Free Movement between Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Given Britain is leaving the European Union, Freedom of Movement (the ability to freely travel, work, live and settle) in countries like Spain, Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Portugal and others is going to end. For the vast majority of voters, immigration levels from the EU - especially poorer EU states - has been a major issue of the last decade and contributed to the Leave vote. On the other hand, younger voters and more mobile voters have viewed Free Movement as something like an opportunity for them to travel and experience places they otherwise would not have.
Many have floated an alternative. A Free Movement Agreement between Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ust-dont-want/
Britons aren't actually opposed to free movement. They just don't want it with the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph
For decades, the UK has discriminated in its immigration policies, depending upon where the immigrant was from. It has been easier to get into the UK if you were from, say, France than if you were from, say, Somalia. We thus have no deep-seated objection to discriminating between countries.
We are now leaving the EU. There appear to be two broad schools of thought on how our post-Brexit immigration policies should work. According to one idea, we should take the opportunity of Brexit to be completely non-discriminating, treating immigrants from all countries in the same way. According to the other idea, we should continue to give favourable treatment to immigrants from the EU, just not as favourable, relative to other countries, as we have had up to now.
But why are these the only two options? Why couldn’t we have more favourable treatment for immigrants from some other countries than the EU? Folk say: “Voters want immigration from everywhere curtailed.” But that just isn’t true. Specifically, last year the Royal Commonwealth Society conducted a survey of views on whether there should be completely movement between the Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (the so-called “Canzuk” countries). That found three to one support in the UK, among those with an opinion (58 per cent including those “unsure”) for free movement within Canzuk. (Support was, incidentally, even higher among those in the other Canzuk states: five to one in Canada, seven to one in Australia, and eight to one in New Zealand.)
It’s clear from the opinion polls that Britons regard Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders qualitatively differently from folk of every other country. For example, in 2011, YouGov did a survey for Chatham House of “British Attitudes Towards the UK’s International Priorities”. One of the questions asked of the British survey respondents was “which of the following countries, if any, do you feel especially favourable towards?” It wasn’t close. 48 per cent said they felt especially favourable towards Australia, 47 per cent towards New Zealand and 44 per cent towards Canada.
The next most favourably regarded country, the US, was way behind on 31 per cent. In Europe, even the most well-regarded states, the Netherlands and Sweden, trailed badly on 24 and 23 per cent. (Ireland was only 18 per cent.)
I wondered what people made of this idea and specifically what those who voted Remain thought of the idea?
Personally, I am for it. We share the same Head of State, system of law, system of government, we're culturally similar, speak the same language. I don't view Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as 'foreign' like I do with the French, Germans, Polish and Italians. I think Free Movement between us would tie us closer together aswell.
Thoughts?
