Indy Ref Part Deux

[deesidejambo]

That's all very well and said but I remember reading a few weeks ago that the oil producing nations have reached an agreement and are cutting production to boost the price.

 

What do you think a barrel of oil is going to cost come indyref2?

I'll go for $70 and my wee pal says it will be back up to $100 in 5 years.

An analysis of production forecasts shows clearly 10 billion tops, with a more likely value of 5-6 billion. Anyone can see the reality if they care to do the sums.

 

Treasury take on go forward basis is estimated at close to zero.

 

Many fields have now applied for decommissioning, including Brent which is being abandoned now. At 50 per barrel more will apply this year.

 

Despite record low rig rates there are hardly any exploration wells being drilled.

 

Both Shell and BP have recently divested significant assets to small private companies who can iffsaet purchase price against tax.

 

Future fields like Mariner etc will be developed with next to zero treasury take.

 

This is why the SNP have removed oil revenues from future economic estimates.

 

As for the price, things are looking grim in the near future based on supply glut. Again simple sums can show this.

 

But keep on repeating your nonsense.

[Space Mackerel]

An analysis of production forecasts shows clearly 10 billion tops, with a more likely value of 5-6 billion. Anyone can see the reality if they care to do the sums.

 

Treasury take on go forward basis is estimated at close to zero.

 

Many fields have now applied for decommissioning, including Brent which is being abandoned now. At 50 per barrel more will apply this year.

 

Despite record low rig rates there are hardly any exploration wells being drilled.

 

Both Shell and BP have recently divested significant assets to small private companies who can iffsaet purchase price against tax.

 

Future fields like Mariner etc will be developed with next to zero treasury take.

 

This is why the SNP have removed oil revenues from future economic estimates.

 

As for the price, things are looking grim in the near future based on supply glut. Again simple sums can show this.

 

But keep on repeating your nonsense.

So auld Woody from up North is talking shite again?

 

Who to believe? A ski instructor with a short fuse for schemie kids or him?

[SwindonJambo]

Why can't we have both then?

Page 5 and this mans conclusions says the US shale production has nil effect on global price and never will have.https://www.iaee.org/en/publications/newsletterdl.aspx?id=202

A much bigger number of men (and women) have come to very different conclusions. There are oil tankers full of oil anchored in the bays of oil refineries all over the World with oil they can't shift. There are storage capacity problems!

 

Scotland must develop all of the rest of its economy so that it isn't reliant on a single volatile commodity, especially one with a long term price brake. To rely on one volatile thing is just sheer folly. In 2014, Mr Salmond claimed that oil was a bonus yet he was banking on it remaining above $113 a barrel. Ha bloody ha. It clearly wasn't a bonus and yet it SHOULD be a bonus.

 

If Scotland can develop its non oil economy to the degree that the tax receipts it generates are equal to its public spending obligations then the economic argument is won and it can successfully go it alone if its citizens choose to do so. But at present, it's s long, long way from being the case. It should aim for that though.

[deesidejambo]

So auld Woody from up North is talking shite again?

 

Who to believe? A ski instructor with a short fuse for schemie kids or him?

Well work it out yourself.

 

At current rates it takes three years to produce a billion barrels. Even you can't deny that.

 

So to produce 20 billion it takes sixty years.

 

By that assumes current rates never decline. Sadly for you they do. Added to that are the fields going now to abandonment and you get well over sixty years. Probably nearer 200 years to produce 20 billion.

 

And as the facilities age they will never have sixty years lifetime.

 

So using simple defendable maths I can show others in this thread that 20 billion barrels is not realistic. Nowhere near it. And if more abandonments come along even the 5 billion looks under threat.

 

But crack on. You live in Nat fairyland.

[Space Mackerel]

A much bigger number of men (and women) have come to very different conclusions. There are oil tankers full of oil anchored in the bays of oil refineries all over the World with oil they can't shift. There are storage capacity problems!

 

Scotland must develop all of the rest of its economy so that it isn't reliant on a single volatile commodity, especially one with a long term price brake. To rely on one volatile thing is just sheer folly. In 2014, Mr Salmond claimed that oil was a bonus yet he was banking on it remaining above $113 a barrel. Ha bloody ha. It clearly wasn't a bonus and yet it SHOULD be a bonus.

 

If Scotland can develop its non oil economy to the degree that the tax receipts it generates are equal to its public spending obligations then the economic argument is won and it can successfully go it alone if its citizens choose to do so. But at present, it's s long, long way from being the case. It should aim for that though.

Scotland already has its own developed economy, I doubt you get much info on it down in Swindon though.

 

And it's Westminster that has its hands on Scotlands macro economic power levers right now if the GERS figures are to believed in their entirety (which I don't)

[Space Mackerel]

Well work it out yourself.

 

At current rates it takes three years to produce a billion barrels. Even you can't deny that.

 

So to produce 20 billion it takes sixty years.

 

By that assumes current rates never decline. Sadly for you they do. Added to that are the fields going now to abandonment and you get well over sixty years. Probably nearer 200 years to produce 20 billion.

 

And as the facilities age they will never have sixty years lifetime.

 

So using simple defendable maths I can show others in this thread that 20 billion barrels is not realistic. Nowhere near it. And if more abandonments come along even the 5 billion looks under threat.

 

But crack on. You live in Nat fairyland.

Our oil fields are too wee, too poor and too stupid now :-/

[deesidejambo]

Our oil fields are too wee, too poor and too stupid now :-/

Fraid so. The actual data gives the truth, but you will no doubt say it's wrong. At least others looking at this thread can draw their own conclusions.

 

But wait for a few more pages then post the same drivel again.

[Space Mackerel]

Fraid so. The actual data gives the truth, but you will no doubt say it's wrong. At least others looking at this thread can draw their own conclusions.

 

But wait for a few more pages then post the same drivel again.

Yup, I'm sure they read the news and wonder why they actually bother exploring and drilling for the stuff out there.

 

[SwindonJambo]

Scotland already has its own developed economy, I doubt you get much info on it down in Swindon though.

And it's Westminster that has its hands on Scotlands macro economic power levers right now if the GERS figures are to believed in their entirety (which I don't)

I get plenty of information on it thanks. I get Scottish TV and there's also this thing called the internet. I am well aware that Scotland has its own developed economy. But it's still not developed enough to generate enough tax receipts to meet its public obligations by any measure. Where I'm from , out West, there's a terrible state dependency culture in a lot of places and it's not the healthiest place, putting great strain on public resources, especially the NHS. It's not all like that but too much of it is.

 

So which of those economic levers would you pull to grow the economy and tax receipts? And what would you cut to close the fiscal gap? Successive Scottish Governments have not used the levers they do have control over! They've been allowed to raise basic rate tax by 3% since 1999 but no-one has yet or even proposed it.

 

Scotland also had a huge number, perhaps 200,000+ public sector civil service jobs serving the U.K. as a whole but still based in Scotland. HMRC are a good example. In the event of Independence, these would be lost. Would you expect the Private Sector to pick up the slack for them?

[Space Mackerel]

I get plenty of information on it thanks. I get Scottish TV and there's also this thing called the internet. I am well aware that Scotland has its own developed economy. But it's still not developed enough to generate enough tax receipts to meet its public obligations by any measure. Where I'm from , out West, there's a terrible state dependency culture in a lot of places and it's not the healthiest place, putting great strain on public resources, especially the NHS. It's not all like that but too much of it is.

 

So which of those economic levers would you pull to grow the economy and tax receipts? And what would you cut to close the fiscal gap? Successive Scottish Governments have not used the levers they do have control over! They've been allowed to raise basic rate tax by 3% since 1999 but no-one has yet or even proposed it.

 

Scotland also had a huge number, perhaps 200,000+ public sector civil service jobs serving the U.K. as a whole but still based in Scotland. HMRC are a good example. In the event of Independence, these would be lost. Would you expect the Private Sector to pick up the slack for them?

So you're taking 1 fiscal year as a basis for the next forever under an independent Scotland.

 

How many years in a row has the UK been running a deficit now?

[Randle P McMurphy]

I get plenty of information on it thanks. I get Scottish TV and there's also this thing called the internet. I am well aware that Scotland has its own developed economy. But it's still not developed enough to generate enough tax receipts to meet its public obligations by any measure. Where I'm from , out West, there's a terrible state dependency culture in a lot of places and it's not the healthiest place, putting great strain on public resources, especially the NHS. It's not all like that but too much of it is.

 

So which of those economic levers would you pull to grow the economy and tax receipts? And what would you cut to close the fiscal gap? Successive Scottish Governments have not used the levers they do have control over! They've been allowed to raise basic rate tax by 3% since 1999 but no-one has yet or even proposed it.

 

Scotland also had a huge number, perhaps 200,000+ public sector civil service jobs serving the U.K. as a whole but still based in Scotland. HMRC are a good example. In the event of Independence, these would be lost. Would you expect the Private Sector to pick up the slack for them?

I'd be interested in the 200k public service jobs serving all of UK. You got any confirmation of that?

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

[SwindonJambo]

I'd be interested in the 200k public service jobs serving all of UK. You got any confirmation of that?

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

That's the figure I've heard for gross number. There would be a balancing figure of around half of this as Scotland would have to set up its own Passport Office, DVLA, Foreign Office etc etc so we'd gain these back.

 

UK has 5.5million Public Sector Workers, giving Scotland a Population Share of around 450k.

 

Scotland's actual figure according to the Scottish Government is around 545k so around 95k more than population share so on a net basis not so bad.

 

So at a rough calculation we'd lose 200k odd and regain 100k or so. It would be extremely disruptive for sure but of course it could be done, no-one's arguing about that.

 

But the end result is that we'd be left with 90k to 100k people looking for jobs less those willing to travel to rUK with their jobs as I'm sure some would.

[Hasselhoff]

So you're taking 1 fiscal year as a basis for the next forever under an independent Scotland.

 

How many years in a row has the UK been running a deficit now?

It isn't just one year though is it. It is every year except the one which Wings purposely chose in the Wee Blue Book which was the anomaly. Now that he is cheerleading the denial of GERS, it will be interesting how he frames the economic reasons for going independent this time round!

 

We aren't subsidised by the UK as we more than paid in enough in the past for us to get helped out now that the oil has dropped off. That is the whole point in pooling and sharing and the only people who feel like they are getting crumbs off a table are grievance hunters.

 

For those people who say GERS tells us nothing about how an Indy Scotland would do economically, that is just nonsense. It tells us the starting point and an Indy Scotland would need to figure out how to make things work.

 

Contrasting our 10% deficit now with the UK's in 2010 after the market crash is a poor comparison. The uk government needed to apply austerity measures to get on top of that. Snp seem to just want to spend and never make any unpopular decisions.

[deesidejambo]

Yup, I'm sure they read the news and wonder why they actually bother exploring and drilling for the stuff out there.

 

 

 

So you would rather BP shut down production altogether in Scottish waters?   Some Nat you.

[deesidejambo]

It isn't just one year though is it. It is every year except the one which Wings purposely chose in the Wee Blue Book which was the anomaly. Now that he is cheerleading the denial of GERS, it will be interesting how he frames the economic reasons for going independent this time round!

 

We aren't subsidised by the UK as we more than paid in enough in the past for us to get helped out now that the oil has dropped off. That is the whole point in pooling and sharing and the only people who feel like they are getting crumbs off a table are grievance hunters.

 

For those people who say GERS tells us nothing about how an Indy Scotland would do economically, that is just nonsense. It tells us the starting point and an Indy Scotland would need to figure out how to make things work.

 

Contrasting our 10% deficit now with the UK's in 2010 after the market crash is a poor comparison. The uk government needed to apply austerity measures to get on top of that. Snp seem to just want to spend and never make any unpopular decisions.

True the SNP have gone with populist policy for many years as opposed to making tough choices.  This is to get support that they are a caring party as opposed to the nasty Tories whilst they are funding it via Barnett.

 

But now they are in a pickle:   The recent Curtice report based on independent polling that showed only 22% of Scots support Nicolas cornerstone point of grievance with Brexit: the free movement of people within the EU.

 

So now what does she do?  Continue banging on about it in the knowledge it is not a vote-winner and never will be, or perform a "screeching U-turn".

 

Time will tell, but either way it shows again SNP have drifted too far away from general opinion.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Theresa gettin' telt

 

[SwindonJambo]

Theresa gettin' telt

 

That's absolutely toe curling whatever your views are! Surely it's a spoof. I note it's dated 1st April. Please, please let this be an April Fool...

[deesidejambo]

Theresa gettin' telt

 

Check the date.

[coconut doug]

True the SNP have gone with populist policy for many years as opposed to making tough choices.  This is to get support that they are a caring party as opposed to the nasty Tories whilst they are funding it via Barnett.

 

But now they are in a pickle:   The recent Curtice report based on independent polling that showed only 22% of Scots support Nicolas cornerstone point of grievance with Brexit: the free movement of people within the EU.

 

So now what does she do?  Continue banging on about it in the knowledge it is not a vote-winner and never will be, or perform a "screeching U-turn".

 

Time will tell, but either way it shows again SNP have drifted too far away from general opinion.

How do you and Curtice explain a 62% vote in favour of EU membership then?

 

Does that 22% figure not relate to Scotland being both out of the EU and the single market? If so why would anybody expect strong support for freedom of movement?

 

What screeching u turn could they make? Would it be wanting out of the EU or out of the single market?

 

Do they have a policy for freedom of movement when not in the EU?

[deesidejambo]

How do you and Curtice explain a 62% vote in favour of EU membership then?

 

Does that 22% figure not relate to Scotland being both out of the EU and the single market? If so why would anybody expect strong support for freedom of movement?

 

What screeching u turn could they make? Would it be wanting out of the EU or out of the single market?

 

Do they have a policy for freedom of movement when not in the EU?

Therein lies the dilemma.  Read Curtices note.

 

Nicola has been adamant that in the Brexit negotiations Freedom of Movement must be retained for Scotland in either EU or Single Market.  That was one of the demands from the SNP which has now triggered the Section 30 so Nicola is stuck with that.

 

So if Nicola keeps on pushing for FoM then the population are unlikely to support.

 

Her the option is to go with the popular vote, which is not FoM.

 

This may be jumped on by the Tories though - its a tricky issue - its not "right-on" to go against FoM but the silent majority may be worth tapping into.

 

imo

[coconut doug]

Therein lies the dilemma.  Read Curtices note.

 

Nicola has been adamant that in the Brexit negotiations Freedom of Movement must be retained for Scotland in either EU or Single Market.  That was one of the demands from the SNP which has now triggered the Section 30 so Nicola is stuck with that.

 

So if Nicola keeps on pushing for FoM then the population are unlikely to support.

 

Her the option is to go with the popular vote, which is not FoM.

 

This may be jumped on by the Tories though - its a tricky issue - its not "right-on" to go against FoM but the silent majority may be worth tapping into.

 

imo

Why would Nicola push for FoM if we do not have access to the single market?   Why would anybody expect access to the single market without FOM?

 

You seem to be suggesting that the SNP want FoM regardless. I've not heard this and I don't understand the logic behind it.

[deesidejambo]

Why would Nicola push for FoM if we do not have access to the single market?   Why would anybody expect access to the single market without FOM?

 

You seem to be suggesting that the SNP want FoM regardless. I've not heard this and I don't understand the logic behind it.

SNP want either EU access or Single Market.  Both of these require FoM as a prerequisite which Nicola would support.     But it appears, if you believe polls of course, that the significant majority of the Scottish population do not want FoM but presumably would still welcome access to the single market., which is what Theresa May is driving for.

 

So in other words the Scottish people are no different to rUK, in which case Indy makes little sense on the particular issue.

 

imo of course.

[Space Mackerel]

SNP want either EU access or Single Market. Both of these require FoM as a prerequisite which Nicola would support. But it appears, if you believe polls of course, that the significant majority of the Scottish population do not want FoM but presumably would still welcome access to the single market., which is what Theresa May is driving for.

 

So in other words the Scottish people are no different to rUK, in which case Indy makes little sense on the particular issue.

 

imo of course.

Where do you read that the majority of people are opposed to freedom of movement?

[Hasselhoff]

Access to single market doesn't require freedom of movement. Only membership of the single market does as it one of the 4 conditions of being in the EU

[coconut doug]

SNP want either EU access or Single Market.  Both of these require FoM as a prerequisite which Nicola would support.     But it appears, if you believe polls of course, that the significant majority of the Scottish population do not want FoM but presumably would still welcome access to the single market., which is what Theresa May is driving for.

 

So in other words the Scottish people are no different to rUK, in which case Indy makes little sense on the particular issue.

 

imo of course.

I think you need to read your source more closely.

 

How can it be that 62% of us voted to remain in the EU but only 22% want FoM according to this poll?

 

I notice you used the plural (polls) perhaps this nonsense can be corroborated. I would love to see another poll showing only 22% in favour of FOM. 

 

If you read the poll  you will also see that only 15% of rUK respondents support FoM . This is ridiculous too but it does show that Scottish people are significantly different to rUK.

 

Theresa May is not driving for access to the single market. They will get that anyway through WTO agreements. She is not driving for membership of the single market either as this is not possible unless you accept FoM. The English will not accept FoM as this was the single biggest reason for voting out. We voted to stay in. 

[Randle P McMurphy]

That's the figure I've heard for gross number. There would be a balancing figure of around half of this as Scotland would have to set up its own Passport Office, DVLA, Foreign Office etc etc so we'd gain these back.

 

UK has 5.5million Public Sector Workers, giving Scotland a Population Share of around 450k.

 

Scotland's actual figure according to the Scottish Government is around 545k so around 95k more than population share so on a net basis not so bad.

 

So at a rough calculation we'd lose 200k odd and regain 100k or so. It would be extremely disruptive for sure but of course it could be done, no-one's arguing about that.

 

But the end result is that we'd be left with 90k to 100k people looking for jobs less those willing to travel to rUK with their jobs as I'm sure some would.

Hmrc contact centres, some Dvla and passport office in Glasgow any idea of the other UK serving public sector workers based in Scotland?

 

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

[SwindonJambo]

Hmrc contact centres, some Dvla and passport office in Glasgow any idea of the other UK serving public sector workers based in Scotland?

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

I can't give you exact figures so if you have specific knowledge I'll happily stand corrected. The 200k figure was a pub talk figure I heard and gross if accurate. The UK total for Public Sector employees is 5.5 million, giving Scotland a population share of 450,000. The actual figure for Scotland is 545,000, which could be very expensive unless some of those jobs generate revenue.

[Randle P McMurphy]

I can't give you exact figures so if you have specific knowledge I'll happily stand corrected. The 200k figure was a pub talk figure I heard and gross if accurate. The UK total for Public Sector employees is 5.5 million, giving Scotland a population share of 450,000. The actual figure for Scotland is 545,000, which could be very expensive unless some of those jobs generate revenue.

In other words your original and subsequent posts are based on pub talk, speculation and shite you are just making up. Thanks for confirming

[Space Mackerel]

In other words your original and subsequent posts are based on pub talk, speculation and shite you are just making up. Thanks for confirming

That's about the jist of the Yoons points on here.

 

Pub talk, Twitter pish and MSM bollocks.

[Stuart Lyon]

Better than the mantra doctrine the SNP cult are subjected to!

[Space Mackerel]

Better than the mantra doctrine the SNP cult are subjected to!

Says the man who gets upset about where bottled water is stocked and sold.

[Stuart Lyon]

It wasn't me that got upset about where Scottish bottled water is stocked and sold it was some radge SNP guy!

[Trapper John McIntyre]

That's about the jist of the Yoons points on here.

 

Pub talk, Twitter pish and MSM bollocks.

 

Says the man that believes in deid bodies being fired at the Pentagon.

[Space Mackerel]

It wasn't me that got upset about where Scottish bottled water is stocked and sold it was some radge SNP guy!

You started the thread on it about moaning about someone moaning about bottled water.

And you got your arse handed on a plate if I remember correctly not so long afterwards.[emoji2]

[Space Mackerel]

Says the man that believes in deid bodies being fired at the Pentagon.

Must have been some size of missile to pack 80 odd bodies in.

It's got to have a warhead, propellant and turbine too.

[Stuart Lyon]

Please explain SM how I got my arse handed on a plate for pointing out the trivial complaint made by one of the SNP plonkers.

[Space Mackerel]

Please explain SM how I got my arse handed on a plate for pointing out the trivial complaint made by one of the SNP plonkers.

Start at P1 of thread, it's all there.

We know why you started it, you could feel the Yoonion slipping away even at that early stage. You're a man of vision, I congratulate you [emoji106]

[AlphonseCapone]

A much bigger number of men (and women) have come to very different conclusions. There are oil tankers full of oil anchored in the bays of oil refineries all over the World with oil they can't shift. There are storage capacity problems!

 

Scotland must develop all of the rest of its economy so that it isn't reliant on a single volatile commodity, especially one with a long term price brake. To rely on one volatile thing is just sheer folly. In 2014, Mr Salmond claimed that oil was a bonus yet he was banking on it remaining above $113 a barrel. Ha bloody ha. It clearly wasn't a bonus and yet it SHOULD be a bonus.

 

If Scotland can develop its non oil economy to the degree that the tax receipts it generates are equal to its public spending obligations then the economic argument is won and it can successfully go it alone if its citizens choose to do so. But at present, it's s long, long way from being the case. It should aim for that though.

Why is that Scotland has to develop an economic model that no other Western country on the planet has in order to win the economic argument?

 

No one seems to worry about the Trillions of UK debt or multiple million deficit at any point on here. Yet Scottish independence comes up and suddenly everyone is talking about balanced books. Why the hypocrisy?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Must have been some size of missile to pack 80 odd bodies in.

It's got to have a warhead, propellant and turbine too.

Got a photie?

[Space Mackerel]

Got a photie?

It'll be on Twitter John, you'll come across it sooner or later

[Space Mackerel]

Bummer. Queenie getting telt to bolt now. Tarrra hen.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15197476._Historic_day__as_Scottish_Government_takes_control_over_Crown_Estate/?ref=fbshr

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Bummer. Queenie getting telt to bolt now. Tarrra hen.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15197476._Historic_day__as_Scottish_Government_takes_control_over_Crown_Estate/?ref=fbshr

Another SNP power grab.

[Space Mackerel]

Another SNP power grab.

I'm sure she can still eat her BBQ'ed swans after this though so not all bad.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

I'm sure she can still eat her BBQ'ed swans after this though so not all bad.

The woman you once swore an oath to defend...

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Bummer. Queenie getting telt to bolt now. Tarrra hen.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15197476._Historic_day__as_Scottish_Government_takes_control_over_Crown_Estate/?ref=fbshr

Think I read a while back she's kept fort kinnaird for herself the greedy cow!

[deesidejambo]

Where do you read that the majority of people are opposed to freedom of movement?

In the poll cited by Curtice

[Space Mackerel]

The woman you once swore an oath to defend...

Many moons ago, always handy to cross your fingers doing that too at the time [emoji4]

A bit of archaic bullshit IMHO.

[Space Mackerel]

Think I read a while back she's kept fort kinnaird for herself the greedy cow!

Funnily enough, I remember sending in an invoice for a job for the main shopping centre in Perth addressed to the co Church of England who own the property.

[jambo lodge]

Why is that Scotland has to develop an economic model that no other Western country on the planet has in order to win the economic argument?

 

No one seems to worry about the Trillions of UK debt or multiple million deficit at any point on here. Yet Scottish independence comes up and suddenly everyone is talking about balanced books. Why the hypocrisy?

 

The UK is judged by financial markets to be able to pay for its debts. Scotland has no financial record in doing so . Like it or lump it London is still the financial capital of the world and will continue to be. If Scotland was to become independent then it would have to source capital from guess where?? 

[JamboX2]

I think you need to read your source more closely.

 

How can it be that 62% of us voted to remain in the EU but only 22% want FoM according to this poll?

 

I notice you used the plural (polls) perhaps this nonsense can be corroborated. I would love to see another poll showing only 22% in favour of FOM.

 

If you read the poll you will also see that only 15% of rUK respondents support FoM . This is ridiculous too but it does show that Scottish people are significantly different to rUK.

 

Theresa May is not driving for access to the single market. They will get that anyway through WTO agreements. She is not driving for membership of the single market either as this is not possible unless you accept FoM. The English will not accept FoM as this was the single biggest reason for voting out. We voted to stay in.

I think you are conflating EU membership in the round - which 62% of people support - and support for freedom of movement - which Curtice's report shows Scots attitudes mirror the wider UK.

 

You could support EU membership, the single market and the rest but be against freedom of movement in principle. Which I believe is what is being shown here.