Why Free Movement
Why do we want Freedom of Movement? In the UK, the European Union policy of Free Movement for EU citizens is at the heart of much political debate. Yet in spite of its seemingly prominent role, it is clear that most politicians do not appreciate the historical context or consider why we have Free Movement anywhere at all.
These days, it is normal for states to operate internal regimes of Free Movement. Once you have crossed the external borders of a state, you can move anywhere within that state with no restriction. It has become so normal that to many it is simply natural.
Yet it is not natural in any sense. States are human constructs and our interactions with them are human constructs too. At various points through history, many states around the world have used restrictions on the ability of people to move freely as a tool of coercion and control. In some countries this oppression was active for a long time. Within Russia, for example, serfs did not gain the right to Free Movement until 1861, with the Edict of Emancipation. Before this, they were limited to the area where they lived.
Such general restrictions on entire populations have been generally abandoned now but authoritarian states still use limits to Free Movement in order to maintain their power. The Chinese government limits the ability of rural inhabitants to move to urban areas and to exert control over the dissenting population in Tibet. In Syria, the ability for women to move freely is limited, particularly on their own and Myanmar's military regime was criticised for using restrictions on people's movement in order to punish dissidents and control migrant workers. At the greatest extreme, citizens in the North Korean dictatorship have no real right to Free Movement at all and their situation could be compared to that of serfs in old Europe.
Free Movement has never been, and for many still is not, a given or a natural phenomenon that simply exists. Free Movement, even within states, is a deliberate policy that had to be fought for and justified on practical and moral grounds. As a testament to this fight, the right to Free Movement within states is even enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state".
There is therefore nothing automatic about Free Movement within states, leading us to the next key point. If there is nothing automatic about Free Movement within states, why not have Free Movement between states?
Free Movement frees individuals from the control of state bureaucracies. Free Movement enhances our links to one another as human beings and breaks down enforced top-down barriers. Free Movement does not simply bring the economic benefits of open migration, it carries the moral force of greater freedom for all.
Within states we have made great advances in assuring the defence of Free Movement, even if it is still not universal. Between states, however, we still have much progress to make and such systems are nearly non-existent in the world.
The European system of Free Movement therefore stands out in the world as an exceptionally advanced and forward-thinking order. It marks itself out as a historical level of expansion of freedom to ordinary people.
There are of course arguments to be made about the speed at which we should expand Free Movement in the world. The different levels of development between different countries and the reality of conflict and abusive states mean that migration flows would be incredibly unbalanced if Free Movement were simply opened up to the global level from one day to the next. Indeed, within Europe (an economically homogenous area in the global context), we have had to progress at a fairly steady pace over a number of decades.
Yet it is one thing to say we should proceed with caution and quite another to argue that we should actually go backwards. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is only put back with great difficulty and with many unforeseen costs. There are difficulties with migration flows within many states (East to West in Germany or from everywhere into London in the UK, for example) but to impose limits on Free Movement in these cases would be rightly seen as unacceptable. Once freedom has been given, it is nearly always morally wrong to try and take it away.
Just as we now look back on those Russian serfs with feelings of pity and ask ourselves why people would allow themselves to be subject to that kind of oppression, so in the future we will look back on the barriers that existed between European states and ask ourselves why we left those barriers up for so long. Free Movement is not simply about tax revenue or the ease of doing business between countries, it is about our right as human beings to have the freedom to manage our own lives.
Europe will not be the end of the fight for Free Movement, nor is it the beginning. But for now it does stand on the frontline and all who profess to believe in freedom and the common harmony of humanity should be lining up in its defence.
These days, it is normal for states to operate internal regimes of Free Movement. Once you have crossed the external borders of a state, you can move anywhere within that state with no restriction. It has become so normal that to many it is simply natural.
Yet it is not natural in any sense. States are human constructs and our interactions with them are human constructs too. At various points through history, many states around the world have used restrictions on the ability of people to move freely as a tool of coercion and control. In some countries this oppression was active for a long time. Within Russia, for example, serfs did not gain the right to Free Movement until 1861, with the Edict of Emancipation. Before this, they were limited to the area where they lived.
Such general restrictions on entire populations have been generally abandoned now but authoritarian states still use limits to Free Movement in order to maintain their power. The Chinese government limits the ability of rural inhabitants to move to urban areas and to exert control over the dissenting population in Tibet. In Syria, the ability for women to move freely is limited, particularly on their own and Myanmar's military regime was criticised for using restrictions on people's movement in order to punish dissidents and control migrant workers. At the greatest extreme, citizens in the North Korean dictatorship have no real right to Free Movement at all and their situation could be compared to that of serfs in old Europe.
Free Movement has never been, and for many still is not, a given or a natural phenomenon that simply exists. Free Movement, even within states, is a deliberate policy that had to be fought for and justified on practical and moral grounds. As a testament to this fight, the right to Free Movement within states is even enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state".
There is therefore nothing automatic about Free Movement within states, leading us to the next key point. If there is nothing automatic about Free Movement within states, why not have Free Movement between states?
Free Movement frees individuals from the control of state bureaucracies. Free Movement enhances our links to one another as human beings and breaks down enforced top-down barriers. Free Movement does not simply bring the economic benefits of open migration, it carries the moral force of greater freedom for all.
Within states we have made great advances in assuring the defence of Free Movement, even if it is still not universal. Between states, however, we still have much progress to make and such systems are nearly non-existent in the world.
The European system of Free Movement therefore stands out in the world as an exceptionally advanced and forward-thinking order. It marks itself out as a historical level of expansion of freedom to ordinary people.
There are of course arguments to be made about the speed at which we should expand Free Movement in the world. The different levels of development between different countries and the reality of conflict and abusive states mean that migration flows would be incredibly unbalanced if Free Movement were simply opened up to the global level from one day to the next. Indeed, within Europe (an economically homogenous area in the global context), we have had to progress at a fairly steady pace over a number of decades.
Yet it is one thing to say we should proceed with caution and quite another to argue that we should actually go backwards. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is only put back with great difficulty and with many unforeseen costs. There are difficulties with migration flows within many states (East to West in Germany or from everywhere into London in the UK, for example) but to impose limits on Free Movement in these cases would be rightly seen as unacceptable. Once freedom has been given, it is nearly always morally wrong to try and take it away.
Just as we now look back on those Russian serfs with feelings of pity and ask ourselves why people would allow themselves to be subject to that kind of oppression, so in the future we will look back on the barriers that existed between European states and ask ourselves why we left those barriers up for so long. Free Movement is not simply about tax revenue or the ease of doing business between countries, it is about our right as human beings to have the freedom to manage our own lives.
Europe will not be the end of the fight for Free Movement, nor is it the beginning. But for now it does stand on the frontline and all who profess to believe in freedom and the common harmony of humanity should be lining up in its defence.
Comments
Post a Comment