Immigration "small benefit" to UK

[Spion]

Well, Norway (or is it Sweden?) somehow manages without being in the EU.

Norway has 4m people and a lot of oil. Possibly near the top in wealth per capita in the world

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Shame on anyone who falls for this divide and rule bullshit.

Yes. It's important to remember that their premise is wrong when arguing with the anti-immigrants, not to let them frame the boundaries of debate. The media, BBC included of course, singularly fails to do this.

 

[tarannau]

It wsn't a great surprise this report really; old white peers, predominantly Tory, coming up with a report slightly nuanced against immigration. If I was a betting man...

Actually, to be fair, the committee's findings aren't exactly as they've been represented in the most frothing of the middle England papers. It just suggests that there's been 'little or no impact' on the economic wellbeing of the UK population, quibbling with positive reports from the Govt of late.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Norway has 4m people and a lot of oil. Possibly near the top in wealth per capita in the world

Yes. Norway is a special case. The oil money is treated like a national treasure - to be invested wisely and to the benefit of all. Without it, the story would be different.

 

[skyscraper101]

Yes. Norway is a special case. The oil money is treated like a national treasure - to be invested wisely and to the benefit of all. Without it, the story would be different.

Yes, plus they have access to the European single market through membership in the European Economic Area.

 

[Brainaddict]

Why not just force the government to ramp up service provision as migrants enter and expand the economy? /QUOTE]

How do we force them? It's a lot more asier said than done.

That's true, it would be hard. But how do you force them to stop EU migration? Is one really easier than the other? Whilst the increase in service provision is more difficult in terms of getting them to cough up the funds, it has the advantage that the UK can do it alone, whereas the capping migration route will be difficult due to our interactions with other countries. Say we prevent more EU migrants coming. So the other EU countries say to us, fine, we don't want your migrants either. Cue several million Brits returning from their villas on the coast of Spain. This interdependence has been deliberately cultivated (for some very positive reasons - if you don't know them, I refer you to a history of Europe) and just breaking it now would be very difficult and not advisable.

And anyway, one of the routes is not fixated on narrow and arbitrary nationalism and is therefore morally preferable, in my opinion

 

[poster342002]

Yes. Norway is a special case. The oil money is treated like a national treasure - to be invested wisely and to the benefit of all. Without it, the story would be different.

And the UK also has North Sea oil. If we had a similar governmental attitude, we could enjoy the same fruits.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It wsn't a great surprise this report really; old white peers, predominantly Tory, coming up with a report slightly nuanced against immigration. If I was a betting man...

Actually, to be fair, the committee's findings aren't exactly as they've been represented in the most frothing of the middle England papers. It just suggests that there's been 'little or no impact' on the economic wellbeing of the UK population, quibbling with positive reports from the Govt of late.

But the honeset answer is - who knows? This kind of alternative history - what would have happened without the immigration - is thoroughly discredited in academic circles. Too many variables to make a sensible guess.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And the UK also has North Sea oil. If we had a similar governmental attitude, we could enjoy the same fruits.

We are not 4 million people, we are 60 million. But yes, the Norwegian attitude is enlightened.

 

[zenie]

And the main reason poorer people in the UK have suffered from this EU migration is just because the government has refused to do the rational thing and admit that, for every 100,000 new people in the country, we need housing for a 100,000 new people, hospitals for 100,000 new people etc. I think it's a bit of a shame when people to react to the government's refusal to do this by saying 'Let's stop EU migration'. Why not just force the government to ramp up service provision as migrants enter and expand the economy? This, to my mind, would be much more in the spirit of socialism and solidarity than talking about immigration limits that would ruin the world's only major attempt to move beyond nationalism.

*applauds*

 

[tarannau]

Well, Norway (or is it Sweden?) somehow manages without being in the EU.

And did Norway have an empire that stretched half way across the world, bringing migrants/slaves/indentured workers to their country in their droves and establishing the ideals of commonwealth and the 'mother country'?

Does Norway have the same kind of popiulation density? Does it have significant untaped natural resources? Does Norway have the same kind of economy and worker skill set? Th esame global langauage and attraction to outsiders?

We can go on, but I think you'll concede there's a wealth of difference between the two - it's a duff comparison

And people tend towards the miserable in the Nordic regions, with the highest rates of suicide in the developed world. Christ knows what a misery guts like you would be like out there. ..

 

[TAE]

*YAWN*

Immigrants to blame for high house prices, credit crunch, economic downturn.

Nothing to do with the finance industry or selling-off of social housing then.

 

[CyberRose]

If immigration was such a bad thing for the UK's economy, then why have the government allowed and actively pursued it? Genuine question

Despite what certain posters believe they know about migration within the EU, EU citizens don't actually have the right to work/live anywhere. Prior to 2004, that was true, because the vast majority of EU countries were rich and the people didn't need to be economic migrants, but when all the poor countries joined in 2004, only UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed unrestricted access to new EU citizens. And now, after Bulgaria and Romania have joined, even the UK has been forced (due to political pressure from the right wing) to place restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians.

The UK did not have to allow any Poles or Lithuanians or whatever in after 2004 and could place restrictions on immigration, the fact is, they chose not to and to allow them in unrestricted. That was (and is) a politically damaging move as there are a hell of a lot of voters that don't like immigrants, either for racist/economic reasons from the right, or economic reasons from the left, yet they went ahead anyway...

 

[CyberRose]

Well, Norway (or is it Sweden?) somehow manages without being in the EU.

Well Norway is rich from oil money (and Switzerland for their unique financial services). Anyway, that's not important, what is is that Norwar is in the European Free Trade Assosiation which in turn is a member of the European Economic Area which is the internal market of the EU. Norway therefore has to pay contributions to the EU budget and is compelled to incorporate any EU directives or regulations in the first pillar of the EU (the economic one) and for all of that is gets no MEPs, no Commissioners and no voice in the Council. So you tell me, is that what you want for the UK? To be forced to incorporate all EU economic laws into British national law and have no say over those laws whatsoever?

 

[bluestreak]

If immigration was such a bad thing for the UK's economy, then why have the government allowed and actively pursued it? Genuine question

Well, there are two reasons why governments do anything.

1. For votes, in order to stay in power.

2. For money, i.e. maintaining the financial support of their backers.

Clearly it's not a vote winner, so we can only conclude that these choices were made economically. and considering that many of the same people who are happy to get labour cheaper are the same people who bankroll our fine upstanding labour government, I think we have our answer.

The Tories claim that they'll stop immigration, and that's fine, it'll get the votes. But at what cost? Their paymasters will say to them, well you've cost us more money, what about our profits. Higher taxes, lower pay, increased working hours? All of the above?

The working classes will continue to get screwed by one side or the other whatever happens.

 

[skyscraper101]

If immigration was such a bad thing for the UK's economy, then why have the government allowed and actively pursued it? Genuine question

Despite what certain posters believe they know about migration within the EU, EU citizens don't actually have the right to work/live anywhere. Prior to 2004, that was true, because the vast majority of EU countries were rich and the people didn't need to be economic migrants, but when all the poor countries joined in 2004, only UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed unrestricted access to new EU citizens. And now, after Bulgaria and Romania have joined, even the UK has been forced (due to political pressure from the right wing) to place restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians.

The UK did not have to allow any Poles or Lithuanians or whatever in after 2004 and could place restrictions on immigration, the fact is, they chose not to and to allow them in unrestricted. That was (and is) a politically damaging move as there are a hell of a lot of voters that don't like immigrants, either for racist/economic reasons from the right, or economic reasons from the left, yet they went ahead anyway...

Exactly. And in 2011 all EU countries will have to allow unrestricted access to all new accession states. The fact that there were only three significant countries allowing unrestricted access from 2004 of course meant that a higher proportion would have migrated to UK, Eire and Sweden.

I'd be interested to see how this changes when all countries have to open up their borders to each other. I'd wager that the UK will not be top of everybody's list - especially in the case of Romania whose language has more in common with French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.

 

[CyberRose]

Well, there are two reasons why governments do anything.

1. For votes, in order to stay in power.

2. For money, i.e. maintaining the financial support of their backers.

Clearly it's not a vote winner, so we can only conclude that these choices were made economically. and considering that many of the same people who are happy to get labour cheaper are the same people who bankroll our fine upstanding labour government, I think we have our answer.

The Tories claim that they'll stop immigration, and that's fine, it'll get the votes. But at what cost? Their paymasters will say to them, well you've cost us more money, what about our profits. Higher taxes, lower pay, increased working hours? All of the above?

The working classes will continue to get screwed by one side or the other whatever happens.

While I agree I'd also point out that without the funding of these "paymasters" no party would ever have a chance of winning an election in the first place!

 

[CyberRose]

Exactly. And in 2011 all EU countries will have to allow unrestricted access to all new accession states. The fact that there were only three significant countries allowing unrestricted access from 2004 of course meant that a higher proportion would have migrated to UK, Eire and Sweden.

I'd be interested to see how this changes when all countries have to open up their borders to each other. I'd wager that the UK will not be top of everybody's list - especially in the case of Romania whose language has more in common with French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.

Well everyone in this country (ok big generalisation but hey ho) thinks that every single asylum seeker and migrant wants to come to the UK and nowhere else, but the stats say otherwise, both in the percentage per population of asylum seekers (think that's Netherlands) or absolute numbers of asylum seekers (think that's Germany). Most of our immigrants are from Poland, but wouldn't they find it easier to work in Germany? Suppose our language is a drawing point but if EU citizens could go anywhere I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the amount coming to the UK would drop dramatically

 

[treelover]

facts people, they may not be raging left wingers , but they are not all Tories

The Lords is a cross party committee with 2 LibDems, 5 Labour, 5 Tory and 3 Crossbench.

 

[poster342002]

I've always said that if the entire EU had adopted the free-movement system simultaneously, the UK (along with Eire and Sweden) would not have been so disproportionately affected in the way it has. As it stood, for a small handfull of EU states to accept full free-movement whilst the rest did not was just absurd - leading to obvious, easily-foreseen consequences.

 

[treelover]

What is so baffling to me, is the arguments put forward by I assume L/W people like Brain Addict seem to chime so much with those put forward by neo-liberal and N/labour advocates of mass migration. This is particualry so with the Tebbit style bit asserting the primacy of of flexible labour and the economic benefits of mass migration, tell me, BA how have low income people benefited?


btw, Apparently the CBI, (and presumably the TUC) hated the report


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippe_legrain/2008/04/bordering_on_clueless.html

 

[poster342002]

how have low income people benefited?

I'll second that question. And any wriggling along the lines of "the immigrants themselves are on low incomes, so it's not true to say that low-income people aren't benefiting" simply isn't good enough and won't do as an answer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

facts people, they may not be raging left wingers , but they are not all Tories

The Lords is a cross party committee with 2 LibDems, 5 New Tories, 5 Old Tory and 3 Independent Tory.

 

[skyscraper101]

I've always said that if the entire EU had adopted the free-movement system simultaneously, the UK (along with Eire and Sweden) would not have been so disproportionately affected in the way it has. As it stood, for a small handfull of EU states to accept full free-movement whilst the rest did not was just absurd - leading to obvious, easily-foreseen consequences.

It was optional and in fact it has benefited the UK - just not in ways this report was focusing on. The fact that agricultural jobs at minimum wage have been problematic for recruiters to find UK staff for, shows how the UK labour market was in dire need of economic migrants.

That the report shows there has been 'little benefit' merely underlines in my view that there has been 'no significant problem' with the process. In fact, I'm increasingly reading more and more about migrants returning home as the economic climate in Poland and elsewhere improves (largely down to EU accession) - I refer you to this story and this story, both from last month.

What you also won't get from this report is the longer term benefit that having migrants in the short term are over here who don't intend to stay forever and most likely leave while still young is that the tax contributions they make whilst working here go to fund state provisioned NHS care and pensions which they often don't stay to ever use. i.e. they are a net economic asset in tax and spend terms.

 

[bluestreak]

facts people, they may not be raging left wingers , but they are not all Tories

So? two former chancellors and former cabinet ministers still suggests that they are people who, in their time in power, paid no attention whatsoever of the needs of the working classes. This is still just another piece of bullshit divisive propaganda, telling us what we already know without facing up to the simple fact that it's the system that is at fault, and not the policies of the party.

 

[tarannau]

n. This is particualry so with the Tebbit style bit asserting the primacy of of flexible labour and the economic benefits of mass migration, tell me, BA how have low income people benefited?

So the low waged haven't benefited from the comparatively much lower prices for consumer goods then? You know, the goods often manufactured by immigrants in near sweat shop conditions, either in their home country or sometimes over here. It's simply betty swollocks to suggest that most haven't benefited in some way from the greater efficiencies and lower labour costs elsewhere.

If anything, it's illuminating that the price of British goods and services, not even including the astronomic housing costs, have dropped far less sharply with competition.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

So the low waged haven't benefited from the comparatively much lower prices for consumer goods then? You know, the goods often manufactured by immigrants in near sweat shop conditions, either in their home country or sometimes over here. It's simply betty swollocks to suggest that most haven't benefited in some way from the greater efficiencies and lower labour costs elsewhere.

If anything, it's illuminating that the price of British goods and services, not even including the astronomic housing costs, have dropped far less sharply with competition.

If we were not keeping British citizens on benefit while jobs go to economic migrants then British citizens might have more money to spend on consumer goods that were not produced in sweatshop conditions.

 

[bluestreak]

treelover and posternumbers, i'll field the answer to your question, if i may.

Very few people deny that large scale immigration has a negative effect on the lives of the british poor. Immigrant labour is used to lower labour costs, and places a further strain on the infastructure of the system that the poor rely on: health, education, housing, welfare etc etc. The benefits of immigration are humanitarian and cultural, amongst others, IMO.

However, the problem we have with your approach is that it imagines that simply cutting off immigration will somehow cure all society's ills. As if corporations won't find some other way to get money? How naive do you have to be to think that capitalism will put growth on hold to benefit the poor? I've said it before and will say it again: they'll fuck us some other way.

I will not support a campaign that divides the working class along nationalist lines and then leaves us open to exploitation from above. That's fucking idiotic. Attack the bosses, not the workers FFS.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

So? two former chancellors and former cabinet ministers still suggests that they are people who, in their time in power, paid no attention whatsoever of the needs of the working classes. This is still just another piece of bullshit divisive propaganda, telling us what we already know without facing up to the simple fact that it's the system that is at fault, and not the policies of the party.

If you look at the report, it's clear that the majority of paragraphs are based on points/evidence raised by these people/organisations . . .

Dr Bridget Anderson, Centre on Immigration, Policy and Society
(COMPAS), Oxford University
Audit Commission
Bank of England
Belfast City Council
Professor David Blanchflower, Monetary Policy Committee
Boston Borough Council
British Hospitality Association
British Medical Association
Professor William Brown, University of Cambridge
Mr Meyer Burstein
Business for Europe
Liam Byrne MP, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, Home
Office
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
Professor Barry R Chiswick, University of Illinois
City of London Corporation
Professor Linda Clarke, Westminster University
Professor David Coleman, Oxford University
Commission for Racial Equality
Commission for Rural Communities
Confederation of Business Industry (CBI)
Construction Confederation
Dr Heaven Crawley, University of Swansea
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Dr Janet Dobson, University College London
Dr Stephen Drinkwater, University of Surrey
Dungannon and South Tyrone Council
Professor Christian Dustmann, University College London
Economic and Social Research Council
Professor Allan Findlay, Dundee University
First Group
Mr Ian Fitzgerald, University of Northumbria
Dr Stephen French, University of Keele
Home Office
Institute for Conflict Research
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
Learning and Skills Council
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION 65
Local Government Association
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
London Borough of Hillingdon
Dr Sonia McKay, Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan
University
Migrants’ Rights Network
Migrant Workers North-West
Migration Advisory Committee (MAC)
Migration Policy Institute
MigrationWatch UK
National Association for Head Teachers
National Farmers Union
National Housing Federation
National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR)
National Union of Teachers (NUT)
Professor Stephen Nickell, Nuffield College, Oxford University
Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Dr Pia Orrenius and Professor Madeline Zavodny, Federal Bank of Dallas
Professor Richard Pearson, Visiting Professor at the University of Sussex’s
Centre for Migration and Research
Professor Ian Preston, University College London
Recruitment and Employment Confederation
Professor Robert Rowthorn, Cambridge University
Royal College of Nursing
Royal Society of Edinburgh
J Sainsbury plc
Professor John Salt, University College London
Mr Anthony Scholefield
Scottish Executive
Shelter
Slough Borough Council
Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers
(SOLACE) Migrant Workers Group
Statistics Commission
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)
UK Home Care Association
Universities UK
Westminster City Council
Professor Christine Whitehead, London School of Economics
Mr Martin Wolf CBE, Financial Times

 

[tarannau]

If we were not keeping British citizens on benefit while jobs go to economic migrants then British citizens might have more money to spend on consumer goods that were not produced in sweatshop conditions.

And I thought that immigrants tended to depress wages, taking mainly jobs that Brits wouldn't take on because they'd barely be better off than on benefits. Still, even if this post did hold any real logic, are you really suggesting Brits would willingly choose higher priced goods then? That hardly seems realistic given the willing consumerism, the abject failure of "Buy British' campaigns in the past and the inexorable rise of the supermarkets and discount retailers like Primark.

I repeat: it's nonsense to suggest that the lower waged haven't benefited economically from immigration and international trade.