William Hague: We oppose any change to EU rules on freedom of movement

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague was the Tory guest on the Andrew Marr Show this morning and the lead topic of discussion was the wildcat strikes going on in protest at workers from elsewhere in the European Union being brought in to work at a Lincolnshire refinery.

Mr Hague said that "strikes are never the way forward" but accused Gordon Brown of dishonesty when he talked about "British jobs for British workers" in 2007:

"When Gordon Brown said 'British jobs for British workers' it was a fiction... because there is freedom of movement of workers within the European Union [apart from the exceptions for Bulgaria and Romania]... It was unbelievably ridiculous and silly [of Gordon Brown to make that claim]."

He said that the Conservatives would be against any change in the free movement of workers as it was an aspect of the single market that they "strongly support". Tim Montgomerie argued for its retention yesterday.

On one of the other the other big stories of the day - potentially banning all MPs' outside interests - Mr Hague suggested that Labour were trying to divert attention from the stories about Labour peers allegedly abusing their positions.

"It's an old story from last summer reheated today... to hide embarrassment over these four Labour peers," he said, telling Andrew Marr: "Don't let the Government off the hook here".

Whilst he said that the Conservatives would look at any proposals which were put forward on outside interests, he signalled his opposition to a broad brush ban:

"In principle, let's not be so restrictive that we stop talented people coming in to and staying in politics".

Comments

William Hague has put their obligations to the EU above their obligations to the British people. It seems its a 'let them eat cake ' political strategy they are following, which if memory serves from my history studies wasn't a very successful political strategy.

I'd agree with Hague on this. My brother has worked at Lindsey Oil Refinery, but now works in Australia. My Dad has worked all over the world. Freedom of movement of Labour cuts both ways. If we go back to everyone only working in their home town, we'll never build a strong economy.

As for outside interests, I don't see any problem with it so long as they are declared, then let the people decide whether it's an issue at the ballot box. He's right about Labour using this as a smokescreen, and they'll probably try to turn it against us when Harperson tries to ban second jobs for MPs. Not a problem for most Labour MPs, who never had a private secctor job before entering parliament, let alone while they're in parliament.

What a dreadful thought it is, that Labour would rather the country was lead by ex-think tank wonks, party hacks and "professional" politicians- people who have an opinion on everything and knowledge of nothing.

"He said that the Conservatives would be against any change in the free movement of workers as it was an aspect of the single market that they "strongly support"."

With this statement, the Conservative Party, the party of Pitt, Disraeli and Churchill, ceases to be the party of the nation and becomes the party of the multinationals,

The free movement of Labour will ensure that the standard of living of the poorer sections of our society, however hardworking, will sink to that of the poorest in Portugal, Bulgaria Latvia, Romania, (and then the Ukraine, Turkey, Algeria….?).

I do not wish to live in such a country and will fight against such a policy whilst I still have breath in my body.

"My brother has worked at Lindsey Oil Refinery, but now works in Australia."

Cleethorpes Rock if your brother worked in Australia then he did so with a work permit, a decision made by the Oz Government if they wanted him there, he couldn't just rock up there regardless of what was in Australian peoples interests. That is all most of us want to have here!

"My brother has worked at Lindsey Oil Refinery, but now works in Australia. My Dad has worked all over the world. Freedom of movement of Labour cuts both ways. If we go back to everyone only working in their home town, we'll never build a strong economy."

This is not the same thing at all. Your brother works in Australia because the government of that country has assessed his skills and the potential contribution he will make to the Australian economy and has granted him a work permit. No doubt the situation with you Dad was similar. I applaud them both.

Of course we should continue to allow foreign professional to work in the UK if they bring valuable skills with them. But allowing anyone for any part of the (ever expanding) EU to come here, as a right, with the specific objective of undercutting thee wages of the indigenous population is another thing altogether.

NuLabour - NuTory. What's New? - Is it that what we have here are a couple of socialist thicko's who can't understand what capitalist markets are supposed to do, or is it they're trying to bend them to their own design? - "We will share the proceeds of growth". Who to? - "An end to boom and bust". Who for? "We're in a global economy". Who's paying for it and who's in it? - Russia isn't, USA isn't, China or India and Africa, Australia or Canada or Japan isn't. Italy isn't because I never seen 400 Brits living on barges in Italy working at an energy plant where Italians live two doors up have not been asked to work?

Now we have "We believe in the single market", who for? It goes cap in hand with the loss of sovereign ability to curtail the rampant unthinking capitalism which has all but destroyed Britain.

Who's got the biggest debt? - US
Who's got the biggest trade deficit? - US
Who's got the biggest social balloon waiting to burst? - US

If Gordon Brown says one more time that "We're in a global economy", I think I'll kick the front of my telly in or at least throw a shoe, because he doesn't know the first thing about capitalism, or the free market, or Mrs Thatcher's idea to keep your hand on the tiller of free enterprise with the Bank of England through an independent decision making parliament, and how she backed Britain with every fibre and muscle and sinew, and every thought and action, and this utterance from Hague must either be one of his "jokes" ( ha ha ), or he's attempting to disband the Conservative Party.

Still trying to see exactly what the Conservative Party has for us British.
As someone who supported them unconditionally for over 20yrs, there is about as much chance of them getting my vote now as the other 2 useless Parties.

"If Gordon Brown says one more time that "We're in a global economy"..."

rugfish, the reason he's saying this is because he doesn't know what the .... to do and is desperately trying to pass the buck to anyone who will accept it! It is now openly being suggested that Gordon Brown is finding the strain increasingly difficult to cope with, that he was tearful when dealing with his Backbench rebels recently and there is now even a bizarre suggestion that he made a comparison between himself and the artist Titian which rather baffled his audience!

In relation to the strikes across Britain, Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, said:

"These strikes are proving to be for Gordon Brown a double whammy. The claim of 'British jobs for British workers' looks a pretty empty promise. Worse still, it shows the European Union has us in a double arm lock. British workers are being specifically excluded from working on contracts by European contractors - contracts won by European contractors to operate in our very own country."

ENDS

Now, that's what you should have said William. I like me politicians with a bit more meat on, with a skeletal structure and specifically a backbone. Frank is being the most consistently useful and user-friendly politician in the country.

Ergo. Frank for PM! Form a new party forthwith. You could call it Fresh Fields or if you want to do the prog-rock Tory thing you could call it Green Fields.

"Well there you have it, from the man himself. He supports the EU unconditionally. Can`t say I`m surprised"

Well I don't know how you come to that conclusion. He said he supports the free movement of labour. Unlike UKIP and quite a few Tories on this thread he isn't a hypocrite.

So many Tories and UKIPers claim to be free market advocates and 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 in favour of reactionary (left-wing) populism.

If Britain ends the free movement of Labour what are you going to say to the many thousands of Brits who are made unemployed in the rest of Europe (The builders in Spain and Portugal working on British hoilday homes or the engineers in Germany or Eastern Europe) when our neighbors react by doing the same?

David said:

"Gosh, what happened to all the Thatcherites on this site".

Clearly they all did u-turns when the going got tough and the arguments got difficult.

Of course Hague doesn't support the EU unconditionally. The Tories support the free trade of goods, services, capital and labour across Europe. Always have. It's just a shame that the Common Market and the Single Market is becoming A Union.

As it happens I agree with William Hague 100%! The whole point of setting up the Single Market was to enable a level playing field when it comes to employment throughout the EU. This of course benefits those people here who wish to work in, say, France, Germany or Greece as much as it benefits Italians or Portuguese wishing to come and work in Britain. I certainly do not subscribe to the little "Fortress England" approach that UKIP and the BNP would appear to prefer!

David_at_Home and others, the Italian workers clearly have skills that the employer wants above those of the local workers. Contrary to popular belief, they are not undercutting the British workforce- they are being paid the same.

You're right about the visa situation in Australia, but I was making the point that this is being debated from an economic nationalism standpoint, not an employment law standpoint. There may very well be a case to be made that the company illegally tendered for the work and that British workers were excluded, but that is a separate issue from whether foreign workers should be able to come to the UK or not.

The problem we should be addressing is why is our own industry performing so badly and why are our workers not deemed good enough to do a job in their own town?

West Brom Blogger that depends if you believe there is such a thing as a nation with a Parliamentary democracy (something the Conservatives used to believe in) or its a place where capitalism rages red tooth and claw and is no more than a dormitory for a cheap itinerant workforce shipped in by CBI as they require!

No one knows what skills the British unemployed have near that Total site because they never asked them.

To say otherwise is pure propaganda.

I've voted Conservative for 34 years. My blog is festooned with support for the Party and explanations of Margaret Thatcher's policies.

I have nowt against immigration if it is for skilled labour or is warranted due to lack thereof of our own countrymen having skills and being in full-time, productive and profitable employment.

Today, I read Conservative Home and seen what William Hague has been saying on the Andrew Marr show and he's just lost a vote. I now join the ranks of disenfranchised Tories who have no home for my vote and I guess I'll be voting UKIP at the next elections.

No more will I bother my arse to wait for someone in politics to represent the British people.

I have lived all of my 55 years in Great Britain, indeed today is the 37th Anniversary of my coming down to live and work in England. Now I like Europeans and love to visit their countries but I wish to live and work here in the UK .

It's no use the "Free Marketeers" telling me that were I to lose my employment here I can always try to get a job in Italy or France or Germany, to say nothing of the newer EU members such as Poland etc. I have no wish to leave Britain, for all its faults, and be a stranger in a strange land, a "Gastarbeiter"

There is a difference between the free movement of goods and the free movement labour.

Goods do not act as a drain on the NHS and the education system. Goods do not commit criminal acts and disappear again before they get caught. Goods do not avoid paying income tax and NI. Goods do not spread disease. Imported goods may indeed undermine existing manufacturing industries but they also stimulate local industries to be more competitive. Imported goods do not, by themselves, drag the wages of the less well off down to those of Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Algeria…….

The free movement of labour spells the end to national taxation and hence to a national criminal justice system, to the welfare state, to the defence of the Realm (there is no longer a national identity to defend and why should predominantly working class Brits put their lives on the line to defend the right of multinationals to undercut the wages of their own families?). If we destroy the nation state with what will be replace it?

If we carry on undermining standard of living of the lower 66%% in our country there will be a revolution.

"why are our workers not deemed good enough to do a job in their own town?"

The British establishment turned up at Fiji, claimed the indigenous population didn't have the skills nor interested to work for the terms and conditions on offer , so shipped in an Asian population to do the jobs. Left but left Fiji racially and culturally divided.

The British establishment turned up in Malaya, made the same claims , did the same thing, with the same results.

The British establishment turned up in Sri Lanka, made the same claims, did the same thing, with the same results.

The British establishment turned up in Africa, made the same claims, did the same thing , with the same results.

And now they make the same claims here. We don't have the skills they say. We're not interested in work they say. We're lazy they say. We won't work for the wages and conditions on offer they say. And then they ship in the millions of cheap labour.

"The problem we should be addressing is why is our own industry performing so badly and why are our workers not deemed good enough to do a job in their own town?"

Well I am glad someone has raised this. We need to find out why we have such an uncompetitive workforce. Are we lacking skills or is it a case that many British workers would rather sit comfortably at home on the better paying dole than work for a bit over minimum wage?

Wm. Hague doesn`t just support the EU on this, he supports it on everything and so does his leader and all the shadow cabinet. Anyone saying we would be Better Off Out would be OUT of the shadow cabinet quicker than you can say Jack Robinson. All the talk about possible reform of the EU is just a lot of flannel. Everybody knows that without the threat of possible withdrawal from the EU it`s just a waste of time.

At least we know where we stand now, and I don`t like it.

I`m still a Conservative: Maastricht made me decide to lend my vote to UKIP for what I hoped would be a short time. It`s proving longer than I thought.

Well William is at it again, First he made a real mess of Israel and Gaza and now he is being a roadblock to reform of the very unpopular EU policy of both freedom of movement and the freedom to work in any EU state. However he is certainly right that the current legal framework of the EU allows for the type of abuse we are seeing in the UK. Of course if we had a British company housing British workers on a barge in France and undercutting their rates of pay, they would be celebrating our clever use of the rules, wouldn't they?
The worse aspect of this free market outburst from Hague is that it confirms the shift away from healthy Eurosceptism that dominates the Party at the grass roots, and will play directly into the hands of those who fear that Ken was brought in to bolster the Top Table's love of all things European.
Of course we are not going to be able to untangle ourselves from the EEC overnight but if we intend to start then we will have to insist on our leadership representing the Party and not their personal "outside" interests. This will also further undermine the attempts of those of us who care, to build bridges with UKIP in an attempt to unify the right inside the Tory party. Rather than having our votes split over two parties. I would have preferred for our leadership to have kept quite about this issue.

David, you cannot possibly argue that Margaret Thatcher would have accepted a barge full of Italians taking jobs from British workers who'd not even been considered for the job.

I'd be happy to eat those words if you're able to explain to me how ridding this country of its population, its skills and its family security, without even considering the very people she crusaded for, is "Thatcherism".

Last time I glanced at a history book, I understood that Italians sitting in ships off the coast were about to invade us. Now we're welcoming them with open arms and throwing our own sailors into the sea.

Hague has joined Mandelson in the recent show of strength against the British worker.

So protectionism is out because EU law is in favor of free movement of goods and services, we all know that EU guidlines must be adhered to. So can we ask are they strictly adhered to in the delivery of the foreign workers? Can we take a good look at the state and conditions these foreign workers are living in, when being transported to the UK. Couldn't we send the Health & Safety crew to have a look at the floating hotel moored off Grimsby. To check if the Portugese & Italian workers shipped in to work at the Lindsey Oil site, are being housed and transported in conditions compliant with EU directives?

We may have to comply with EU law on free movement but we don't have to take it lying down!

David. I resigned from the party over Maastricht and joined UKIP later. Don`t think it was much later. I was not just a member but an active worker and fund raiser for many years. President of our local branch - now defunct.

"Well I am glad someone has raised this. We need to find out why we have such an uncompetitive workforce"

Well perhaps its because they have steep over heads, like an astronomical cost of putting a roof over their and their families heads, a result of this country being a massively over populated country. Now why is that? Could it be that business and government have stuffed millions of additional people into the country?

Government worries about the overheads put on business, may be someone should worry about the overheads put on the British people.

This issue has more to do with the new power stations to be built by French and German Utilities in the UK. They will probably use French and German contractors and work teams....so too no doubt will the contractors on the Olympics in London.

We are sold the Olympics as a Dome II to regenerate London but I doubt any of the locals will be employed there.

I doubt a British company could employ UK nationals en masse in Belgium which has restrictions of electricians and others who are not registered with local chambers of commerce.

"David. I resigned from the party over Maastricht and joined UKIP later. Don`t think it was much later. I was not just a member but an active worker and fund raiser for many years. President of our local branch - now defunct"

I would ask you to reconsider rejoining and working with the "Better off out" group to get the Tory party we all know Britain needs.
You cannot hope to reform the party from outside.

This issue has more to do with the new power stations to be built by French and German Utilities in the UK. They will probably use French and German contractors and work teams....so too no doubt will the contractors on the Olympics in London.

We are sold the Olympics as a Dome II to regenerate London but I doubt any of the locals will be employed there.

I doubt a British company could employ UK nationals en masse in Belgium which has restrictions of electricians and others who are not registered with local chambers of commerce.

"I'd be happy to eat those words if you're able to explain to me how ridding this country of its population, its skills and its family security, without even considering the very people she crusaded for, is "Thatcherism"."

She fought for and happily signed the SEA, and of course, her economic approach was all about focusing on global competition. Hence the decimation of globally uncompetitive industry, throwing a lot of workers on the scrapheap well before they would have retired.

This specific case is NOT about the free movement of individuals in the EU, which all the above posts seem to be about.

It is about the movement of a closed workforce on block - i.e. a company movement with a policy of refusing to offer jobs on the open market. Related to this are concerns (probably unfounded?) as to how this company contrat was awarded that foreclosed the local workforce. Again this has absolutley nothing to do with the free movement of individuals in the EU.

The foreclosure of jobs by company movement only became possible as a result an ECJ ruling in 2007. On the same Marr programme Alan Johnstone admitted as much. He said the ECJ ruling had had "unintended consequences" and the UK government would be seeking a Directive to change it. He also said ACAS would be looking into the contract.

Hague just talked about the general EU free movemnt issue, so I think he missed a trick.

The Tories should be attacking the ECJ process. They should be saying the free movement of individuals within the EU is not the issue here. Its about the movement of companies with a closed workforce, and they are not comfortable with this. I would of course love them to go further and call for the suspension of the ECJ ruling in the UK.

Wasn't it John Major who signed the Single European Act that made this all possible? You can't attack Labour for something started by the Conservatives and so logically have to defend this appalling situation!

According to Channel 4 news last night, there are about 172000 British workers between Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands. Can Britain demand one standard for incoming workers, and another for its own workers overseas?

Some of the comments on here make me ashamed to be a member - I hadn't realised we had shifted to such such left wing reactionary populism .

Left wing, Right Wing they are both the very same thing. I am ashamed of those who would sell Britain for a petty bag of silver. As it is the EU is a socialist conspiracy aimed at creating a super state based on Marxist principles. For free-market read, International communism, I strongly suggest you do some reading.

I think the wider question about "British Jobs for British Workers" comes down to how much control you think the State should have over a businesses' dealings. The business claims that the decision was made after a tendering process, so presumably it represents the most cost-effective choice. Should the state force a company to risk its profits in order to benefit British workers? If so, should the state then be held responsible -- and garuantee against -- any profit losses that the company sustains as a result?

There's also the question of how far to take this policy. Would it only apply to blue-collar workers (is this the right phrase? I'm not sure), and where do you draw the line? For example, I'm sure plenty of British academics miss out on jobs or have to move abroad due to competition from foriegners, but favouring British academics over foreign ones would be disastrous.Same would be the case in the City of London.

I've worked in the oil and power engineering sector for over 30 years and in my opinion this movement of a closed workforce is extremely unusual. The first time it seems to hve happened in the UK was at the Newark power station site early last year. There were objections by the Unions but no unofficial action. It seems the workers have drawn their conclusions from not getting anywhere by following due process at Newark?

Something recent has changed. In my view this can only be the 2007 ECJ ruling which gave the green light to company movements with foreclosed workforces.

West Brom Blogger you are confusing two issues, many of those British people emigrating, are emigrating (fleeing) to countries like Australia where they have to make a formal application to go there to take up citizenship, and its up to the state if they want them. This is very different from the free for all no borders our politicians have sign us up to .

It's all right for William Hague to come onto the Andrew Marr show and pompously tell us that 'STRIKES ARE NEVER THE WAY FORWARD', but he would have carried more credibility had he done something over past years to stop the flood of people coming into this country and taking jobs which could have been filled by our own job hungry people.
Before anyone says that we cannot stop immigration because of EU rules, may I remind them that we are still able to shut the door to non-EU immigration and there has been hundreds of thousands of such people let into Britain over recent years.
It appears to me that only when we have even more strikes on this issue will
Gordon Brown and William Hague come to see common sense!

Sorry to go on about this, but might be helpful to set out an analogy in another industry to illustrate the point about the specific issue concerning forclosed workforces.

Try this;

1.Oxford University decides to have no permanent teaching staff.

2. Instead it lets out all its teaching on tender.

3. Bologna University wins the tender, via an intermediary on unclear terms and conditions.

4. Bologna University only employs people from Bologna university to teach at Oxford. Former Oxford university teachers may not apply to Bologna University to teach at Oxford.

5. Bologna University probably won the tender because it has all its staff on permanent contract, but there are too many, so it makes economic sense for them to defray fixed wage costs by pricing down. Hence it must exclude new locals.

One thing the soi-disant 'free marketeers' have no answer to is this: if free movement of labour is such a key principle, rather than a mere policy contingent on circumstance, why are you not arguing for the immediate lifting on the current restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians coming to work in the UK?

"West Brom Blogger you are confusing two issues, many of those British people emigrating, are emigrating (fleeing) to countries like Australia"

Regardless, their are (as Free Marketeer) at least 172000 British workers between Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands-and yes that includes gangs of British workers being taken over on contracts in Spain, I know of people who have done it.
One rule for us one rule for them?

I agree with Maggie Thatcher Fan , it comes comes down to how much control you think the State should have over a businesses' dealings. The tender was put out on the free market and won fairly on the basis of cost. Should the state force a company to risk its profits in order to benefit British workers?

West Brom Blogger - as an avid 'free marketeer', would you support a Chinese company geting the Lincs contract by offering a bargain price to do the job based on paying ultra-low wages to their own skilled workers?

Hague is an idiot. This isn't a dispute about the free movement of Labour within Europe. It's about a foreign contractor operating a closed shop against British workers. Being discriminated in the jobs market in your own country is too much for anyone to take.

The Tories really need to tread carefully on this one. Growing numbers of people are getting increasingly angry as the recession starts to bite. Smugly dismissing the concerns of the unemployed, or those who fear unemployment, will add to the anger and drive some of them into the arms of the BNP.

I see your point, but in the meantime Oxford's students would suffer and the university might never recover the lost ground.

Of course there are British success stories like the Master of Wine Prof Steven Charters, who has become Professor of champagne management in France, a real achievement I think you will agree. However how many such job's are going to British exports is questionable, and could we not have used Mr Charters considerable skills in the UK? Should we celebrate the Brain drain of our top surgeons from the NHS, which has resulted in most senior roles in the NHS being filled by foreign graduates?

In this case Bologna University has surplus staff on fixed contracts, so it makes economic sense for them to cut out local candidates (or indeed candidates from Poland for that matter too). It may not be good for their long term business if they wish to expand, but they are looking at the short term.

If the market expands of course Bologna could then open up to new recruits, for whom they would be in competition with other new tenderers.

So its a function of the recession.

What the unions would say is that companies should recruit post tender on the terms and conditions under which they won the tender.

This is the historic employemt practise in the industry and is consistent with your model, which works fine if a company/industry is expanding.

The issue is whether foreclosure should be allowed in recessionary circumstances. I would say not. (and so did Alan Johnstone on the Alan Marr show if I heard him correctly).

Mark from Edinburgh is hitting the right buttons as to why a lot of postings here are misdirected.

And just to show this is not unique, from today's Sunday Times:

"He (Alan Johnson) highlighted a case in Italy where the Government stepped in after protests and prevented British contractors from bringing in 100 highly skilled British workers. "

I am not arguing the same sauce for the goose and gander but showing this is not unique to Britain.

To me the core question, still not answered, has IREM or any of its representatives actually said they have a policy of not employing British\Local workers. If they have, sue them for racial discrimination, if they haven't , then they should be asked why offers were not made to locals. That could establish if they are paying min wage , not market wage, as they are entitled to do at present. But it is on this issue British Ministers are rushing to Brussels to ask for re-examination of the Laval and Viking rulings. I would be interested to see the source of Cleethorpes Rock's assertion that the pay is going market rate.

I take on board some of David_at_Home's points at 1130. This Labour Govt has so lied and deceived about numbers arriving here, and asked local communities and council to bear the external costs of their lies (ie As we Govt say the number is x , we fund for x extra resources and we don't believe you (the local council) when you ask for 3x resources. We are the Govt, our figures are superior) that Central Govt cannot now be surprised that people have had enough of their lies and deceits and unwillingness to actually help local communities with the required funding. Dreadful, dreadful liars whose many chickens are coming home to roost.

The EU has strict rules on trade dumping from China et al, what are the rules on internal dumping? So Mandelson can go shove it.

As for the so-called Maggie Fans, please see below some clips from this Bruges speech, I don't see a call to ship workers en-masse\en-bloc into local communities whilst those local communities don't work.

"France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity"

"working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels"

"preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country"

"helping training for jobs".

"We have opened our markets .... We wish we could say the same of many other Community members"

"plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants."

"although what people wish to do in their own countries is a matter for them."

Aren’t we being told that absent fathers adversely affect children & their families & consequently the local community & police have to deal with the fallout?
Should we now think that it’s OK for fathers to pack up & leave or not, how do the government or the Tory party stand on this?
If however we are to think that it’s wrong for fathers to be absent then doesn’t that mean that it’s only younger men without families that can find work abroad?
Isn’t that ageism or discrimination?
Are we happy to see our young men leave & set up families abroad which could happen? What about elderly relatives that are left behind?

I want a family life, do I have a right to one?
Apparently yes!
Doesn’t the European convention on human rights say that we have the right to a family life & say I have a right to remain in the UK on that basis alone? If I can’t find work that rule doesn’t seem to mean much does it?

As for Mr Hague!
If he can’t talk in a way that means his sticking up for the British then maybe he shouldn’t say anything at all, because I for one, like many I am seeing & hearing around me recently, want someone to stand up for us British whether that is seen as the right thing to do by the politically correct & the EU or not, the British are getting back their fighting sprit & need a voice that speaks for them, are the Tories going to be that voice or not?

Strikes me that there are quite a few 'dries' on here that are looking decidedly damp. It's revealing that as soon as things look slightly troublesome so many Conservatives drop their support for the free market quicker than third period French.

"The idea that labour could or should move as easily as capital or goods has always struck me as a bit odd. "

I understand that the concept of the free movement of labour, together with other extremist free market/libertarian ideas such as privatising the Royal Mail and homosexual “marriage”, surfaced in the Young Conservatives during Maggie’s rule.

Mrs T, realising that such ideas would alienate the moderate working class, provincial and traditional Tory voters, sent Norman Tebbit to purge the heretics.

I am grateful for your historical insight. I guess Peel wasn't a Conservative then? Maybe you could clarify if the Tories/Conservatives were protectionist throughout the nineteenth century or just parts of it and if so which decades.

The problem is we're so straitjacketed by years of brainwashing that we can't even state the bleeding obvious any more.

I'm happy for Monsieur and Madame LaFarge to come here, as well as Herr and Frau Schmidt. I'm not too bothered about Brad Finkelstein from New York, or Bruce Robertson from New South Wales.

But it was never going to be like that was it? First of all, why would they want to come?

No - it was overwhelmingly going to be a one way street of people from poor and failed countries - poor and failed for very good reasons- wanting to inherit the benefits of the civilisation we have fought to build. Which wouldn't be such a problem if there was a reciprocal abandonment of the values and cultures that kept their home countries so backwards in the first place.

Britain is becoming a second world country - half way between the first world it once was and the third world from which most recent immigrants have come.

IREM are not discriminating aginst British workers per se. They are discriminating against anyone who doesn't work for IREM whoever they are. As "Dave" above says, they are operating a "closed shop" across national boundaries. This is legal in the EU post the ECJ 2007 judgement, but I don't think it was before this judgement. I suppose you could argue the ECJ merely clarified the situation on what laws took precedence, But prior to the judgement clearly no company wanted to take the risk as these type of disputes seem to be new.

IREM are probably paying their workers the going UK rate. They certainly say they are (Cleethorpe Rock's point), but the devil may be in the detail. The point is their workers are already on permanent contract with pay with IREM whether they work or not. So the issue is rather whether IREM's tender price reflected their full costs including what they are paying their workers. There may also be complex cross relationships with other contracts of course. I think this is a secondary issue to that of foreclosure.

Put the government on the wrong side for goodness sake. Assuming the Tories don't agree with the company closed shop (labour seem to be saying they don't) then in my view all Mr.Hague has to say is;

1. This is nothing to do with free movement. Its a closed shop and its a result of a mistake by the ECJ.

2. The Labour government has been dragging its feet on this one. Fine to ask for a new EU directive now but they should have asked for one a couple of years ago and we have got to get a grip on the whole ECJ process.

3. One way -ECJ judgements must go through full UK parliamentary scrutiny before UK implementation. Clearly you can't leave it to the competence of this government.

To be fair I suppose it could just be that British companies are operating more closed shops on the continent now than there are here. No idea. Rather doubt it, and anyway as you say two wrongs don't make a right.

It is some time since I read history at Oxford (none of my tutors so far as I am aware came from the Univeristy of Bologna) but I do seem to recall Peel was a Conservative and the Conservatives removed a whole swathe of tarrifs. But I not eyou have not answered my question.

Thank you Mark, Edinburgh for your reply.
As you say there are still open questions on this issue, and I hope sincerely accurate answers to these questions emerge quickly, so that we can all make informed opinions about the matter rather than hazarding guesses as I have been doing.

You are right that the distinction between individual free movement, which I support earlier in the thread, and closed shop labour has to be more clearly made and talked about.

Alan Johnson's highlighting of a similar situation in Italy involving a British firm and 100 workers, will I hope also get further coverage.

Hague just talked about the general EU free movemnt issue, so I think he missed a trick.

The Tories should be attacking the ECJ process. They should be saying the free movement of individuals within the EU is not the issue here.

Posted by: Mark, Edinburgh | February 01, 2009 at 12:01

Par for the course. Why do Tories always miss tricks? In this case I suppose Hague was thinking of who he was meeting at his next sherry party rather than how the grassroots peasants would read his comments.

Yes, I know. But the history is a bit meaningless. You might as well cite the twentieth century protectionist debate or even eighteenth century mercantilism as oppose to its nineteenth century remnants. More pertinent IMO, how about the iniquities of the EU's Zollverein like policies and tariffs which discourage free trade.

Bravo William for restating as official policy a cardinal principle of the EU and the 4 freedoms it champions of the movement of goods, sevices, PEOPLE and capital! I have just been to speak at a conference in London of the UK Branch of "Partido Popular" (Spanish Conservatives) who are keen to assist us in capturing the expatriate UK community in Spain (they say well over a million) to vote in our UK general elections and in turn get the Brits to vote in their Spanish local elections as envisaged under EU rules and they in turn will mobilise their Spanish voters over here for local and European elections. Freedom of movement cuts both ways. Conservative MEPs also supported strongly the Service Directive allowing EU companies to contract work anywhere in the EU and supply their own Labour if necessary provided they adhere to the posting of workers Directive on minimum employement standards and wages of the host member state. This is obvious economic sense for any free trader. UKIP objecting to this is rank hypocrisy as I remind them and Con home that one prominent UK MEP employed Polish buiders on his Devon home, and at least two UKIP MEPs employ French and Polish assisatants in the European parliament which I doubt very much these were jobs they advertised first to UK workers to apply for. Similarly UKIP oppose freedom of EU labour but are at the same time happy to field as a top ranking candidate Marta Andreasen as a candidate who is a Danish national living in Spain. I salute Tim Montgomery for taking a pro freedom of Labour position and regret that this website seems to be dominated by UKIP members who claim to belong to a free trade party but now in competition for the BOO territory with far right BNP are shown-up to be actually protectionists unlike us Conservatives who demonstrate by our enlightened views to be in touch with the real economically integrated Europe of 2009.

Bill, the EU does sign external free trade deals. In fact it's negotiating free-trade agreements with Canada and South Korea right now. Not to mention deals with other trading blocs like ASEAN, the African Union, EFTA and Mercosur.

"It's revealing that as soon as things look slightly troublesome so many Conservatives drop their support for the free market quicker than third period French. "

Adam in London , John Redwood was asked by Andrew Neil on Hardtalk, 'what comes first, the free market or your nation?' without hesitation he replied his nation. That is the choice some of us are making here, our nation. To pursue a policy without regards to anything else smacks of fanaticism, here some of us believe that the free market should be to the benefit of our nation, not at the cost of it!

I was struck how much of your post concerned UKIP. Maybe that is because so many of us who have voted for Conservative MPs for too many years are sick of havimg most of our laws determined by an undemocratic EU whose form we never got a chance to vote on by referendum. Still we can always vote UKIP in the EU elections. Perhaps if the Tories gave us reasons to vote for them on Europe instead of whinging about UKIP to vote Tory. Think about it.

You could knock me over with a feather. The Treaty of Rome was in 1957 and 52 years later this bastion of democracy (lol) is finaly negotiating a free trade agreement with a country that came to its rescue twice in 1914 and 1939. And you were the one to start citing history. It just proves to me what a farce the EU is.

For the umpteenth time, Dr Tannock, free trade in goods (or even services) does not equate to the free movement of Labour. Furthermore, sensible people (such as UKIP and the Labour MP Frank Field) who oppose the FREE movement of labour do no oppose ALL movement of labour or people (Nigel Farage’s Wife is German) but believe rather that it should be controlled and restricted people with required skills or other good reasons to come here. Marta Andreasen has, of course, very special and unique skills in opposing the seething mass of corruption that is the EU.

Apparently you are quite happy for the poorest amongst your constituents to have to compete against incomers from Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and (soon) Turkey. I wonder how you will explain this to your electorate in the Spring.

I would like all on here who are Councillors or Parliamentary/ Euro-Parliamentary Candidates for other parties to declare it in their signatures. Cards on the table, please - I like to know whether I am reading Conservative posters or not.

Dr Tannock does seem to be a little too concerned with UKIP than is healthy.Perhaps he feels threatened .We've had unlimited mass immigration and now we've got unlimited mass unemployment of Brits.Education ,education is now dole,dole,dole
Time to fill the larder.