years ago when I used to used in Europe (DK) and it was only the EC.
The EU seems to me to be made up small northern European countries that will blindly follow any stupid rule dreamt up by Brussels, large countries like Germany that could ignore those rules but don’t, large countries like France who could ignore those rules and do, and all the other countries. I can’t figure out the UK’s relationship to the EU.
Perry, I am aware of that, but I’ve also been reading this site long enough to note the varied and occasional hypocrisy that this position seems to require from your participants.
As I said, my irony meter was overloaded…. Its back to normal now.
I don’t think I am missing the point Laird. The justification touted by our lords and masters for the free movement of peoples within Europe’s borders is that there are social and economic benefist. This is held to continue to be the case even when said movement of peoples is largely in one direction (such as is the case of immigration from from
Poland to the United Kingdom say) But in the case of a Japanese person, even one in an identical occupation, restricting his right to entry is vitally important to the security of the state. Yes of course I know that this is because Japan is not a member of the European Union. But how do they justify it on the basis of principles and/or the national interest? As an obedient little subject I am supposed to believe BOTH that the European Union and the free movement of peoples within its borders is of benefit to me AND that the heroic efforts of the immigration department to keep out peoples from outside the European borders out are ALSO of benefit to me. Why? How? I am trying to understand the world view on which the current status quo rests.
I don’t think I am missing the point Laird. The justification touted by our lords and masters for the free movement of peoples within Europe’s borders is that there are social and economic benefist. This is held to continue to be the case even when said movement of peoples is largely in one direction (such as is the case of immigration from from
Poland to the United Kingdom say) But in the case of a Japanese person, even one in an identical occupation, restricting his right to entry is vitally important to the security of the state. Yes of course I know that this is because Japan is not a member of the European Union. But how do they justify it on the basis of principles and/or the national interest? As an obedient little subject I am supposed to believe BOTH that the European Union and the free movement of peoples within its borders is of benefit to me AND that the heroic efforts of the immigration department to keep out peoples from outside the European borders out are ALSO of benefit to me. Why? How? I am trying to understand the world view on which the current status quo rests.
As an EU national I can go to and live in everywhere from Martinique to Bucharest whenever I feel like it without any bureaucrat or politician having the right to tell me I can’t.
Apparently not, at least in Spain. I’ve known chaps turn up in Spain to live and been somewhat surprised to find they need to apply for a residency permit without which doing anything is impossible.
I thought the point of a European Union was to stop warfare by creating a trade system- wares, not wars, as it were. And Europe has managed to avoid internal warfare, hasn’t it?
The other point was to ensure that Europeans spoke French as their second language. You’ve fallen down on the job there, haven’t you?
A final point was to make Europe a united entity which could take it’s place in the power-blocs of the world- another failure!
It wouldn’t have anything to do with rather a lot of refugees from Libya would it?
“And Europe has managed to avoid internal warfare, hasn’t it?”
So far. When Spain follows Portugal, Ireland and Greece down the bailout/default trail, and the strains of holding together the monetary union become intolerable, all bets will be off.
Laird: there won’t be a war between Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. All bets are not off.
I’ll bet you 100 euros that there will not be a war between those countries within one year of any or all of them defaulting.
For one thing, there are no disputed borders, except between Portugal and Spain.