Why should I delete move constructor and move assignment operator in a singleton?

I have the following Singleton policy-class implementation:

template <typename T>
class Singleton
{
    Singleton(){}; // so we cannot accidentally delete it via pointers
    Singleton(const Singleton&) = delete; // no copies
    Singleton& operator=(const Singleton&) = delete; // no self-assignments
    Singleton(Singleton&&) = delete; // WHY?
    Singleton& operator=(Singleton&&) = delete; // WHY?
public:
    static T& getInstance() // singleton
    {
        static T instance; // Guaranteed to be destroyed.
                       // Instantiated on first use.
                       // Thread safe in C++11
        return instance;
    }
};

which I then use via the curiously recurring template pattern (CRTP)

class Foo: public Singleton<Foo> // now Foo is a Singleton
{
    friend class Singleton<Foo>;
    ~Foo(){}
    Foo(){};
public:
// rest of the code
};

I cannot figure out why I should delete the move constructor and assignment operator. Can you give me a single example where I end up breaking the singleton if I don't delete (don't define at all) the move ctor and assignment operator?

If you declare a copy constructor (even if you define it as deleted in the declaration), no move constructor will be declared implicitly. Cf. C++11 12.8/9:

If the definition of a class X does not explicitly declare a move constructor, one will be implicitly declared as defaulted if and only if

— X does not have a user-declared copy constructor,

— ...

Since you do have a user-declared copy constructor, there won't be a move constructor at all if you don't declare one. So you can just get rid of the move constructor declaration-definition entirely. Same for the move-assignment operator.