Mickeyfinn,
You state “Governments of all colours did not address the benefits of EU membership or try harder to reach a consensus to remove the negatives.”
In making such a statement you fail to have taken on board the problem of the EU to adequately manage and oversee, which is outside the remit of individual member states, so I will repeat a posting in which I tried to explain the problem.……..
And once entered into this “club” ,such little thought has been given by those professing to “manage and oversee” this club, originally intended to be a common trading entity ( but subsequently changed with different intent as to its political nature, its raison d’etre, supposedly taking into account differences in currency, benefit systems, Govt debts, standard of living, socio - economic structures and standards, etc). All without sufficient thought and forward planning as to how it moves forward in such a manner to fairly and rationally accommodate its citizens’ best interests, each with their own differing needs, priorities and aspirations.
Under the nature of agreement EU citizens supposedly came to the UK for work, and reciprocal arrangements were put in place to allow freedom to move across member states in such a manner as to act as a mutually beneficial counter balance for those states suffering high unemployment levels as opposed to other member states with businesses/industries suffering labour/skills shortages. The intention being from the outset to devise a mutually beneficial system from which each side gains in equal measure.
Unfortunately as has been demonstrated under the existing system certain member states appear to have suffered as a consequence, not benefitted, leading to growing citizen unrest when their voices were left unheeded.
I would ask the question, what does every logical “counter balance” system have inbuilt as a prerequisite to successful functioning?….IT HAS PREDEFINED CONTROLS AND CHECKS IN PLACE, A WORKABLE EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND REGULATORY SYSTEM, WITH TRUSTED OVERSEERS TO ACT IN A FAIR AND COMPETENT MANNER, WITH SUFFICIENT INBUILT FLEXIBILITY TO CATER FOR CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT WITHIN PREDEFINED TOLERANCES (STABILITY MECHANISMS) TO COUNTER ABUSE, TO ENSURE THAT MUTUAL BENEFIT IS RETAINED SUCH THAT NO ONE MEMBER STATE IMPACTS ANOTHER IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO DESTABILISE.
If such a counter balance system fails or becomes open to abuse, then it's essential to pinpoint where it is failing and fine tune the system to ensure that the original intent for a mutually beneficial outcome is not compromised.
The EU system in this case appears to have failed miserably on several counts.
There has been insufficient thought and forward planning given to the differentials between member states to realistically account for the “pull factors” that distort the balance mechanism and result in swift movements of people. Too little thought given to the need for adequate timeframes to realistically prepare for such mechanisms to work effectively. I.e. sufficient time to make provision for, on the one hand the inevitable demands on a recipient state's ability to accommodate an incoming labour force i.e. forward planning of housing, education, health provision and the like, whilst on the other hand make adequate remedial plans to tackle large scale unemployment, I.e. diversification of economies, strategies to promote growth for member states stripped of their labour force.
IMHO, neither of these essential prerequisites given all their complex differentials have been effectively managed or adequately accounted for in the form of balancing mechanisms, so in hindsight it was always bound to fail.
The UK benefit system being just one example where the differentials between member states appears to have sadly led to a call for a standardised system which fails to take into account the major differences in social structure and means by which a fair balance is attained and retained. For instance the UK has at its core a caring benefit system designed to make provision for those on low incomes or families suffering hardship for whatever reason, but wherever possible to incentivise their nationals into work ( in-work benefits, tax credits, housing allowances within predefined criteria) to make provision for families in the form of child benefits in line with UK living standards, whilst at the same time with intent to disincentivise abuse of the benefit system (major reform currently in progress).
It was not intended for those non nationals whose own system did not make equal benefit provision for their own workforce and families ( without some form of differential inbuilt factoring). Nor for those non nationals whose main income was not assisting the member state in terms of TAX CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING POWER etc. (without effective monitoring of money transfers). Nor was it intended to become a tourist benefit system.
The UK when trying to bring such aspects to the attention of the EU bureaucrats has sadly been met with intransigence and on several occasions, derision, which is no way to treat a member state that was genuinely striving for reform.
I sincerely hope that the EU take on board these factors for the remaining member states and don't repeat the mistakes from which the UK has suffered.