3 ms·
I'm not quite following the idea that they were to blame for imposing freedom of movement but also for then stopping freedom of movement? I feel your link suppo
by gandalfian 6y ago
I'm not quite following the idea that they were to blame for imposing freedom of movement but also for then stopping freedom of movement? I feel your link supports my suggestion that they gave it a good go for twenty years and then moved towards Europe instead? Perhaps I misread.
- pjc50 6y ago"Imposing free movement"? Gave what a go? At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
- gandalfian 6y ago"Imposing free movement" I thought that was what your were saying? I said they tried to continue free movement and you objected it was a paternal not fraternal policy which I thought you were saying suggesting it was imposed rather than given as I said? And again you seem to me to be agreeing with me. There was free movement in the empire and after it ended the UK continued it for several decades before giving up and joing Europe? Which I posted to contrast with the original parent post that seemed to suggest that the UK left everyone trapped after the end of empire. So why are we in disagreement? Escapes me. But hey ho. Divided by a common language I guess. Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.