> > "I think it is easy to support the general EU objectives of free movement of goods, services and people."
> Really? That is most of the problem.
On the whole I'd say this movement is economically neutral as far as the UK is concerned: more workers, more consumers, more taxpayers. Remember that this inbound movement is typically young, skilled and enthusiastic workers and we have a mountain of pension debt to service.
The main area where the impact is profoundly negative is on the shortage of housing.
I find it ironic to see the right-wing press on one day saying how terrible immigration is, and the next day crowing about how wonderful it is that house prices have risen so much.
> Free movement forces an equalisation of living standards
I see that as a plus: better living standards for humanity overall, less polarisation of wealth, and a far better way of achieving it than either foreign aid or taxation.
Which reminds me of the other major problem with the EU: enormous amounts of money being paid to the already-rich (i.e. landowners). By the EU's own admission this amounts to about 1% of total government spending by EU members. Presumably it is done primarily to stop French farmers from blockading the roads and ports.
But even that policy would be OK if it were decided openly and democratically - not behind closed doors.