Lib Dem Voice polled our members-only forum recently to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 650 party members have responded, and we’re publishing the full results.
Big majorities say immigration has had positive effect on UK
On balance, do you think immigration into the UK from the following areas has had a positive or negative effect on the UK?
From Western European countries, such as France and Germany
85% – On balance, has had a positive effect on Britain
1% – On balance, has had a negative effect on Britain
12% – On balance, has had neither a positive nor negative effect on Britain
3% – Don’t know
From Eastern European countries, such as Poland or Lithuania
72% – On balance, has had a positive effect on Britain
10% – On balance, has had a negative effect on Britain
15% – On balance, has had neither a positive nor negative effect on Britain
4% – Don’t know
From countries outside the European Union, such as India and Pakistan
68% – On balance, has had a positive effect on Britain
13% – On balance, has had a negative effect on Britain
14% – On balance, has had neither a positive nor negative effect on Britain
5% – Don’t know
Current immigration rules about right, say most Lib Dems
The free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to EU citizens: UK citizens are free to work overseas within the EU, and EU citizens are free to come and work in the UK. Do you think rules on immigration from the following areas should be tougher, are too tough, or get the balance about right?
Immigration from countries INSIDE the European Union?
14% – Rules are too tough and should be relaxed to allow more immigration
15% – Rules are not tough enough, and should be strengthened to reduce the amount of immigration
69% – The current balance is about right
2% – Don’t know
Immigration from countries OUTSIDE the European Union?
28% – Rules are too tough and should be relaxed to allow more immigration
22% – Rules are not tough enough, and should be strengthened to reduce the amount of immigration
45% – The current balance is about right
5% – Don’t know
72% say UK should welcome Romanian and Bulgarian citizens here
When Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union temporary restrictions were placed on their citizens’ right to live and work in other EU countries. These restrictions run out in 2014, after which Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will have the same rights as other EU citizens to live and work in other EU countries. Which of the following best reflects your view?
72% – There is nothing wrong with Bulgarian and Romanian citizens having the same rights as other EU citizens, and Britain should welcome them
13% – Bulgarian and Romanian citizens having the right to come and live in Britain would be damaging, but the British government needs to obey the law and has no choice but to allow them in
6% – Bulgarian and Romanian citizens having the right to come and live in Britain would be damaging and the British government should act to restrict their right to live or work here, even if it means breaking EU laws
6% – None of these
3% – Don’t know
You can read Nick Clegg‘s speech on immigration yesterday here. We published three opinion pieces on this:
- Myriam Cherti‘s Independent View: Clegg should champion ‘everyday integration’;
- Caron Lindsay‘s take: Nick Clegg’s speech on immigration: the good, the bad and the ugly;
- and my verdict: Nick Clegg’s illiberal hat-trick: now immigration joins ‘secret courts’ and media regulation on the pyre.
Here’s a sample of your comments:
Why on earth would we not want young, talented people to come and work here and contribute to the economy, the tax system and our cultural diversity?
The very fact that an LDV survey is asking these questions reflects how much our national discourse had been poisoned by the likes of the Daily Mail
Britain is currently unable to house those who already live here, hence the upsurge in illegal habitations in back gardens across London and the south east especially. Letting more people into these areas, and be fair they won’t in the main go elsewhere, is asking for problems.
Bulgarian and Romanian citizens having the right to come and live in Britain is the law of the EU and has to be obeyed, but we should have the right to be able to ask people why they are coming here and return them if we do not believe they are needed in the UK
Immigration at the level we have seen produces over-population, which causes dissent in the population and loss of amenity as homes have to be built on green places to house the increased population.There is also added strain on services such as doctors, schools and transport.
They should be allowed to enter the country based on the skills they can bring here. They should have a job and accommodation lined up already to decrease the chances of them ending up on state benefits.
EU laws need changing on this issues. Nations should meet a level of GDP per capita before the free movement of people is allowed. Having time restrictions for entry is not enough it needs to be a GDP per capita limit.
Not only is there nothing wrong with them having the same rights, but this is absolutely essential. It is a scandal that they have not had their full rights until now. British people need to understand that free movement is a two-way street, from which we benefit as much as anyone
Bulg and Rom citizens are no worse than anyone else (I have been to both countries on business so can judge) – but it’s a matter of numbers. We have far more people already than there is any prospect of our economy supporting.
This is just another moral panic stoked by inaccurate reporting.
The EU needs a system of temporary infrastructural funding to mitigate the burden immigration can have on local services like schools. This is an important issue, especially considering recent reports of 250,000 school places needed coinciding with relaxation of restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian migrants
Like everything else it depends on how many come and whether they have jobs
Unless you subscribe to the lump of labour fallacy, immigration at current levels and even somewhat higher is likely to be sustainable – it may help grow the economy and create jobs! Immigration is about quality not quantity – skilled migrants who contribute should be welcomed from no matter where, but we do need to boost infrastructure (esp housing) and have reasonable conditionality attached to some services/benefits etc.
The freakish scaremongering needs to be stopped dead. If for no other reason than simple logic, why would Romanians not go to a country with similar language (France) or stronger economy (Germany) in preference to a Germanic-language economic disaster (Britain)?
The more we enable integration and connection between ethnic groups the more we will engender mutual understanding and reduce the potential for narrow-minded conflicts.
As someone running a high tech business in the UK generating all its income from overseas customers, I need to be able to draw on the best talent in the world. I’m doing my bit for the balance of payments, it would be useful if immigration paranoia didn’t get in my way.
I don’t think we should treat them differently, maybe introduce for ALL a search on criminal records and not let criminals in?
Productivity is falling as immigration falls. Aging population means we need younger workers to support them. Need more immigration, not less.
Doesn’t matter where immigrants come from but no good if they don’t have skills we need
1)Those arrested for offences of violence or dishonesty must be held without bail and expelled on conviction. 2) No benefits without at least 12 months paid National Insurance contributions
I think the demonisation of the Romanians and Bulgarians in the media is shameful.
They should be allowed in the country if they have relevant skills that are needed here and have a specific job and accommodation in place to avoid them ending up on state benefits.
Benefits they may receive here should be to support them and any dependants here, and not replace the responsibilities of other countries to dependants still there
The problem with freedom of movement is a perception of “other” people getting things indigenous ones cannot. This perception should be tackled. We should also recognise that true freedom of movement of Labour requires a common language and people in this country should speak English. AS outlined by the German president. It is this lack of common language that elads to misconceptions.
I support the right for all EU citizens to enter the UK, but believe some reform is needed to tighten immigration rules more generally and ensure access to services and benefits are not abused.
The problem with these two member states is that,until lately,they have never had anything other than a doctrinaire, dictatorial system of governance. The concept of democracy is largely a fig leaf used to cover the unpleasant consequences of the post Nazi,and then post Soviet regimes. The same problem rests with Hungary as well.
The need is for selective immigration
The EU needs to change the law to reflect the large differences between member countries and to prevent benefit tourism. Staying with the status quo will erode support for the EU itself as it will become increasingly seen as out of touch.
Free movement of people and goods within the union is a key benefit to the EU. Changing the rules for some members is potentially damaging, not to mention unfair.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.