My good friend and Green New Deal colleague Colun Hines has always stood apart from the rest of that group in arguing that the UK needs to take control of its immigration policy for what (if I summarise it correctly) he thinks to be three reasons.
The first is sustainability: he sees UK resources as limited and so control is needed at any point in time to ensure change is sustainable.
Second he argues that economically migration can be a shock to the system that needs to be managed.
Third there is the social dimension of integration being a process that takes time where the capacity for change is finite.
As I say, I hope I summarise him correctly. This has never become Green New Deal policy because the rest of us were too liberal, and in particular were willing to accept the EU price of free movement of labour within it even if the corollary has been free movement of capital which none of us had much enthusiasm for.
But illiberal as it sounds does Colin have a point? Is our capacity for change finite at a point in time and is a change in policy needed if politics and the people of this country are to be realigned? This is his argument in the Guardian this morning:
At last some light at the end of the “defeat Brexit” tunnel, in the form of Ed Balls' call in Tuesday's Daily Mirror for the UK to vote remain, but then to “press Europe to restore proper borders, and put new controls on economic migration”. Were that message to be amplified by other key Labour remain supporters then Polly Toynbee's truly spine-chilling description of the likely outcome of a leave vote (Brexiters have unleashed furies even they can't control, 14 June) could be overcome. As she notes, a remain call to tighten future border controls is likely to be well received by leaders of other EU countries, given the desires of their populations and the threat these governments are under from the rise of extreme-right parties.
Such an approach could also allow Labour to redeem itself in the eyes of its traditional voters and so persuade waverers to vote to stay in. For this to succeed, they must assure such supporters that central to Labour's “remain and reform” campaign will be working with others across Europe to enable nation states to strengthen border controls. To do so, even at this 11th hour, could help prevent us being condemned to four more years of ruthless shredding of what is left of our welfare state, by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove as prime minister and chancellor. If, however, Brexit triumphs, those politicians who remained myopically in favour of uncontrolled EU migration will have a lot to answer for.
Colin Hines
East Twickenham, Middlesex
There can be little doubt that the zeitgeist has changed. But what does that mean? How can liberal thinking accept the notion that not all are equal in their claim? And how can it specifically justify a policy of controlling immigration that, of course, every government has in reality pursued except with regard to the EU?
It is a question that will now survive June 23 whatever happens in the referendum. It is one I face today as I consider candidates for jobs at City University, many of whom are from countries around the world and not just the EU (plus, of course, a good number already here).
What are we to do about immigration? It's a question that will no longer go away.
NB: please comment with care. I will have no hesitation in deleting any comment I consider in the remotest way racist.
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:
Without significant immigration, Britain is dead in the water.
The NHS relies on it: closing the floodgates would break it long before sufficient natively British staff could be trained to sustain it. Same goes for most of the care sector. The genuinely innovative sectors of industry are crucified by the existing requirement to make serious money before the Immigration goons will let you in.
More than that, without boosting the working population, we will either be reduced to culling the elderly or raising the pension age to “until you drop dead” – again, the only available quick fix is immigration, and we cannot wait for a long term one.
So if you want Britain to become a racist, insular and impoverished tax haven – vote for immigration controls.
But we have always had migration controls
Are you saying we should have none?
As a liberal I find this question difficult but your comment is not based on any identifiable scenario. So what are you saying?
The government cut nurse training schools 2010 2012, to save money. So yes we are now very short of ‘home grown nurses’. The big city hospital my niece works at recruits regularly from overseas. Is this fair to those countries. Immigration is a worry and has to be controlled, please don’t play the race card. Can anyone blame those seeking a better life, of course not. My eldest grandaughter is doing her physics, maths A levels, she is mixed race. She is beautiful inside and out. I wish her a most wonderful healthy, happy and most of all a safe life, from bigots, from ignorance, from a bleak future. It is brave and necessary to talk of immigration. This shrinking world where people and the creatures on this earth are without value is just horrible. But, everyone who comes needs to value females and another view. Thanks again Mr Murphy for raising a topic that cannot be ignored.
The largest reason we have so few nurses is because they became a “graduate” Discipline immediately cutting half their applicants. My Wife who was a Midwife for many years along with a large number of her colleagues could no longer apply to become nurses. This and removing paid support while training (which is what the degree is)deterred many who would make good nurses.
This policy has to rank up in the higher echelons of this government’s stupidity
Do agree Malky, I trained in the 1970’s where either 5/6 0 levels or pass general nursing council examination. However all a little irrelevant now, NHS, internal market, clinical commisioning groups and procurement managers, virgin care, lovely.
I weep into my porridge daily for its loss.
Japan has survived with almost no immigration . It has done so by investment in human and physical capital. I have no idea why they don’t import more labour but they would no doubt do better if they did.
The UK began importing unskilled labour before we joined the EU and this has led to underinvestment in capital goods. Intolerance and racism has been around a long time, but I would say that it’s only since the accession to the EU of East European states that ordinary folk,who are not racist, perceive that immigration is not for their benefit. They are in competition for jobs with keener, more skilled, more ambitious workers from the east. Everyone talks of Polish workers as the best employees, not thinking that we only get the ones who are prepared to uproot their families, learn a new language and willing to work as many hours as they can on minimum wage.
This seems to ignore the fact that immigrants get old as well. If we continue to allow large scale migration to Britain in 2016 then will we not simply be postponing the problems? And when our children try to tackle those problems they will be larger in scale.
And it ignores the effect of technology: many of the jobs now done by people will soon be done by machines. What we will continue to need are people in the caring professions.
This thread doesn’t seem to have considered the environmental aspect of the issue: where are we all to live if the UK population increases? Farage is not the only person who talks of a population of 80 million: this was also a forecast (I think) from UK Stats Authority a year or so ago.
I would like a world without borders but the problems that implies are massive. We should start by trying to equalise economies around the world to reduce the sheer necessity for many people to try to reach Europe. That means exporting European things like democracy, rule of law, economic security. But doing that means that people in the “developed world” will have to accept a reduction in their material standard of living. Otherwise things will not be environmentally sustainable.
Doing any of this would be much harder with UK out of EU.
You ignore the children of migrants
Otherwise you reflect many of Colun’s concerns, I think
Lets get this point made clearly. Immigration is both normal and healthy for a country: mass immigration is not.
It has been the Liberal Middle Class who have been some of the most vocal about the positives of immigration. That is because they have been the ones who have probably benefited most from it. Those of us however that work as unskilled labour, have seen a surge of EU unskilled labourers arrive and do jobs for less money (or the minimum wage), and are prepared to work in worse conditions if necessary. This has completely undermined decades of hard fought for workers rights, and impoverished us or made it harder for us to find decent paid work. And when we complain about it, we are shouted down as racists! No wonder the Working Class are angry.
I’m glad Labour are finally waking up to the fact that this is a real problem, and are willing to confront the issue. They can’t ignore a problem just because they don’t feel it is. If they had done this in the past, UKIP wouldn’t have the support they do.
Colin is absolutely right. As I too argued in the Guardian letters page, earlier this year: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/21/green-party-member-calls-for-change-on-migrant-policy
I had heaps of opprobrium poured over me in some quarters for daring to publish this. It now appears little more than obvious.
Well done for this blogpost, Richard.
That’s a fine letter, Rupert, with which I thoroughly agree. It’s very difficult to make this case on the left.
The Leave campaign evidently see ‘immigration’ from elsewhere in the EU as a key vote winner. They are cynically prompting voters to see it as the cause of pressures on the NHS and other public services. Those pressures are real; but result from underfunding by the austerity obsessed Tory government, not from fellow Europeans relocating here for work. That immigration is in effect controlled — by employers, according to whether they offer jobs.
EU migrants pay tax, NI, VAT. Something over £2bn net annually seems to be the level of their contribution. They are thus paying for health and other services, just like British workers and immigrants from elsewhere. The deal has always been that as the population grows (in 1948 it was just over 50m), more people work and pay taxes, providing the government with the revenue that it can use to provide the level of health etc services the population needs — whatever its size be. Well, that would be the fair deal…. not the one the Tories are imposing.
EU immigration is not a problem, but an asset, and Remain needs to make that clear. Free movement gives UK employers access to a massive pool of people among which to find the skills they require. Quite apart from the enrichment of our life through diversity, and working together to tackle the big problems, which leads to levelling up not a race to the bottom.
[Please excuse any simplistic points, Professor. I’m not an economist, just a concerned and internationally minded citizen (ex diplomat), helping where I can in StrongerIn local group.]
Your comment is welcome
What you have sad has worked for decades
But can it continue to do so?
If so, how?
I don’t think the left is ignoring immigration- it’s spoken about it all the time.
If austerity has cut billions from public services & the NHS, & immigration is a net contributor- doesn’t reframing the debate around immigration (as Tom Watson suggests) actually reinforce a misleading economic picture? And let austerity off the hook?
‘Immigration Controls’ on coffee mugs also didn’t help Labour win votes in general election or reconnect with ‘traditional base’- , they arguably lost some voters & had people questioning Labour values? Why do some think this is a good idea now?
Can’t we hold two ideas up for scrutiny at the same time?
I really do not see this as an either / or but as a multi-faceted debate
I think many of Paul Masons proposals are excellent & it is multifaceted- you can make immigration fairer.
But the MP’s pushing ‘Immigration Control’ mugs in 2015 & now having *partial agreement with Masons suggestions – attempting to woo back brexiters – will not be trusted by ‘traditional voters’ & risk shifting focus focus away from economy
Its a tough question. Like you I have sat on many interview panels for University positions. Our policy has always been to award the job to the best candidate. Very often these are non EU citizens. I remember some years ago giving a job to a Palestinian but Israel shut the border down and reluctantly after a few months we had to offer it to someone else. More recently we gave a job to an Iranian – much extra paperwork!
I cherish the free movement of people within the EU; I have worked in France Germany and Switzerland (CERN) so it has benefited me greatly. I’m not sure what the nett EU migrations figures are at present. The last figures I found were about 2.5M EU citizens in the UK and 2.3M UK citizens in other EU countries but this figure is a few years out of date.
My view is that it may be cyclical. In Irish terms there have been considerable flows both ways; very positive net immigration in the 1990-2008 period followed by net emigration from 2008-2015. This year is likely to be about neutral.
Sorry, I feel I am not really helping. I hope the UK problem is cyclical like Ireland’s but am deeply disturbed by the rise of the far right and how easy it is to make the racist case (which I find abhorrent and repugnant).
I agree with all that
Personally I don’t think the right lens to view immigration through is that of a universalistic/liberal one.
There are lots of people in our society who are concerned by immigration and the changes it makes to our society, and I think it is important to respect their views and experiences and opinions as valid members of our society. (I would add to Colin Hines list simply ‘change’) So my direct answer to the question of how can we as liberals accept immigration restrictions, it is because as liberals we owe a duty of respect to people in our society who don’t share the same views as us.
As a specific defence of people who are troubled by immigration, I used to work in housing and saw the impact of estate regeneration, and change is a very unsettling process and shouldn’t be underestimated. Lots of people I spoke to would struggle to articulate their feelings about the process, often about the impact of changing populations on their communities. And though what they did articulate would often be politically incorrect, it was also clear to me that ethnicity and neighbourhood interracted in very complex ways whereby, who they classed as ‘us’ and ‘them’ would almost always cut across social/ethnic/cultural lines.
It is good and appropriate that this issue is raised. Let us raise it in a reasoned fashion.
My view is based on how the markets have abused immigrants. Labour markets, private rented sector markets – all areas of abuse.
I work in social housing and the conditions that immigrants live in the private rented sector are sometimes appalling. It’s just exploitation – easy rent for almost nil outgoings. The things I have seen over the last year have made me ashamed of this country.
So here are some broad avenues:
1) Proper budgets for cities and shires to help immigrants settle in to local life with support and liaison with resettlement officers.
2) Properly regulate labour markets (with staff and resources) so that immigrants and established workers are paid decent wages/conditions.
None of these will come to fruition under our present pre-EU vote and post EU vote neo-lib Government. I hope that is clear to the BREXITERs amongst us.
We also need to look at industrial policy. Our people need more work anyway – so how are we to do that?
I’d express it like this:
If our Governments (New Labour and Tories/Li Dems) have been tolerating the haemorrhaging of jobs abroad, what are they doing taking in immigrants?
I’m going to think about this too. Because I’m not sure of the answers. But with rampant austerity still on the cards……………..?
It just does not add up. It’s a mess.
Movement of people (lets call it what it really is), on a temporary or permanent basis, can be both an asset and a liability to a community, city, county, nation state or a continent as a whole.
To lump all these different forms of immigration and their causes and effects into one simplistic argument is of no value and can only have very harmful results in my opinion.
If we were debating the value of immigration to London or Paris or Berlin, or the UK or France or Germany, or the Isle of Wight, Anglesey or Canvey Island, or your local town or my local town or Richards’ local town – we would all disagree on many things because we all perceive the situation differently and because the situation is actually different in every case.
Uncontrolled movement of people is highly unlikely to have a positive effect on an existing society. I can think of no situation where that has ever been the case. And so controlled movement of people into an existing society must surely be the only logical decision.
The fact the EU is built on the foundation of “free movement of people” to me says more about its ideological and integral design to create the United States of Europe, based increasingly on the neo-liberal version of state sponsored private financial capitalism (with France being the only major barrier to this having completely dominated the EU’s thinking).
In this situation, the movement of cheap labour to where it is most required by capital becomes the dominant driver for migration, allowing capital to move freely to exploit all the arbitrages of labour, tax, regulations, etc etc.
As even Cameron has agreed we do not want to be part of such an EU super state, free movement of people has to be removed because otherwise it can only be a threat and liability to our existing society. Controlled movement of people can be an asset without turning into a future liability in my opinion.
I agree with all that.
Paul Mason is suggesting Labour should offer a more specific argument for managing immigration. He has just written on this:
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/remain-and-renegotiate-how-to-stop-the-brexit-bandwagon-fae8dda7e97e#.nagsp9wsq
As usual he is provocative and intelligent. I am inclined to agree with his proposals on this (as I do for his equally provocative suggestion on how to handle the Trident renewal issue.) We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, and the truth we are belatedly acknowledging is that immigration is a real issue for many people, and it is being cynically exploited by the right wing Brexiters for completely different purposes than immigration control.
We need to deal with this and offer a convincing and politically honest solution.
I agree we have to face the world as it is
That demands compromises of us
And that’s ok, even if they are uncomfortable
Keith
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear……………….dearie me.
You keep going on about how the EU has been captured by neo-liberalism. And how free labour movement is THEIR aim.
But what about your own Government? Captured by the same neo-lib mythology?
Or the CBI? Or the IoD? All institutes of your beloved England and whom both call foul when the Government promises to reduce immigration to calm voter concern.
You keep firing long range missives at Europe but continue to ignore the home grown neo-liberals who also continue to sabotage the labour market and society from within.
And as for calling immigration ‘what it is’. Well, the movement of people (or other herds of animals in big groups over big distances ) is ‘migration’ isn’t it?
Pause for thought: the migration of human beings in the 21st century: Why?
The act of coming into another country is ‘immigration’. What exactly are you talking about dear chap?
Please – calm down, end the faux superiority and redefinition of the English language and search your motivations.
The defeat of neo-liberalism must start at home. Not abroad.
PSR – you have clearly never read any of my prior posts, or if you read them you either did not understand or I was clearly unable to articulate the fact that I am as critical (if not more so) of every UK government and their actions since I reached an age and maturity to be able to understand what they have done to this country.
I am a child of the Thatcher era, I grew up with this dogma throughout my early education, I became a striver and had some modest success, enough to raise a family and live a relatively comfortable life. I have traveled much of the world, as a youth to explore and see other cultures, climb mountains and feel free, and in business to most continents to do deals, represent my employers and earn a living.
I am in no way blinkered about the faults of this country in which I live, nor those of other countries around the world. Neither am I blinkered to what has been created by the EU.
But this particular debate is about our membership of the EU, not about whether we agree with the UK constitution or lack of it, or indeed how we on the libertarian left might seek to improve it. So far on these pages it has been full of a primarily one-sided perspective on the wonderful things we will lose if we dare to vote Leave, which I feels needs some balance for those of us who have considered long and hard and disagree with that perspective.
So your condescending remarks above I suggest fall foul of Richard’s request for good nature. I will forgive you this time and not seek to stoop so low myself!
Keith
I think PSR has read what you have said
You have now put it differently, I think
But, you overstate your case. I make clear the issue is nuanced and most here do
That said, it is very obviously the case that all risks increase with Brexit. I think it would b hard to pretend otherwise
In that case your claims must surely reflect that fact?
Richard
“That said, it is very obviously the case that all risks increase with Brexit. I think it would b hard to pretend otherwise.”
Richard I pretend nothing, and I agree with you that all the issues around this EU debate are (and can be) nuanced to suit either agenda. That is the reason for needing balance to help those who are as of yet undecided, rather than force feeding them one perspective without consideration of the contra position.
As to risks, how about the risk that the EU (and/or the Eurozone single currency) is on the verge of falling apart on its own accord without any help from the UK?
What economic and political impact will the uncertain future of the EU have on the people of this country if we choose to stay in?
I do not deny there are risks with Brexit if the public vote Leave, but there should at least be a full appraisal of the risks that remaining in the EU poses to this country from those proposing that we Remain.
I have yet to see a full risk analysis from both sides of the campaign, perhaps I have missed something – or perhaps they don’t really want the public to know which is a much greater sin.
The risk that the EU may fall apart is very real indeed but if that happens (and if it does 2008 will look like a picnic) then we will still need to be on the inside, helping sort out the issues which will affect us all
Keith
Oh dear – the ‘C’ word again.
I think that the factor you are failing to deal with and which you have not answered in your response is that neo-liberalism may have captured successive Governments of your OWN country – never mind the EU.
I have made clear to you that whatever your mode of thinking or voting, you will STILL have a neo-liberal Government come 24th June that tacitly and surreptitiously supports immigration in order to help business make money by reducing labour costs. But BREXIT may result in a worse version of such a government anyway.
Still – no response from you at all to those points. Just a series of self-justifications and an accusation of me being ‘condescending’.
And then you just narrow the debate at the end as if the behaviour of your own Governments in the context of their relationship with the EU is not relevant!!
I don’t know what to say.
I suppose this is why you also narrowly look at immigration as just ‘immigration’ and not at the complex migratory forces behind it (John D and others are correct to highlight the complexity of the issue below).
It seems that you want to choose which bits you want to care about and discard the others? OK – fair enough – get on with it Keith. Your POV however lack the holistic approach this complex topic requires.
FWIW I find that this blog has been very balanced with lots of different opinions (and thank you Richard – I have indeed read Keith’s posts before answering).
And I’m sorry if my effort at joviality misfired. But I just cannot agree with your position Keith which I find to be very wrong.
The causes of migration/immigration simply go well beyond the principle of freedom of movement granted within the EU which seem to be the your focus of your ire.
Might I suggest both of you take a 24 hour break from this exchange and / pr frame comments in other contexts?
You have valuable comments to make but I suggest this particular exchange has run its course?
PS No one knew I had diplomatic skills, did they?
I will take a suitably long walk with the dogs Richard, followed by a cold shower in the morning, before once again entering the fray with the trusty sword of truth and justice in defense of this once proud land 🙂
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’
‘No one knew I had diplomatic skills, did they?’
I’m impressed! (Smiley emoticon).
Clearly, the acknowledgement that immigration has some potential cost to sections of society has been completely ignored.
There has been no attempt to quantify this cost. Or any attempt to ameliorate that cost, or make the beneficiaries of immigration (mainly employers) pay for it.
I am really shocked by the rather cursory investigation of economists into immigration.
If we drift into Brexit, economists must shoulder some of the blame because of their rather cursory analysis.
More details here:
https://radicaleconomicthought.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/economists-and-immigration-no-wonder-people-vote-for-brexit/
That is not true
Portes et al have examined it
The difficulty is in bringing in social dimensions
Maybe I have not come across more comprehensive analysis.
Maybe the total cost of immigration (extra housing and schools and NHS services required) and potential loss of earnings has been examined in detail. And set against the extra benefit (immigrants are providers of, say, building services and NHS doctors/nurses) and higher profits for employers of immigrants.
If it has I have not come across it in a comprehensive document, trying to depict shifts in wealth from immigration. Which would clearly show in a balance sheet lay-out who wins and who loses out.
I think it would be very difficult to do, but should certainly be attempted.
A bit late now for Thursday- but whatever the vote next Thursday, the arguments about immigration will not go away.
The whole concept is driven by belief in an ideal – that nobody should be constrained by where they were born.
That is the essence of one world idealism and is the heart of the whole love affair with the idea of the EU and that permeates the Green party manifesto and that of the Labour party and Liberal Democrats.
And it is a great ideal, but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world as it is.
The MMT people suggest as part of implementing the Job Guarantee you restrict the open borders to other parts of the world that have an equivalent Job Guarantee programme and social infrastructure. If you don’t come from such country then you have to apply for a visa and be assessed.
I think that is a sensible idea. It’s quite difficult for a foreign leader to argue against that position, because if they do then they are essentially saying they want to dump their unemployment in the UK rather than deal with it themselves. The push back would be: Implement a Job Guarantee and we’ll gladly remove the restrictions for your country.
IMV if we invite people into the UK they should be treated the same as everyone else. I don’t like this idea of limiting benefits to control the flow of immigration that Cameron etc support.
Basically I agree with you Keith. I’m not an anthropolgist but migration has been a significant feature of planetary life since ‘humans first ventured out of Africa some 60,000 years ago’ – https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey. People don’t usually leave their homes and families unless they have to, for whatever reasons – usually to find food or because they’ve been forced out. Trump’s rhetoric is hypercritical to the Nth degree. The indidgenous population of the US is around 2%. 98% are immigrants! That aside, the difference now is the sheer scale of migration with few (if any) underpopulated potential host regions.
There is no way the UK can deal with its own (legitimate) concerns in isolation. There must be a global solution for what is a global problem which is only going to get worse due to climate change (especially water shortage) and continuing regional conflicts.
Countries with direct responsibility for the displacement of people due to war must surely accept a moral obligation to care for the innocent victims of their aggression, however inconvenient. In 2014, the total number of people internally displaced by armed conflict and violence worldwide was estimated to be 38 million, the highest figure ever recorded by the IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). That figure will have increased in the past 18 months.
It is a sad reflection of the state of Western politics that the rhetoric has become racist and xenophobic. The EU has been shamefully lax in putting together a workable, co-operative strategy to deal with this massive issue which it has known about for decades. And the US appears to have taken an isolationist position when it has been the principal perpetrator of the violence causing most of the displacement due to the continuing wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Where is the UN in all of this?
With the current global leadership it’s difficult to see any meaningful solution on the horizon. Just more divisive politics from the unaffected neo-liberal elite, engendering fear and loathing among sections of society whose lives have already been blighted by austerity. It’s a potentially lethal cocktail that historically has led to fascism which is once again rearing its ugly head in Europe. And Trump is a fascist. “They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind”.
I also agree with you PSR. Most of the UK’s problems are home-grown. For me it’s not a Brexit issue but a global one. Just wanted to make my position clear, because I’ve already voted by mail to REMAIN, lol!
To some extent the stance which people take on immigration is influenced by where they live. There’s no doubt that in parts of England where there has been a considerable upsurge in immigration in recent years there has been pressure on housing and public services. On the other hand Scotland desperately needs more immigration because of our ageing population. There must be a way of incentivising immigrants to settle in those parts of the UK which need young, economically active, entrepreneurial people. And that’s what most immigrants are.
I’ve read quite a lot of Colin’s work on this subject and one of the grounds of his concern is that (to Quote): ‘Polls show that more than three quarters of us want immigration reduced, while less than 5% want it increased.’ he’s also concerned about Labour facing up to the desertion of around a million of its supporters to UKIP.
He also writes:’official figures show that if present net migration continues, roughly half of which is migrants from the EU, then our population is projected reach 73 million, an increase of nearly 8 million over the next 15 years, almost a new Greater London. It will then head towards 80 million in 25 years and keep going. 75% of this increase is projected to come from future migration and the children of those migrants.’
Housing plays a big role in all of this; yet this issue is not explained to the public as a product of rentier capitalism rather than immigration pressures. If immigration ceased altogether there would be a housing crisis. UKIP has fraudulently misled the public on this and the other Parties have committed sins of persistent omission in not revealing the 40 year root of the issue.
In my view, the whole issue, yet again is fraught with cognitive dissonance where ideals and economic/foreign policies clash unharmoniously.
1) Foreign policy in the West has wrecked stable countries. Creating refugees mixed with economic migrants.
2) Globalisation and proxy wars for resources (Syria is part of this) have increased human flows.
3) neo-liberalism itself relies on cheap labour by creating poorly paid jobs that native citizens will not take due to housing costs while many immigrants will tolerate appalling living conditions (as PSR notes) in order to send money home.
Unless there is a recognition that acting in one way then deploring the result is not rational then there is no real starting point for a proper debate on this. We need to acknowledge that this is a problem of globalisation in conjunction with finance capitalism.
Keynes was aware in 1944 that beggar thy neighbour economics was not compatible with peace.
Colin is massively aware of renter capitalism
Our work has influenced Labour
And it just not true that he is misleading anyone: solving rentier capitalism will not solve all the issues many people worry about
The issue is much more complicated than you suggest. Of course the issue of global capital is real but migration is more than an economic issue and it cannot be reduced to it in my opinion
Colin’s position is a hard one to take and we have disagreed on it, often
But we have to recognise the complexity
‘The issue is much more complicated than you suggest.’
Richard, I mentioned at least four angles:
1) Rentier capitalism and austerity mixed with immigration
2) Foreign policy over many years involving resource control which uses proxy wars
3) Neo-liberalism’s need for internal devaluation and the threat of unemployment
4) Beggar they neighbour economics which Keynes inveighed against.
How is that not recognising complexity? I can’t see where I’ve over simplified.
I can’t see how migration can be other than an economic issue, even migration created by war is an economic issue at root (resource control: Libya/Syria/Iraq).
As an economist I think that seriously overstates the importance of economics
What this discussion illustrates is how ‘immigration’ is used as a catch all for many different groups of people, all with different drivers, agendas and consequences. Just as a start:
Refugees – fleeing terrible conflict in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan – for which we bear at least some responsibility
Economic migrants (non-EU) – typically from poor African countries, who have given up locally and are prepared to risk life and limb for something a bit better
Economic Migrants (EU) – lower skill jobs such as labouring or fruit/veg picking,or care work, though they may in fact have higher skills
Skilled migrants – such as nurses, doctors, engineers – who are making up for huge shortages in those skills
Professional/Managerial – who move from job to job internationally as thats the way their industries work
The generic stereotype of ‘low-paid migrants taking our jobs for less money’ just does not help to understand whats going on in the slightest, but thats the generic message being broadcast, because it allows immigration and migration to be used as a scapegoat, and a smokescreen to cover the deeper causes. The lack of nurses (as Sylvie and Malky point out), is entirely self-inflicted – failing to invest in training (and looking after) enough nurses (and doctors). The lack of engineers similarly – a structural engineer friend describing his building site in London being mostly Romanians – thats the engineers, not the labourers. Not the stereotypical Romanian migrant… And then we could ask how fair it is on those countries to strip them of those skills?
If one looks at the research on say health or housing, it is pretty consistently concluded that the impact of health cuts or the failure to build houses and the bank-fuelled inflation in house prices/rents, are far bigger factors than migration numbers. Then there are the economic arguments around ageing population, and the net benefit of migrants in terms of tax paid vs benefits received. But as we know, its suits the agendas of those leading Brexit, who are fairly overwhelmingly on the right (with due respect those of a different persuasion), to blame all the problems on ‘immigration’ generally.
Expecting politicians and the electorate to engage in such a nuanced debate is clearly a pipe-dream now. But it is a nuanced debate and we have to unpack it if we going to address it properly
The Bremainers need to blast the anti immigration stance of the Brexiters by telling them that it is the five years or more of austerity that have lead people to the conclusion that immigration is a big problem. Cameron and Osborne, if they do succeed in getting Britain out of Europe, can thank austerity. They will have been hoisted by their own petard.
They’ve been telling us for ever that money is extremely limited and reducing year on year, cutting budgets and making life so much more difficult for us all yet the immigration continues to expand whilst there are still 1.5million people looking for work in the UK – so what would you conclude?
I’d say the very limited available resources should be shared among ‘us’ and not one person more. Charity begins at home and all that — or as Farage would say, it is the National Health Service not the International Health Service.
The Bremainers should use this as a heaven sent opportunity to dish the dirt on austerity. The cause of our problems. Indeed I really think Labour should now treat the referendum as an election campaign for the next government. Because it looks as if Cameron and Osborne need to start spending fast to keep Britain in.
(Link below is also worth a read.)
https://criticalfinance.org/2016/06/03/immigration-brings-both-benefits-and-costs-but-no-reason-to-leave/
It is absolutely undeniably true that austerity is a major factor in this debate: I said so in my recent analysis of the causes the people to vote Brexit.
But, and this is also absolutely undeniably true, immigration is an issue irrespective of austerity because immigration of the type that is causing stress has not been caused by austerity: mass immigration from Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere is not austerity linked.
OK
I will stop locking horns with Keith. I’ll let him be.
Your response above to immigration is spot on however and is sorely missed in arguments from the ‘Brexiteers’ here.
There is so much conflict in the world now and my view the EU is under pressure from forces beyond its control to be honest.
My point was mainly directed at EU immigration (the majority of which is of course — er — Irish and I cannot see Brexiters successfully or probably even wanting to reduce that) but as regards other immigration I think that, as England is the most densely populated country in Europe, I find myself — remarkably – agreeing with Cameron’s policy of taking children. To do anything more both encourages people smugglers and deprives origin countries of their most go ahead people.
@MayP, it is a myth that Britain is the most densely populated country in the EU. Three are more dense than us: Malta, Netherlands and Belgium. Germany is only just behind us: 242 : 225 people per sqKm.
‘Charity begins at home ‘
It’s fine to say that in general but not when globalisation and war is tearing countries apart. If ‘we’ are going to bomb the hell out of erstwhile stable countries for economic dominance then we have to accept the migration that this has caused. Causing migration and then closing borders is morally dysfunctional-we need to recognise the link, make the connection
Carol Wilcox
“it is a myth that Britain is the most densely populated country in the EU”
I’ve researched it very basically but I thought that Belgium and the Netherlands were not more dense than us. And – it not normally a source I’d suggest but (Malta excepted) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
says not.
And I undestood that to still be the case?!
Apologies – should never rely on Wikipedia! I’m surprised that the population density of Germany, which Wiki has at slightly less than UK, is now half of UK, since Germany has surely had a higher level of immigration than UK.
Am aware of your work on LVT so thought you ought to be correct. But I was speaking of England not Britain, which is where I think the confusion has come from.
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc134_c/index.html
Scotland is virtually empty by English standards.
I tore down a political poster today, which Ive not done before (Surrey/Hampshire borders). A picture of a sword-wielding Crusader knight on the white cliffs of Dover – repelling the …. I think the implication is fairly obvious. Im afraid that the Brexiteers ice on the murky stagnant pond of racism is all too thin and it just can’t help breaking through.
And Ive always subscribed to Johnson’s dictum on patriotism
Those two factors alone would prevent me from ever aligning myself with them, though I can fully understand the frustration of many of those who will vote that way
‘Johnson’s dictum on patriotism’
I hope we are talking about Samuel Johnson here!
Well pointed out, Simon!!
For the other Johnson, Louis IV and ‘l’etat, c’est moi’ springs to mind…