question everything
IMMIGRATION
When we strip everything else away immigration appears to be the main issue here of any concern to the public. Everything else is just smoke and fun fair mirrors that has turned the whole charade into a disfigured and bloated facsimile of the truth. But as we’ve had migrants coming to this country for 100s of years, you might wonder why it’s suddenly been coughed up like an unpleasant fur ball in our lap now.
'The only reason why we have an issue with immigration now is because Tony Blair caused the problem in the first place.'
On the face of it, it appears to be based on two factors: Party politics and the acceleration of Eastern European countries joining the EU. The momentum for the latter was generated by the ascension of a number of countries including Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary to the EU in 2004, which gathered further pace from the ascension of Rumania and Bulgaria in 2007. This in turn has given rise to anti-immigration sentiment that Nigel Farage and UKIP have surfed like an ageing drunken hippy on a tidal bore ever since.
​
The tip of the iceberg
But the problem is much more substantial than that and goes right to the heart of this debate. What you think you know is just the tip of the iceberg, what lies beneath is way more damning than you can imagine.
​
Once you do understand it you’ll start to appreciate why leaving the EU will have little or no effect on immigration.
​
The only reason why we have an issue with immigration now is because Tony Blair caused the problem in the first place. (1)
​
Back in 2004 when the Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU Britain had an option to impose a ‘transitional period’ whereby migration from the East would be limited. In Britain, the Blair government decided that uncontrolled emigration from Eastern Europe would benefit the UK economy. In other words, this was not a problem created by the EU, it was created by our own government. The problem was subsequently compounded by successive governments who have failed to deal with it ever since. Consequently, despite promising controls on immigration, migrant numbers have increased to record levels.
​
Why would successive governments allow this to happen despite the public outcry? Two reasons: first and foremost, money, and secondly, they don’t care what you think.
​
The facts show that most migrants come here to work and they also do the lower paid jobs that our own ‘workforce’ are unmotivated to do – and thank the good Lord for that because it means you can at least now get a plumber or builder when you need one (some do also have professional jobs that they would, in any event have qualified for under the stricter immigration rules BREXIT are proposing).
​
What this means is that they are of net benefit to the economy. Research shows that because they are generally younger and fitter than our own workforce they have little effect on public services like the NHS; have little effect on state benefits and also have virtually no impact on unemployment figures. (2)
​
They can’t be stealing our jobs, whilst visiting the doctors and claiming benefits all at the same time can they?
Of course there are exceptions, but we’re talking in general terms here. Overall, net benefit figures vary, but in any event these are based on official figures; in other words NI payments and tax. But you don’t need me to tell you that a fair proportion are under that radar. This means they generate money, and whilst some may not be paying straight into the government’s coffers, they are spending it here: groceries, rent, petrol etc. etc. That’s why Blair abstained from the transitional period that other countries implemented; he wanted to boost the economy.
'Successive governments have promised faithfully to you and I that they were going to bring immigration figures down, whilst at the same time knowing they never would.'
Now that’s all well and good, and it is a matter of public record, so the fact wasn’t actually hidden. But what’s happened since is worse.
​
Successive governments have promised faithfully to you and I that they were going to bring immigration figures down, whilst at the same time knowing they never would – for exactly the same reason that Blair didn’t accept the offer of allowing Britain to cap immigration figures in the first place; they want the money.
​
The outcome of all this of has been a public outcry, which has also resulted in the rise of fringe parties like UKIP, who essentially legitimise racism. This is where the EU referendum comes in; it’s firstly, a smoke screen to let you believe that you have the ability to change things, and secondly, it’s an effective tool for the Conservatives to use against UKIP.
​
Infrastructure
What the migrant problem highlights is the issues we have in this country regarding a lack of investment in our infrastructure. Immigration hasn’t broken the NHS. The NHS suffers from lack of funding and has done for decades. (3) Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis. The housing crisis was caused by the 1969 Housing Act which in turn was followed by a dramatic decline in public sector housing throughout the 70’s and 80’s. In the end the death knell was sounded my Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minster. She pretty much abolished it all together during her term by taking the option of foregoing investment into bricks and mortar for benefits - and that’s why our welfare system is in the crapper. (4)
​
This has led to an increase in the number of people experiencing in-work poverty, which is now higher than those in out of work poverty. Until the government addresses the ‘demand’ side of the jobs market - by investing in an economy that provides secure, well paid and satisfying jobs they will, at best, be moving people out of a life of unemployment and reduced benefits to in-work poverty. The government have created a system where work doesn’t pay, so it’s little wonder the unemployed and those on low paid jobs are angry and seeking to apportion blame. (5)
​
I can’t stress this enough: all of the issues that are of real concern to us as a nation have nothing to do with immigration. Yes, it highlights the problems, but the real issue is government policy and a lack of investment in the infrastructure that supports this country.
​
Is leaving the EU the solution?
Hopefully you can now see that leaving the EU on the basis of stopping immigration alone would be a foolish decision given our government’s handling of the situation. We therefore have to assess whether or not leaving the EU would improve our economy to the point where the government could invest in a regeneration program. And this where we start to get into muddy water, because trade and immigration are linked in ways you might not fully appreciate at first sight.
​
Broadly speaking the more trade arrangements we want to keep in place with fewer negotiations, the freer our borders have to be. Likewise if we maintain full control we lose unencumbered access to the Single Market and have to negotiate and assess new routes for trade ourselves.
'However, the government already has this control on non EU immigrants and numbers haven’t been reduced in 15 years.'
The EEA Model
Border control once outside of the EU is likely to follow one of two main models: Membership of the European Economic Area, which is the model followed by Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (this is very similar to Switzerland’s model too), or the Canadian Model. The EEA model allows Norway (and the other countries mentioned) to benefit from free trade with access to the Single Market, but in doing so they also have to accept free movement of people – you can’t have one without the other. On this basis BREXIT, assuming the maintenance of trade with EU states through the Single Market, makes no difference to immigration at all so, if immigration is the main issue of concern, what would be the point? This is therefore unlikely to be the route that we would go.
The Canadian Model
The Canadian Model, on the other hand, does allow much greater border control but does not give access to the Single Market, that’s the compromise and the price we would pay for not allowing free movement. In this case we would have to re-establish trade agreements with every single one of the 27 member states, which accounts for around 50% of our trade. In other words, yes we can have greater border control but at the expense and risk of negotiating all our own trade agreements. To put this in perspective it’s taken Canada over 7 years to negotiate their trade agreements with the EU and it’s still yet to be ratified by the EU commission.
The question as to which route is better for immigration control is obvious; the Canadian model; but at what cost to our economy? This is something we’ll look at in more detail in the TRADE section of this website.
Immigration control
As a by-product of the debate on immigration what one needs to also assess is the government’s success in controlling the migrants it can control. You may not be aware but the total net immigration figure of 333,000 for 2015 isn’t based on just net migration from the EU; 184,000 were from the EU with the remaining 188,000 coming from countries outside the EU.
This latter figure is based on migrants the government has the most control over; and it’s been running at around the 200,000 per annum mark since around 2001. Presumably this is quite relevant. If we exit the EU and gain tighter control of our borders one would expect that immigration levels would drop. You’d be sincerely pissed off if they didn’t wouldn’t you? However, the government already has this control on non-EU migrants and numbers haven’t been reduced in 15 years - and that's despite the fact immigration has been such a hot topic of controversy. (6)
And now you know why. Based on the start of this section you’ll understand that it was never their plan to do so. On this basis the real question that needs to be asked is if we go to all the trouble of exiting the EU to control immigration what belief do we have that they would do a better job of it in the future?
'If we go to all the trouble of exiting the EU to control immigration what belief do we have that they would do a better job of it in the future?'
UK Emigration and Expats
One aspect of the immigration debate, that might come as a surprise to some people, relates to how new immigration laws might affect Britain citizens looking to emigrate; and in addition, how new rules might affect the status of Expats in EU countries.
Under our current arrangement EU citizens have a right to live and work in Britain and naturally, that means we have the same right. On that basis did you know that the Britain is at the top of the list in terms of migration to EU member states? In fact we’re second only to Mexico on a Global scale. Do you see the irony? Britain has more migrants living abroad than India, China, Bangladesh, Poland and Hungary yet we believe it’s a problem unique to Britain. Any exit from the EU would mean we would have to address our own policies on migration to other countries and that is also likely to mean addressing the position of Expats already living in EU states. (7)
​
Summary
There is no question that immigration is a problem because the current levels are unsustainable. In addition, we have no idea if the current trend represents a long term trend or just a short term expansion. Exiting the EU whilst allowing us to have more control over our borders also comes with caveats regarding our trade agreements. We will discuss this in the next section, but I can tell you the impact on the economy of exiting the Single Market is far from clear.
But what is clear, is that closing our borders naturally affects the freedom of movement of our own people, and given the current scale of how many Brits choose to live abroad each year that is a serious consideration; along with how an exit from the EU may affect our Expats.
​
In any event, what we do know is that having control of our borders doesn’t stop immigration. It could stop EU immigration, but as we already have close to 200,000 non EU migrants descending on us every year, one has to wonder how effective any new BREXIT immigration rules would be; especially given the history regarding why these migrants are here in the first place and why they continue to come.
'Of course it’s a highly emotive issue, but if you’re going to get angry at least focus that anger in the right direction – it’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s fault.'
Of course it’s a highly emotive issue, but if you’re going to get angry at least focus that anger in the right direction – it’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s fault. I’ll wager there’s not a single MP anywhere in the UK that is effected by migration issues on a daily basis, that’s why they don’t care. There are areas of the UK where it has a substantial effect, and this creates real concern for people, but voting ‘out’ on the 23rd is manifestly not going to solve those problems.
You would be handing control back to a government who not only caused the problem in the first place, but who have also been proven to sustain it despite public outcry.
​
The only way to deal with the real issues immigration highlights is investment, - and the only way to boost investment is to make sure that we maintain and develop the best trading platform we can to strengthen or economy.
​
​
​
Sources:
2 - http://europa.eu/citizens-2013/en/news/impact-mobile-eu-citizens-national-social-security-systems
3 - http://www.nhshistory.net/shorthistory.htm
4 - http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/why-the-governments-welfare-reform-cant-work
5 - http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/thehousingquestion.pdf
6 - http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk
7 - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-many-brits-now-live-abroad-that-theyre-causing-immigration-debates-oh-the-irony-a6723006.html
Copyright: GAG 2016 all right reserved – no part of the content of this website, text or images can be used, duplicated or broadcast without prior authorisation.