Sure, the historical reason was to end conflict between neighbors, piggybacking off the already formed connections between European Steel and Coal community.
But indeed, parent's comment was codified in the "four freedoms" explicitly laid out in the early 90s: movement of goods, services, people and money. But even as early as the 1960s, most union members stopped strictly enforcing custom laws with respect to trade, and it was well known border enforcement was extremely relaxed, especially when it came to labor movement. Only the '73 Oil crisis forced some members to crack down on migrant workers, but again, by the time that was resolved, the EU was back to the status quo.
I do not think calling his comment factually incorrect is warranted, but more fair to say it is a more modern take.
> And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Okay, firstly, calm down.
Secondly, I missed that part of your post the first time I read it.
Either I didn't read it thoroughly because I'm at work and my attention is divided (for which I apologise); or you edited your own comment before you replied to me, in an attempt to discredit what I'm saying.
As I'm not as uncharitable as your are in interpreting the intent of other people's posts, I'll assume the mistake was on my part and you are not just a troll.
I'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy.
Duly noted. It has been extended it. It wasn't a long comment. Edits were made within the first few minutes, but they were clarifying edits, the content remained the same. Either way, I will chalk this up to a big misunderstanding.
