Josh

1May/102

Immigration

A touchy subject with a lot of people.  I come from the Midlands (ish).  Where there is a large amount of unskilled migration from Eastern Europe.  A large amount of the work back home is seasonal or in the factories.  I have worked in both, and a large part of the workforce is now Eastern European.

Now, on principle I have no problem with that.  I like freedom of movement.  However a lot of people are very resentful.

Now, I am watching Gordon Browns Interview with Jeremy Paxman.  I am half way through at the moment.  But with the kerfuffle of the other day (more on that soon) , immigration was quickly mentioned.

Some relevant questions asked by Paxman, and exchanges between the two:

JP: "Since 1997 how many foreign people have come to live in this country"  - Quite a valid question in my mind, something that should be kept track of and monitored closely.

GB:  1 million from the EU coming here but 1 million British people going to live in Europe.

JP: 4,927,00 entering with 2,925,000 staying.

GB: We are party of the EU, and we have lower proportion of migrants than Autralia, the US or Canada.  This is a mobile world and we have to accept that.

JP:  "Where in your 1997, 2001 or 2005 manifestos  did you say this change was going to happen"

- Again very valid.  Regardless of if you agree with the policy a lot of people are extraordinarily angry that they were not even consulted.  It just happened.  Something that completely changes the country has been put in place and no one was consulted.  One of the main reasons there is such an anti EU feeling in this country.-

GB: We are part of the EU it is inevitable.

At another point:

GB mentions that the jobs of care assistants, chefs, teachers and a few other skilled workers that should not be allowed to work in the UK because there are plenty of them here already without work.

Paxman then produces the list of skilled workers that are allowed to enter the country under current rules, and care assistants, teachers and chefs are on that list.  Not making a judgement on the list either way, just the contradiction being made.

Brown then goes on to say that they are allowed in at the moment, but will not be under a Labour government.  Which then obviously leads Paxman to ask, if it is so important why have you not done it yet.  [Something I am surprised that has not come up all that often.  If you think something is important why has ti taken you 13 years to get around to it.]

I get fed up with politicians not answering questions.  And Brown is the worst at it.  People have legitimate concerns over immigration, and they feel that they have been ignored for the past 10+ years.  Why on earth do you think the BNP exists now?  If immigration were lower, more targeted, or people at least felt consulted and that they had a choice in what was happening to their country then radical parties would not be as prominent and all this resentment would be a lot lower.

All of this really is not helped by the current Prime Minister of this country insulting a little old lady, who reminds me a lot of my Mum, for raising genuine concerns that even I have, speaking as a person who is in favour of the EU.

I also dislike the discussion of the points system. It is basically irrelevant with membership of the EU.  And mentioning the Australians every time is trying to get people to link our border system in their minds to the very restrictive controls they have in Australia where they are no part of a union that has unrestricted access.

My point of view.  We were stupid to allow instantaneous freedom of movement within Europe.  Other countries within the EU had a gradual process of allowing it, why did we not?  This was a terrible mistake.  Then I am angry at politicians for attacking each other over immigration when all of them are far from telling the whole truth.

There should have been some sort of referendum on the whole thing.  Or something.  Some sort of public discussion.  Every part of EU membership has been forced through with widespread public resentment, with only the latest things being the Lisbon Treaty and the high EU officals recently.  (Whose election behind closed doors I absolutely despise.  I am represented by an EU president and foreign minister that I have never had any say in electing.)

This is not the way to go about getting people to like and accept Europe.  And it drives me insane that a good idea, something that is needed so desperately, and could be a wonderful thing to open up trade and stop wars, is being destroyed by the political class and nothing has changed about this in 20 years.

  • I think like many things this is an very nuanced topic, so one should be very careful about making blanket pronouncements about it.

    However, I think you're right in that applying the same policies to the new accession countries that we had with the older EU states was quite probably a mistake. Nobody is worried about unrestricted immigration from Sweden or France, for instance. Hell, more Swedish immigration would be awesome! There's a qualitative difference between them and the ex-Soviet bloc countries.

    Not that Poland isn't a lovely country, Warsaw is like any other large European city, but their GDP per capita is a lot smaller than ours, for instance. It's going to take time for it to grow to match the other EU nations.

    As regards EU institutions, I think our political class is following a very deliberate policy of starving the EU of democratic legitimacy. If the population of the EU elected an EU president, that person's authority would utterly overshadow the authority of the heads of mere nations. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. By selecting them, they become nothing more than administrators and co-ordinators.

    As I've probably said before, we've fallen between two stools. The EU is neither one thing nor the other. It's quite possible that the EU is the victim of an odd paradox; people don't want to see Europe become more like a proper federal union because they feel remote from it; they feel remote from it because it acts like a secretive club, not like a democratic federal union; it's not a federal union because...
  • A federated union is probably the way to go. With some powers being evolved to the EU with the majority being left at the hands of the individual states. Something like the US but much much more emphasis on the individual states.

    There should be properly and simply elected representatives. A senate of some sort that is clear and transparent.

    The EU is anything but transparent at the moment.

    Possibly a president, I have never been to keen on the idea of presidents. But someone elected by the people, not by national leaders behind closed doors.

    The problem now is that if people were given the choice they would probably chose to leave or regress Europe. Simply because of the way it has been forced through unelected and un-chosen.
blog comments powered by Disqus