Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
Indeed, unless they start claiming things outside their expertise like matter-of-factly claiming an objective is a negative.
Can you be more specific?

Though the path has been chosen and the journey may be risky but we have departed on that journey and complaining about the destination now is a bit moot.
Look, even if you might want to go down to the river you might not want to get there by being pushed off of a cliff onto a waterfall.

Agreed but I don't think we are driving drunk, we made a sober decision to get on the road.
The current discussion is about whether or not the journey is going to go well from this point onwards. In other words, regardless of whether or not you were sober when you got into the car, your safety may be compromised now or in the future, for example due to things that are beyond your control.

Because it is Eastern European migration that is most common and most unpopular while free movement is becoming unpopular in western Europe already. If Eastern Europe accepts restricted movement I doubt western politicians will die in a ditch to deny a trade deal because of a free movement requirement.
Freedom of movement is valued highly also by Western European citizens and esp. by businesses, not to mention the EU itself. Moreover, if the UK restricts movement, it means more Eastern Europeans may turn to other countries, perhaps to everyone's detriment or at least their frustration.

There is zero reason to link free trade with free movement. People are not widgets. Free movement in the EU is a political objective and we are leaving the political agreement.
[/QUOTE]

It is both an economical, political and social objective. There are also no purely economical reasons to link free trade with eg. human rights, labor protection laws, environmental laws etc.