Theresa May appeared to suggest yesterday that leaving the EU single market was a price worth paying for migration control. I am not at this moment arguing whether she is right or wrong. My point is quite different. It is that if this is the case then she has to be vastly more explicit about what she thinks migration control means.
To illustrate my point I use some data drawn to my attention by environmentalist and Green New Deal member Colin Hines, of whom there will be more to say this week. He had looked at doctor registration in the UK as part of his research for his new book. This is the base data from the General Medical Council:
But then you realise that there are at most 7,600 doctors in training as a result of UK medical school graduation each year (page 30, here). And what that means is that the growth in doctor numbers in the UK is almost entirely due to immigration.
Now that could be ended. It would be of benefit to some countries if that was to happen. More than 10% of all Romanian doctors work in the UK. But that's not the point I am making. Unless Theresa May says this migration is to continue then the NHS will be in crisis because we do not and apparently will not train all the doctors we need, preferring instead to have 37% of all doctors in the UK come from abroad to work here.
In that case what does migration control mean?
And why do we need to control EU migration so specifically when we can already control half of all migration because it is not from the EU?
And what will the gains from this extra control be?
I ask the question genuinely. I want to know. I think other people will want to know. And I think if Brexit is to be managed successfully then there needs to be clarity on this issue because it has the most massive potential to backfire. If Brexit means migration control but in practice most migration will continue after Brexit we have a right to know why that will be the case, when it will be admitted, how that migration will be controlled, what that control will cost, who will supervise it and how, and why that price is worth paying. And right now we don't. But someone is going to have to talk about all these things soon. Or the NHS crisis is going to get a lot worse.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I dont think Brexiteers are looking for “control”.
They are looking for a substantial reduction in net migration numbers and possibly a reduction in the number of migrants already here.
Admittedly you cant have that without control but to let Mrs Muddle get away with using control as a synonym for reduced net migration is sloppy.
She (personally) had “control” of non EU net migration for many years and did not reduce the numbers.
Time to pin her down on numbers, just how will she reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and what will be the resulting effect on the economy and the social fabric of the country?
Surely that is a key factor for the OBR; why the sudden silence on numbers?
“She (personally) had “control” of non EU net migration for many years and did not reduce the numbers” – that is true. What is also true is that she also had plenty of tools at her disposal (to use if she so wished) to “control” EU citizens coming to the UK. However she did not (use these tools) possibly because to do so would have required gov’ expenditure – at a time when the Tories were trying to cut expenditure. Details here:
http://outsidethebubble.net/2016/12/06/massive-negligence-by-theresa-may-when-home-secretary/
A key point for me is the attractiveness of the UK to immigrants.
Amongst all of this talk from the right of controlling immigration, or bringing in only the right ‘sort’ of immigrants we make the UK a far less appealing place to come and live for people overseas.
The highly skilled people that we want to attract will be more likely to say “thanks but no thanks” and go elsewhere, unless we can guarantee a good standard of living in a non-hostile environment. The right’s rhetoric over this could be self defeating.
Good morning Richard.
I suggest the government will view foreign doctors as an opportunity. If they end their right to work in the U.K., they will be saying they are only following the public’s wishes from the EU referendum, but at the same time will be continuing their deliberate policy of harming the NHS as they seek to fully privatise it.
But who is going to staff the private sector? Or will they make the working pay and conditions so much more attractive in the private sector that they assume all uK doctors will work there leaving the poor to the mercy of an understaffed NHS?
Who knows?
Richard this is a very good point you are making. It is an obvious question yet one that I have myself not really thought about and not seen discussed elsewhere it such an obvious way.
If we Brexit with a deal that allows for tougher migration controls but as a result puts in barriers to trade with the EU (in whatever form)but that the result of which is that we maintain migration around its current level due to the economic necessity. In essence we just throw in extra hoops for businesses to climb throw in employing foreign workers. Then all we have done is damaged our economy and added to the cost of business. Migration levels remain the same but other areas suffer.
The question then needs to be asked of the Government to identify which areas of migration from the EU they want to reduce.
If we want control but in reality control just means almost blindly nodding everything through after some forms are filled in and the price for this control is high economically then Brexit starts to look even more foolish.
The aim of reducing immigration that fuels the work force in the NHS but also making it harder for even British born people to enter the medical profession by lowering funding for access sounds like the parameters of a controlled car crash to me.
Again, this is what nudge for the Tories means – but it is more like a harsh shove really when one considers the consequences.
The deliberateness of this is immoral. And that is the least that can be said of it.
Richard, in the Observer Labour have been urged to ‘listen’ to the public, but what Corbyn, Abbott and the Greens need to do in terms of speaking up, is to say:
“Migration is net positive for the economy, exchequer and cultural well-being. Although negative attributes may exist, I believe that they can be mitigated by investment in infrastructure, institutions and quality of life measures, and a higher minimum wage (and a lower maximum wage).”
This way, we don’t have to trash our economy and well-being by leaving the single market and customs union, and we acknowledge the public’s concerns with good ideas.
Could you or anyone else word it better? That is my stance, although perhaps I would say that as my partner and hence son are mixed race, and I enjoy different food, clothes, ideas and music
But they have no good ideas….
Lucas does; she spoke out today in similar terms to me, notably that gains from FoM must be shared to mitigate negative attributes. She also said that Britons can and do take advantage of it currently
My understanding is that “control of immigration” means ensuring that we can refuse entry to / deport anybody the Daily Mail doesn’t like. Presumably, once the dust settles on Brexit we can expect a campaign to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Followed by US-style diatribes against “illegal immigrants”.
It’s worth pointing out that many people who voted remain are in favour some kind of sensible control on immigration. I’m one.
I accept there are considerable benefits of immigration, but can also see the downsides and appreciate that many people feel the changing face of Britain is happening all too quickly, and without any control. It really isn’t all about the economy.
Continuing high level net migration of over 300,000 is surely both undesirable and unsustainable.
This caught my eye and is worth exploring I would have thought https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/07/labour-must-introduce-fair-immigration-system
I believe that more than half of migrants are non-EU, so the government could have been really stringent if they wanted. However, as migrants are net positive contributors to the economy, exchequer and cultural well-being, that has not happened. Britons live, work and retire overseas as well.
As I said have said previously, the problem is the lack of investment in infra and quality of life measures, and sharing of the positive attributes of migration The Green Party wants these to be shared; Labour is confused but left Labour MPs have their hearts in the right place. Good land use and transport policy, including green space and cycle paths everywhere, would help. It works very well in the Netherlands