What would be the point of that? Europe'd be better as a single union than a collection of small countries.
Question Time & This Week
- Thread starter Liam147
- Start date
I think that's a really good and sensible idea.
Essentially, the crucial point here is that having free immigration between countries of hugely differing wealth is a bad idea, because people only move in one direction. This is why I hate the argument of 'oh but the Brits can move there too' - they can, but how many British people have gone to work in Poland?
Your idea of having groups of countries is very much more reasonable. In that way, you can be part of a European Union that trades with poorer countries and helps them to become wealthier without mass immigration to the wealthier countries within that union.
The reason UKIP's popularity has soared recently is because no-one is addressing these issues which are pretty obvious. I also find it quite strange how Labour are so against reform in this area because I feel there's both a left and right wing argument against our current policy.
No, but what's stopping the UK from preventing immigrants any access to the welfare state until a certain level of contributions have been made? They've said three months. If I went to try to find work in another country I wouldn't expect anything from the welfare state at all.
Nothing, and I'd agree with you.
It's something we could do, but I think it sidesteps the issue. I don't believe that the vast majority of Eastern Europeans come here to be on benefits. They tend to have a great worth ethic. The issue is that they drive down wages, saturate a very limited unskilled jobs market and on the whole when you include school and hospital use, probably take out more than they put in even if they don't directly claim benefits.
I'm supportive of the EU and generally supportive of freedom of movement, but I think it's absurd of some on the left (which I identify myself with) to pedal the claim that immigration doesn't have the potential to drive down wages and contribute to unemployment for low paid workers, and it's quite outrageous of them to attempt to quell the debate by accusing people of racism when they raise concerns about such issues arising from immigration. The effect on labour economics of the mass movement of workers from one economy to another is obviously a legitimate question and anyone who tries to prevent it from being asked is dangerous, in my view. Unfortunately these people make up a substantial part of our political and journalistic class.
I don't think the immigration thing is based on racism, even though it tends to be tinged with it at times. It's based on the flawed assumption that you have the right to a job in your area just because you happen to live there. If a company can find more motivated and cheaper workers from abroad, why shouldn't they be able to hire them?
Because the government has to protect its own citizens to a certain extent. It's economically mad for a country with a small amount of unskilled jobs to then invite 5m other people over here to then compete with them as well.
We need to change our agreement with the EU as soon as possible. It's unsustainable.
Are you advocating a pure neo-liberal system where the nation state does not exist? Fully open borders etc?
This seems mental to me. Obviously you mean well, but it just seems designed to stop Eastern Europeans coming the UK, and no other reason for it!
Because, we have decided we like the Germans, French, Belgium and Dutch.. They are good people who make cars and stuff. Unlike those dirty Southern Europeaners or those smelly Eastern Europeaners?
It's not based on race or nationality, it's based on economic wealth and stability so that you get an equal traffic going both ways.
Essentially, that's how immigration is supposed to work. I go to France and a Frenchman comes to England. Not three people go to Poland and 4 million Poles come to England.
Essentially, that's how immigration is supposed to work. I go to France and a Frenchman comes to England. Not three people go to Poland and 4 million Poles come to England.
I know, I know, but it seems a very pointless exercise. "I know, let's break away from the *cough* "founding" principles of the EU and implement these new complicated group rules which are totally 100% fair"
I mean, Schengen would be dead wouldn't it.
It's not neo-Liberalism it's nascent panglobal socialism.
The way I see things, unless Britain negotiates some serious change with Brussels or provides better conditions for British low-paid workers, our exit from the EU is inevitable. People aren't stupid and you can't tell a construction worker (for example) who used to be able to command £8 an hour for his labour, and who is now earning minimum wage, that an influx of would-be construction workers from lower wage countries hasn't contributed to a reduction in the wage he can now command. It's basic labour economics that an increase in the supply of units of labour in a particular field will decrease the price of a unit of labour...i.e. lower wages. Likewise, you can't tell an unemployed cleaner who used to be able to consistently find work cleaning in hotels that the dramatic increase in the supply of labour from Europe and elsewhere willing to go into this field of employment hasn't made it dramatically more difficult for her (that's sexist) to find work. Yes, our membership of the EU and its resulting immigration has increased demand within the economy and expanded the demand for jobs to accommodate new workers, but this expansion has not been consistent in all areas. As Alastair has pointed out, unskilled/semi-skilled low waged workers are the ones who have been losing out.
I support our membership of the EU and I support to an extent the free movement of people within it, but we can't go on pretending that it isn't damaging certain areas of the economy, even if overall it provides a net benefit. If Britain is to avoid an 'out' vote in the inevitable referendum on our membership, the first thing the main parties need to do is be honest about the situation, because if you listen to potential UKIP supporters and those who claim they will vote to leave the European Union, what they are saying is that they have lost trust in the main parties. Then the main parties need to take measures to ensure that those who are losing out as a result of our EU membership are compensated in other ways (a higher minimum wage, for example). Either that or they need to do some serious renegotiating with Brussels that will result in Britain having greater control of its labour market. If they don't do this, UKIP will only grow stronger and Britain will eventually leave the EU.
I support our membership of the EU and I support to an extent the free movement of people within it, but we can't go on pretending that it isn't damaging certain areas of the economy, even if overall it provides a net benefit. If Britain is to avoid an 'out' vote in the inevitable referendum on our membership, the first thing the main parties need to do is be honest about the situation, because if you listen to potential UKIP supporters and those who claim they will vote to leave the European Union, what they are saying is that they have lost trust in the main parties. Then the main parties need to take measures to ensure that those who are losing out as a result of our EU membership are compensated in other ways (a higher minimum wage, for example). Either that or they need to do some serious renegotiating with Brussels that will result in Britain having greater control of its labour market. If they don't do this, UKIP will only grow stronger and Britain will eventually leave the EU.
I know you think that panglobal socialism is an inevitability, but in the real world at present, it's a million miles away. The drive for greater freedom of movement for workers that we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years is capitalistic in nature and you know it.
Of course it's capitalistic but paradoxically it will hasten the end of capitalism.
Interestingly that is perhaps true, but not in any of our lifetimes.
There's nothing economically mad about it, if anything it's positively beneficial. It's just politically unpopular. I'm down for leaving the EU, but immigration is very low down the list of reasons why.
Fully open borders, yes.
Let me get this right. You support fully open borders...without any restrictions or caps? If 20 million workers from around the world were willing to and had the means to enter Britain over the next 12 months, your open borders would allow them to do so?
Says who? As far as I know immigration is people coming into your country. Emigration is people going out. Wherever large migratory circles exists (or have existed in the past) it's highly likely it involves a big net flow in one direction. If too many people are leaving a place they're doing it for a reason, which is probably the same for not many people wishing to move in there. There isn't a way it's supposed to work. What you're talking about is barely migration at all. Why would large numbers of people leave a country they were born in to move into a country of equal economic and social living standards?
I'm not questioning the validity of the labour migrations debate obviously. But certainly Plugsy's idea of going about it drawing three or four big circles in an European map (the rich, the poor, the Scandinavians, and the diving latins) is one of the most idiotic ideas someone could throw into this debate. Might as well divide Europe in four, because I can tell you with 100% certainty that idea looks like a big "feck you" to the poorer countries in the European Union.
You rather like the extremes don't you? Why in the world would £20 million people turn up in Britain? We don't live in heaven you know.
Oh stop with the exaggeration mate, 20 million really? Considering we are not the only alternative to eastern europeans. If you were to actually look it up, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc, would rather go to Spain and Italy than our country, because of cultural similarities, at least the Romanians I am sure would prefer Spain and Italy. The same can apply to czechs, or poles or whoever who could easily go to Germany or France rather than ours. Also isn't the point of open borders, free movement of peoples to different countries without restriction?
If 7 billion people (most of whom are significantly less well off than Eastern Europeans) were free to move to Britain without restriction, do you seriously believe that the figure wouldn't be in the millions? Are you not aware of the current migration situation on Europe's southern and eastern borders? Literally millions of people from Africa and the Middle East are looking for ways to emigrate to Europe as we speak, but are unable to do so legally. If we take one country of potential migration into your proposed open Britain as an example, in China there are hundreds of millions of people practically slaving away in factories for 12 hours a day, earning feck all. Do you seriously think that millions would not take the chance of coming to Britain, if they were able to do so?
You rather like the extremes don't you? Why in the world would £20 million people turn up in Britain? We don't live in heaven you know.
There's a reason why not a single developed country in the world has a fully open labour market.
I'm not talking about Europe. I'm talking about the hypothetical situation of the borders being open to the world's entire labour market without restriction, which is what Andrew suggested.
Okay, bear in mind we aren't even the richest nation, so it is still very highly exaggerated. What if more people go to Germany, the US, China, Brazil etc, I reckon they would attract more people than us, because they will be the financial centres not us.
It isn't though. You've fallen for the hype on this.
Please explain to me how people(from anywhere) who work for the minimum wage are beneficial economically for a country. Firstly, you're probably going to have to help them find a house. Then you'll have to top up their salary so they can live. Then you have to put their kids through school. Then if they get ill you have to pay their medical treatment.
All the while, all the people from this country who are out of work because they've been undercut are going to be claiming unemployment benefit themselves whilst also using our public services.
'Immigrants are economically beneficial' is a complete fallacy when it comes to those who come here to do unskilled jobs. Obviously it's great if they come here to fill roles that this country's population can't do - that's when immigration is positive.
The reason why immigration should not all be about movement in one direction is because of the adverse effect it has on the public services of the country to which they come. We've got so many schools that are completely full to bursting and we've had to employ teaching assistants who speak all these different languages so that these children who have just arrived from abroad can be understood. This all costs money and is a drain on resources.
If I were from Eastern Europe, the first thing I'd do is get up and go to Western Europe to work. You'd be mad not to - better wages, better working conditions, immediate access to welfare and you'll be given a home.
Now this isn't to say that we should have no immigration agreement with Eastern European countries. You have to have a limit though. I'm all for cultural enrichment and encouraging different communities to come to Britain, but we have absolutely no control over immigration in this country and it's killing our public services whilst also massively changing the social make-up of towns and cities across the UK without asking the people who live there what they think.
Actually, no country in the world has a fully open labour market. Let's think about this logistically, how exactly is someone who is 'slaving away in factories... earning feck all' supposed to travel thousands of miles across the world to Britain, they probably don't even speak English and smuggling is expensive/dangerous.
You don't have to do any of these things. Also, there aren't many jobs that people in this country 'cannot do' - some times they just won't.
@Alastair
That is all true. I was just ridiculing Plugsy's suggestion with which you agreed, and was ridiculing your idea that immigration should be an Englishman going to France and a Frenchman going to England. Not questioning the other issues that you and rednev have been discussing. It's hard to imagine free movement of people in Europe working as if we were a single country when we're not. When there are huge disparities in other areas in these countries, like employment availability, quality of social welfare, and minimum wage. There are problems obviously.
This could work when there was economic growth throughout Europe. People won't leave their country for a "better" one when their own country is getting better. Portugal was extremely poor in the eighties yet the Portuguese didn't leave the country en masse when allowed to because in the 90's we were growing steadily and life was improving. Most of our emigration occurred before we joined the EU. And it's occurring now again because we have 20% unemployed verging on poverty. It's an economic disparity problem within European Union at the root of the problem. If this isn't addressed in a much wider scale than migration alone then European Union has it's days counted.
Some complain about immigration... A few weeks ago we had a problem in Portugal with 74 Syrian refugees who were flown into the country with fake passports in some weird scheme with Guinea-Bissau. We were discussing what to do with them. Considering giving them asylum. Suddenly someone from the Ministry of Foreign Relations comes out in a jolly manner and says "oh there won't be a problem at all. It seems none of them were planning on staying here, they all want to go to Germany where they already have jobs lined up and all". This was both hilarious and sad.
Your schools are bursting? Send some over here...
Fertility rates in Germany are very low as well. For them, immigration is an economic blessing, even if it may cause a few social problems here and there.
If any of the advocated solutions implies a bigger synergy between the wealthier countries and leaves the others out of it, the European project has failed, as this will only be akin to the "rich getting richer" argument from football.
Portugal's long-term solution could be something like becoming the Florida of Europe. But even in that we're failing miserably.
That is all true. I was just ridiculing Plugsy's suggestion with which you agreed, and was ridiculing your idea that immigration should be an Englishman going to France and a Frenchman going to England. Not questioning the other issues that you and rednev have been discussing. It's hard to imagine free movement of people in Europe working as if we were a single country when we're not. When there are huge disparities in other areas in these countries, like employment availability, quality of social welfare, and minimum wage. There are problems obviously.
This could work when there was economic growth throughout Europe. People won't leave their country for a "better" one when their own country is getting better. Portugal was extremely poor in the eighties yet the Portuguese didn't leave the country en masse when allowed to because in the 90's we were growing steadily and life was improving. Most of our emigration occurred before we joined the EU. And it's occurring now again because we have 20% unemployed verging on poverty. It's an economic disparity problem within European Union at the root of the problem. If this isn't addressed in a much wider scale than migration alone then European Union has it's days counted.
Some complain about immigration... A few weeks ago we had a problem in Portugal with 74 Syrian refugees who were flown into the country with fake passports in some weird scheme with Guinea-Bissau. We were discussing what to do with them. Considering giving them asylum. Suddenly someone from the Ministry of Foreign Relations comes out in a jolly manner and says "oh there won't be a problem at all. It seems none of them were planning on staying here, they all want to go to Germany where they already have jobs lined up and all". This was both hilarious and sad.
Your schools are bursting? Send some over here...
Fertility rates in Germany are very low as well. For them, immigration is an economic blessing, even if it may cause a few social problems here and there.
If any of the advocated solutions implies a bigger synergy between the wealthier countries and leaves the others out of it, the European project has failed, as this will only be akin to the "rich getting richer" argument from football.
Portugal's long-term solution could be something like becoming the Florida of Europe. But even in that we're failing miserably.
It would be easier if you just sent your girls over here instead.
Without implying you mean more than what you wrote here, I'm using it to forward the idea that selectively allowing skilled immigrants in would be a catastrophe for other countries. What would it be of poorer countries if skilled labourers could leave the country and unskilled couldn't? This is already a problem because skilled people will have means to more easily pursue jobs in other countries, regardless of open borders or not. Magnifying it to a Schengen scale would be a disaster.
And sorry to use a thread about UK's problems to discuss these issues, but since the debate was having an European scope I thought these perspectives could be useful.
Do most advanced Western economies not have an upcoming crisis with their populations in terms of dependency ratio? Other than shipping off our elderly to Spain and France (and we dare complain about EU immigration rules , at least the Eastern Europeans actually work 
), what solution is there other than immigration?
), what solution is there other than immigration?I think the point bolded hasn't been made often enough, probably because people are scared of being called racist or uncaring, but I don't see why people shouldn't have a say in the future of their country and neighborhoods, and I suspect we would both agree that the policy of all governments has been quite different to opinion polls on the subject.
I think you're wrong on the economic argument though. Immigration has been the main source of growth in Britain for a good while, apart from borrowing (which is getting worse again, incidentally). Take a look at the various lists of wealthy people in the country, there's a large proportion of people born outside the UK, who are generally creating wealth and providing jobs here. At the unskilled end immigrants must have reduced pressure for higher wages, which can only have helped out competitiveness. As for bursting schools, those kids are the very people who will be working to pay our pensions and healthcare costs in the future, don't knock 'em!
There are arguments against excessive immigration, but economics isn't one of them.
Not sure where we stand in relation to the countries you mention, but as a country we're certainly getting older, and it's the (untouchable) pension side of welfare that's the biggest long term worry. We need younger people to help pay for it, and we currently don't have enough.
It would vary according to source, but all these three put it around 1.40, in the bottom 20-30 countries in the world and even more glaring if we consider large sovereign states only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
2.1 is the bare minimum for natural population renewal. I think in Western Europe only France and Ireland are near that value.
The whole EU is 1.58? My god, we're completely fecked unless we find a solution for this. I knew it was bad but didn't realise it was quite this bad. How come this kind of thing isn't more prominent in the arguments related to immigration?
Surely it's not that big an issue? Every woman has 1.58 children which doesn't sound like it'll cause humanity to veer wildly into extinction. I'm probably missing something here so if you or Arruda would like to explain why 2.1 is the bare minimum I'll gladly listen.
It's the bare minimum for population renewal, not to avoid extinction. Values above that lead to an increase, values below that lead to a decrease.
Also, we're not talking about extinction because the world's population is still increasing on the whole and it will for quite some time. In fact over-population will more likely be a problem sooner.
Thing is, at a country level, if you couple a fertility rate of around 1.60 with an increase in life expectancy it will mean a massive change in the age distribution of a population in as little as 30 years or so. Unless that low fertility rate is compensated by immigration, you will have progressively less people on working age (and taxable income) to sustain progressively more people on retirement benefits and increasing health costs. It isn't such a big problem in countries were people are expected to do their own savings for retirement and health (though it will probably still have massive implications in the gross domestic product), but the way most social security systems in Europe are designed aren't compatible with a low working/retired ratio of citizens.
Can you understand the economic and social implications of the graphic below relating to Portugal? We have less people aged 15 and below than people aged 65 and older in the 2005 graph and in the 2025 prediction. 30 years ago it was completely different.
Yes that actually makes total sense.
I agree that it isn't exactly ideal for a poorer country to lose its skilled workers. I was presenting an argument from the point of view of a wealthy country, where it makes sense for them to come in. This happens in the health service more than anywhere over here.
The point I'm generally making is that there are people who label all of immigration to be identical. It isn't.
Skilled immigrants are economically beneficial. Unskilled immigrants aren't. If you take skilled immigrants, then the country they come from will lack skilled people.
There isn't really a solution here.
For the record, I'm generally in favour of immigration for its social benefits, as long as it's controlled and well spread across the county. London, where I live, has benefited from immigration hugely, in my view. Not everywhere, but in a lot of places.