Skip to main content

Free trade? - and open borders?

Free movement of capital ought to imply free movement of labour. The only people with a right to be able to support having any immigration controls at all are people like me, people such as Greens who do NOT support free movement of capital. It is a cruel joke for free-trade and free-capital-movement fanatics, including the majority of Labour, LibDem, Conservative and UKIP politicians, to call for stricter immigration controls into this country.

If you do not believe in complete abolition of immigration controls, then you ought not to believe in free trade and the abolition of capital and exchange controls.

 
--    Rupert Read  Green Party Councillor, Norwich.  http://rupertread.net   [If you have an urgent email for me while I am away from a regular computer, you may wish to try contacting me instead on rupertread+mob@gmail.com] 

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't think it follows that free movement of capital ought to imply free movement of labour. If movement of labour is restricted then it places a constraint on the system which may limit economic growth. However, this constraint would be taken into account by those with capital when deciding where to allocate it.

Do you mean that if you are the sort of person who believes that a capitalist system is good then you ought to support free movement of labour to be consistent?
Rupert said…
Roughly, yes: If you believe in 'freedom' as an abstract right, then how can it be right to allow money to move, but not people?
Anonymous said…
Some countries that allow free movement of capital in normal circumstances sometimes restrict it in abnormal circumstances. Governments have the option of imposing controls on capital.

Restricting movement of labour is a means of control that a government can exert on the population. I guess that it may be harder to stop free movement of labour after you have permitted it. Maybe some governments / political parties are reluctant to let the genie out of the bottle.

I reckon that in a capitalist system, where there was completely free movement of labour and capital globally, the UK would gradually become a home for the very rich of the world, with poorer people gradually being forced (for economic reasons) to migrate to less pleasant parts of the world to live.

That would raise interesting democratic issues. If, say, only 10% of the people living in Britain at some point in the future were what we would currently regard as British citizens then how much legitimacy does the British government have? Perhaps of more concern, how much power would it really have in attempting to apply laws?

So maybe the political philosophy that believes in such freedom of movement of capital is not a simplistic philosophy and recognises some other issues that conflict with it.

Popular posts from this blog

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...

Stansted: a reflection

The key question, in relation to protsts like that at Stansted last week, is: which side are you on? Are you on the side of big corporations profiteering from completely unsustainable climate-destructive behaviour? Or are you on the side of people with no vested interests just making a non-violent stand, at considerable cost to their own time and money, for the sake of all our futures? It doesn't seem to me a hard judgement to make... Rupert Read Green Party Councillor, Norwich, and Lead Candidate for Eastern Region for the Greens in the 2009 Euro-elections. DID YOU KNOW: A vote of about 10% across Eastern Region on June 4 2009 would be enough to get me elected to the European Parliament... http://rupertsread.blogspot.com