As the day when Britain opens its doors to indefatigable hoards of Eastern European immigrants arrives, yet more desperation can be witnessed from grassroots Tory activists running scared of UKIP. 90 local Conservative activists have pleaded with David Cameron to extend controls on immigrants arriving from Bulgaria or Romania until 2018. Quite laughably, the group claim that this would be fully within EU law. This comes on the same day in which the Government announced further restrictions on migrants’ access to the NHS – an initiative designed to combat ‘health tourism’ and accordingly, completely at odds with any economic reality. The Conservative Party’s recent crackdown on immigration shouldn’t leave Lib Dems under any illusion – we are in government with the nasty party, and one whose ‘detoxification’ PR stunt crumbles day by day. This does not mean we should not govern with them – quite the opposite. I firmly believe we have restrained the influence of some of the most Toryish Tories – and long may it continue.
Poking one’s nose only briefly into the history of the Conservative Party‘s attitude to immigration shouldn’t leave anyone surprised by their recent stoop into the gutter of anti-immigration politics. As our very own party grandee Vince Cable stated recently, Britain is prone to periodic immigration panics. What he failed to mention is that these panics mostly emanate from our current coalition partners.
Contrary to what Nigel Farage says, Conservative MP Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 did not make it impossible to discuss immigration. Rather, it volleyed crude anti-immigrationism and all its vile rhetorical accoutrements into the mainstream. It is estimated that Powell received nearly half a million letters post-1968, mostly from those in support of the content of his speech – many Tory activists were not handicapped by Powell’s speech – they were rallied by it. We are still living in the legacy of ‘Rivers of Blood’ and the hysterical politics of xenophobia which it bequeathed. But this is different I hear you cry, you don’t have to be racist to not want to open our doors to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians. I am afraid, that when the evidence clearly demonstrates that immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they collect, I am at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for “Johnny Foreigner.” By all means, if one is genuinely is concerned about the possible erosion of British values caused by immigration, an argument typically espoused by those of a far-right persuasion, they of course have the right to speak out and have their views challenged. What I deplore is those who hide behind so-called ‘economic arguments’ for restricting immigration, afraid to tell us what they really think of immigrants from poorer nations, arguments which simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
From now on, be prepared for tabloid horror stories, Powell-esque rhetoric from Nigel Farage and co. and the general tone of discussion to sink even lower (yes people, it is possible). No doubt we, and indeed anyone who has the nerve to speak out against UKIP’s divisive politics will be labelled ‘out of touch’ and part of a ‘metropolitan elite’ who do not understand the fears of ‘ordinary, hard-working Brits’. But take heart from the fact that our presence in Government prevents the right of British politics moving into fifth gear. In addition, we can show ourselves to be the responsible party of government who do not pander to the fears of the reactionaries of British politics and prepared to promote a positive vision of Britain’s future in Europe – where freedom of movement is a right reserved for all nations, not just the richest.
* Paul Stocker is a PhD History Scholar at Teesside University, online blogger and Vice-Chair of Middlesbrough and East Cleveland Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Risotto rice under threat from flamingoes in north-eastern Italy
Taxation truths
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Roland
Peter Martin
Peter Hirst
75 Comments
“I am at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for “Johnny Foreigner.”… What I deplore is those who hide behind so-called ‘economic arguments’ for restricting immigration.”
The trouble is, the Lib Dems have validated those economic arguments by using them themselves to justify their policy of preventing further immigration in to the south east of England.
In fact, before the last election the Lib Dems were even saying that we should stop more foreigners arriving in the south east because the area had “less water per head than Sudan”. I’m sure if any UKIP politician said such a thing the anger on LDV would be seismic.
You can’t have it both ways. If you are prepared to use the economy/strain-on-public-services arguments in respect of the south east, you can hardly paint others as the devil incarnate for using the same kinds of arguments in general.
As for the “panic” about how many may arrive from eastern Europe shortly, it didn’t exactly help when Nick Clegg revealed on his radio show that the government had an estimate of how many would come, but then flatly refused to divulge the number because he feared it would damage “public confidence in the immigration system”.
@Stuart Mitchell – please supply references to support your assertion that “the Lib Dems were saying we should stop more foreigners arriving in the South East”.
@Paul in Twickenham
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/6211792/Lib-Dems-back-points-plan-to-move-immigrants-to-regions.html
http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Election%20Policy/22b%20-%20Immigration.pdf
Incidentally, Andrew Stunell recently likened the Lib Dem “keep foreigners out of the south east” policy to what the Nazis were doing in 1935.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24109632
@Stuart Mitchell I take your point, and personally I don’t see how a regional points based system would work, and it generally goes against the party’s liberal instincts. However, the concerns about the strain on infrastructure in the south-east are valid.
The bigger problem, as Vince Cable said recently, is that the gap between the south east’s economy and the rest of the country is enormous, and getting wider. Despite promising to ‘rebalance’ the country’s economy in 2010, the Coalition is doing pretty much the opposite, already paving the way for a new runway at Heathrow.
We need a ‘bigger picture’ approach to growing the economy of the regions. Then, immigration will be more evenly dispersed, there will be less strain on local infrastructure, and we won’t need to fiddle around the edges with ideas like a regional points system.
PS Comparing the points system to what the ‘Germans did in 1935’ is absurd and not helpful to having a constructive debate on the subject.
Thank you Paul Stocker, I am much encouraged to see one corner of UK politics where the hysteria over opening up borders to the newer East European countries is vigorously challenged.
Stuart Mitchell: you delight in finding the obverse of issues; your links provide nothing about “preventing further immigration in to the south east of England” but everything to do with encouraging migration to where there are “gaps in population and employment” (to quote the an article you provide – I am not sure what you read though). In any case it is clear from the reference to a ‘points based system’ that this refers to immigration from outside the EU.
The article is fro 2009, it is rather hard to recall the extended period of drought at that time – the reference to Sudan looks even sillier now.
To make out that LIb Dems indulge in UKIP like anti immigrant rhetoric requires a degree of contortion that leaves your response disagreeably disjointed.
@Martin
“you delight in finding the obverse of issues; your links provide nothing about ‘preventing further immigration in to the south east of England'”
Both the links I provided refer specifically to reducing immigration to the south east of England.
“but everything to do with encouraging migration to where there are ‘gaps in population and employment'”
Not everything – both the links make the entirely negative point that the south east is “struggling” to cope with immigration because of a lack of resources (e.g. “homes and water”). Have you actually read them?
Huhne even told the Telegraph that immigrants should go where “‘there are the will and resources to welcome them”.
This article is an example of what’s bad about the immigration debate, because it’s demonising people on principle for the TYPE of argument they are making, even though, as I’ve shown, Lib Dems are perfectly happy to use exactly the same arguments when trying to appeal to anti-immigration voters in the south east.
Incidentally, though we are told that government efforts to discourage immigration from Bulgaria and Romania are all the work of the nasty Tories, the Guardian reported the following back in March :-
“Nick Clegg will on Wednesday chair a home affairs cabinet committee to examine wide-ranging plans to deter EU migrants, including Romanians and Bulgarians, from coming to Britain by slashing access across the spectrum of benefits without breaching EU discrimination laws. The drive has been given an added urgency by the Ukip surge in the Eastleigh byelection.”
Paul
You just don’t get it do you?
Immigration is a subtext to the greater problem. That problem is that we have NO control of our EU borders, and increasingly NO control over our sovereignty, as the EU becomes more megalomaniac Federalist. So, is the phrase EU megalomania, too harsh or hysterical? For evidence copy and paste this :
( Guy verhofstadt – “Abolish sovereign european countries” )
into the Youtube searchbox.
But back to the real world, 2014 is going to be a politically groundbreaking year. Why? Because, Lib Dems, just like the other two mainstream parties, prefer to keep their cosy ivory towers intact, from whence they have treated the electorate with contempt for too long. But the emergent message from the ground up, is clear and can be summed up in a single line.
~ Regain democracy from the party of 3, vote Ukip and set our sovereignty free. ~
“What I deplore is those who hide behind so-called ‘economic arguments’ for restricting immigration” ….
So the fundamental Economics of Supply & Demand, i.e. that increased supply of a good, in this case the supply of labour, causing a reduction in its price, is a just a so-called economic argument ?!
I think you will find that it is actually a very valid and telling argument against large-scale economic migration, and one of the main drivers behind the fall in real term incomes in the UK. There is nothing liberal about undermining the living standards of a substantial element of the UK’s population, and I think that the Liberal Democrats have got the policy on this horribly wrong.
@Stuart Mitchell – thank you for the links. As others have pointed out that proposal was for non-EU citizens. For “29 million Bulgarians and Romanians” (the subject of this article) the right to free movement was never in question. While I think the proposal for regional caps was impractical, no country can simply open its borders to all-and-sundry. A better proposal would be (as Will Mann suggests) for the government to do more than engage in hand-wringing over the massive concentration of investment and opportunities in the South-East.
The Guardian is reporting right now (12.22pm 1/1/14) “The government has failed to introduce measures to protect the rights of low-skilled British workers whose jobs may be threatened by new migrants from eastern Europe, a Labour shadow minister has claimed. It would seem that all the parties are terrified of immigration.
It would be nice to see the Liberal Democrats making a strong, articulate case for open borders and free movement of labour within the EU. All I see from the party is a bunch of dull statistics that mean little or nothing to most people and which I suspect feel wrong to many of those who do understand them,
“I am afraid, that when the evidence clearly demonstrates that immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they collect, I am at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for “Johnny Foreigner.””
That is because you are not poor with few advantages of education and social network, which means you do not depend on your community to anything like the same degree.
I might add that as a Londoner, just guessing here, you are probably far more Metropolitan than the average, and that there is no moral imperative to be so.
I find it very easy to understand the attitude you describe if one imagines a person with the two features described above, much the like the millions across the country in what can be termed “asylum dispersal areas” – such as Bolton, Plymouth, Rotherham and Swansea – and “migrant worker towns and countryside” – such as Boston, Dover, Fenland and Rugby – which had had limited prior experience of large-scale migration.
Far easier to not understand tho, and just write them off as racist:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210324/horr72.pdf
🙂
A highly offensive article that should never have been published.
What I can tell you Paul, is that you do not understand economics. If you want to accuse the british public of being a bunch of xenophobes who only want to control immigration because they dislike “johnny foreigner” then you should be prepared for some attacks back.
If all immigration is good for the economy then why don’t we open the borders immediately to every country in the world? There comes a point where mass immigration causes social division and economic problems.
I believe in a world of free movement of people, but if it ever happens it has to happen more gradually than it has been.
“But this is different I hear you cry, you don’t have to be racist to not want to open our doors to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians. I am afraid, that when the evidence clearly demonstrates that immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they collect, I am at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for “Johnny Foreigner.”
That is a clear accusation of most of the british public being racist and should not be tolerated on this site.
I’m not asking for loads of time spent on moderating, but we should at least have some better quality control when it comes to the articles published and not just unfounded accusations of racism to anyone who disagrees.
Eddie Sammon: conspicuously you do not offer an alternative reason to explain ” why anyone would be against immigration”.
This commendable article seems to have hit a raw nerve.
The first three sentences of your first comment are non-sequiters, that leave me with the impression that in addition to alleging that Paul has no understanding of Economics (you do not know him do you?), since he sides with Vince Cable on this issue, you would assert the same of Vince Cable.
I do not see an accusation of ‘racism’, I do see an accusation that many politicians and UKIP in particular are fermenting anti foreigner feelings. From my perspective, this is clearly fair comment.
I am not remotely racist and have always voted Lib Dem. However, I, like countless other ordinary people in this country, am extremely concerned about the impact of east European immigration on the social fabric of my nation.
Here in West Country we are seeing an increase in crime and anti social behaviour by these migrants. Many of them view taking part in theft and fraud as part of their culture. Recently I came across a group of Roma attempting to kill swans in a city park ‘because its what they do in their country’. I know of people who have had their back gardens stripped of possessions by east European gangs.
Sorry, but I will not accept that we have to sit back and tolerate our already crowded country being turned into some quagmire of lawlessness and degradation. We used to have quite a nice country, but I genuinely fear what it is becoming.
This will likely not be posted as it seems any native British person who raises any concerns about this is instantly labelled a racist by people who seem not to care about the impact on the British people.
@Paul Stocker
“The Conservative Party’s recent crackdown on immigration shouldn’t leave Lib Dems under any illusion – we are in government with the nasty party, and one whose ‘detoxification’ PR stunt crumbles day by day.”
The Conservative Party has no power to “crackdown” on immigration. That is something that only the (Coalition) Government can do.
“This comes on the same day in which the Government announced further restrictions on migrants’ access to the NHS – an initiative designed to combat ‘health tourism’ and accordingly, completely at odds with any economic reality.”
I’d be fascinated to know in what way it is “at odds with any economic reality”? Also, as written, it suggests that there is something wrong with attemting to combat ‘health tourism’. What exactly?
Surely the more often people with concerns about immigration are labelled racists, the more likely they are to refuse to vote for the party thus labelling them?
Psychologically, as well as politically, Lib Dems are getting this issue very wrong.
@ Simon Shaw
I would like to know whether “health Tourism’ exists, and to what extent. Do you have the figures?
@ Mike
What country do the Roma come from?
Simon: Paul is probably denying that there is a significant problem of people visiting the UK from other EU states to gain access to medical treatment for economic reasons. An obvious reason for this is that other EU states have to ensure their own systems for access to health provision. Admittedly the phrase “economic reality” could be taken to suggest a macroeconomic dimension – but that would not really make much sense.
Martin, there was a half hearted racism accusation, which made me boil and I went over the top, but I still think I was right to strongly condemn the article.
Regarding the Vince Cable comparison: Vince came across as respectful and this does not.
Regarding my claim of Paul not understanding economics: anyone who fails to recognise that mass immigration poses risks to the economy doesn’t know what they are talking about.
I wouldn’t usually question someone’s economic credentials, but if people are going to throw accusations of xenophobia about then they better make sure they have a strong argument.
Jayne Mansfield: good question. One of the terrible products of the immigration polemic, has been the conflation of Bulgarians and Romanians with the emotive term ‘Roma’.
Do you not see that you are actually going to damage progressive ideals in the long run by labelling anyone against mass immigration as ‘racist’? And Jayne, I am well aware of where Roma come from, I am also aware of the criminality, trafficking etc undertaken by gangs of migrants from across eastern Europe. The problem is Roma and other East European groups. How much more is our infrastructure and social fabric supposed to take?
The people of this country are being driven to breaking point and all we get from some quarters of the Liberal press etc is accusations of racism against anyone who raises a concern. What a sure way to drive ordinary British people into the hands of the extremists!
I have spent my life at the progressive end of politics and I did not start out to defend immigration at all costs, no matter what the impact on the lives of countless of my fellow citizens,
Eddie Sammon: an important point is that it is scaremongering to consider Jan 1 2014 with mass immigration. At both extremes: zero or mass immigration is likely to pose economic problems, but this should not be the issue.
In terms of effects on the economy, there was a larger than expected influx of Poles. Clearly the conditions are such that this will not happen with Romania and Bulgaria, but I have not seen any evidence to show that the influx of Poles had an overall negative effect. Most data sourced articles I have seen seem to suggest the opposite; i.e. that overall the EU migrants have contributed more than they have taken out and that without these migrants there would have been economic problems in some areas.
@Jayne Mansfield
“I would like to know whether “health Tourism’ exists, and to what extent. Do you have the figures?”
Sorry, I don’t. I would assume that any figures could only be “guesstimates” anyway, on the basis that definitive data is not collected at present as far as I am aware.
Martin, I agree I have not liked the scare mongering about today’s border relaxation and have even thought today’s headline in the Daily Express – “BENEFITS BRITAIN HERE WE COME!” – strengthens the case for light press regulation. It might be providing enjoyment for some people, but it’s irresponsible.
As ever we are dealing with fear when it comes to discussing politics, which makes people attack each other even though the opposing views are not vastly different. We all need to reassure each other.
@Martin
“Simon: Paul is probably denying that there is a significant problem of people visiting the UK from other EU states to gain access to medical treatment for economic reasons. An obvious reason for this is that other EU states have to ensure their own systems for access to health provision.”
But isn’t the UK health system much more “free at the point of use” than many other EU states? As just one example, a recent study reported that 91% of pregnant women in Poland used private healthcare.
Simon, I have no idea what 91% of Polish women means. It leaves me wondering about the remaining 9%. I think that all EU states have to have a system of healthcare. In many, it is an insurance based scheme, where there can be a top up % to pay. In addition there can be insurance schemes that cover the top up (it could refer to this).
My understanding of Benelux countries and Germany, for example, is that healthcare is effectively free at the point of use, you present your healthcare insurance card and it all goes through automatically, then I think you get billed for the % top up if it is applicable. Others might correct me on this.
Stuart Mitchell, whilst I should try to engage with you point and explain how there is a world of difference between encouraging immigration to the north and preventing immigration to the south, I cannot help but find anyone who commits Reductio ad Hitlerum to be completely ridiculous.
Eddy, I do agree with Paul’s overarching sentiment that most of the economic arguments against overall immigration to the UK are economically illiterate at best and that the politicians who use them are often circumspect at best. However, I, too, was concerned that he was calling vast groups of the population ‘Johnny Foreigner haters’, whilst in truth, I like to believe they are often just concerned due to the misinformation fed to them. This being said, returning to the city I was from in the Midlands and hearing so many comments, such as “The problem with London is that it is full of bloody foreign types” over the Christmas period did act as a sharp reminder to me that there are still many people in this country with very ‘questionable’ views on those who come here to live and work. In my opinion, the very word foreign is a negative one.
“returning to the city I was from in the Midlands and hearing so many comments, such as; The problem with London is that it is full of bloody foreign types”
Welcome to the fact that London is more metropolitan in outlook than the average for the country as a whole.
@Martin
“Simon, I have no idea what 91% of Polish women means. It leaves me wondering about the remaining 9%.”
My assumption was that the remaining 9% rely on the (presumably inadequate) free Polish Health System.
“I think that all EU states have to have a system of healthcare.”
I’m not sure what that means. All countries in the world (even, say, Rwanda) have a system of healthcare.
“My understanding of Benelux countries and Germany, for example, is that healthcare is effectively free at the point of use, you present your healthcare insurance card and it all goes through automatically”
I would have thought that was one reason why we don’t tend to associate “health tourism” with people from Germany or the Benelux countries.
That’s cool Liberal Al, I don’t mind disagreement if it is respectful, or even angry outbursts, it is just the idea that we can win over hearts and minds by insulting vast numbers of people that is wrong. We agree on this point and I am sure Paul will heed the recommendations of others to tone down the language a bit. I’ll do my bit too.
@ Simon – “My assumption was that the remaining 9% rely on the (presumably inadequate) free Polish Health System.”
For a personal perspective, i might add that my wife always goes back to Poland for (paid) dental treatment.
Unlike here in Britain, the service is immediate, cheap, comprehensive, as well as being competent. The thought that she might have to go through the hassle of our system to acquire the limited service on offer is not a pleasant thought for her.
This might suggest that your 91% choose paid-for services for similar reasons.
jedibeeftrix is right. I know of people who go on holiday to certain EU destinations, and get eye tests and spectacles at half the price. I would have thought that health tourism is logical and a ‘given’, with the decision being based based on quality of service, cost, availability etc.?
Didn’t Hugo Chavez fly to get his cancer surgery in Cuba? Just sayin…..
O.K.,… I’ll just get my coat.
“I cannot help but find anyone who commits Reductio ad Hitlerum to be completely ridiculous.”
You do realise it was Andrew Stunell who made the Nazi Germany comparison, not me? And that he’s a Lib Dem MP?
@Liberal Al
“there is a world of difference between encouraging immigration to the north and preventing immigration to the south”
Of course there is – but the Lib Dem policy I provided a link to clearly aims to do both. Nick Clegg clarified the matter on the BBC Politics Show, March 21st 2010 :-
Audience member: “Chris Huhne has explained that the Lib Dem policy on immigration is to only allow immigrants into sparsely populated areas of the country. If such immigrants came into the country and were declared redundant, could they move to a different part of the country to look for a job?”
Nick Clegg: “No. No, is the straight answer.”
The fact is that before the last election, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg were going around telling voters that immigrants would be prevented from living in the south east on the grounds that there wasn’t enough water there for them.
@Stuart Mitchell
“The fact is that before the last election, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg were going around telling voters that immigrants would be prevented from living in the south east on the grounds that there wasn’t enough water there for them.”
Are you sure about that? I can find no trace of Nick Clegg saying that.
@ Simon Shaw
This is the problem that the electorate face/ I have discovered on the internet that the coalition commissioned new research at the same time as the immigration bill was decided. This led to the Daily Mail and other newspapers headlining stories floating the idea health tourism was costing up to costin£g 2 billion, 100 times more than previously thought. However, I then read in the New Statesman that when the figures were analysed, the true cost of health tourism was £ 70 million 0.06% of the NHS budget. Still a high figure, so why did the popular press have to scaremonger.
The New Statesman found that the figure quoted by these sources included people who were eligible for NHS care , for example visitors students and seasonal workers who paid tax and were therefore eligible.
I believe that it was the Liberal Democrats who prevented the Conservatives from introducing the £ 200 that would have been charged to some of these people.
I am not one of life’s panickers and I believe that one should fulfil ones obligations. I a gree that we need a rational immigration policy for the future, but I object most strongly to those in the media and on the political right who are denying the public the facts on which they can make decisions about what form that rational immigration should take.
The article appears to have rubbed some people up the wrong way. My general point about much of the anti-immigration debate is that there is a distinct lack of evidence which demonstrates that free movement of peoples within the EU has a negative impact on Britain. Rather, it has been shown to have a positive impact and immigrants are net contributors.Why then, is there all the hysteria surrounding immigration? Why are so many grass-root Tory activists and Ukip supporters making such a song and dance about it?
Paul Stocker: “Rather, it has been shown to have a positive impact and immigrants are net contributors.Why then, is there all the hysteria surrounding immigration?”
Well quite, but you also have to ask yourself why Nick Clegg chaired a cabinet committee that was tasked with “deterring” more EU migrants (see my post of 12:14pm). Why try to deter something that is good for us?
I don’t think we should ‘deter’ immigrants – I also don’t agree with everything Nick Clegg says and does. The LDs are the junior partner in the coalition and have to do things we don’t always like .
@Jayne Mansfield
I haven’t spotted a word there of yours that I disagree with 🙂
So how many migrants shall we let in? Just how much more pressure will our services be put under? Is it progressive to subject British people (the ones who don’t live in safe middle class areas of Guardian journos etc) to increased crime and disgusting behaviour? I am not right wing, a Daily Mail reader etc but I, like many other fundamentally decent British people, can see that the European project of unrestrained movement is nothing but a disaster which is unravelling the fabric of our country.
If all Lib Dems can do is call people like me racist then you really have lost so many voters.
@Paul Stoker
I think it is very simple.
The problem with you saying (and just saying): “Rather, (immigration) has been shown to have a positive impact and immigrants are net contributors” is that many people will think that you would be happy, in fact happier, with (say) 5 million immigrants into Britain in 2014.
Maybe you would, but if you wouldn’t, you really need to come out with a more nuanced position.
I am not at all certain what the partys present policy on immigration is. Do we believe in open access / unlimited immigration or not? If not – why not?
There’s no distinct lack of evidence. Wages are falling faster than prices and the low skilled sector are being hit the most.
Besides, extrapolating past results into the future with such confidence is what led Gordon Brown to say this about the City bankers in 2007:
“Thanks to their ‘remarkable achievements’, we had the huge privilege to live in ‘an era that history will record as the beginning of a new Golden Age’.”
Incredible. Although it happens to the best of us.
Mike: the ‘plot’ not to lose sight of in this discussion is the final removal of barriers to Romanians and Bulgarians. In truth many who have looked beyond their borders will have already found jobs and moved on, and by now some may well have already moved back. The difference today is that people from these two countries can come here to look for a job. However in an internet age, the need to be on site is much less important than it once was.
Are you questioning the EU principle of free movement in a single market? Obviously this is a cornerstone of the conception of the Treaty of Rome, which we signed up to in the 70s. Personally, I am very happy to see the Lib Dems to commit to an unequivocal commitment to progress within the EU.
As for immigration from outside the EEA, no one here is suggesting that the UK abandons immigration controls, nor controls on who should be awarded work permits. A points system may or may not be a good idea (it really depends on implementation). The advantage of a points system is that it is more transparent (unfortunately this also might make it more susceptible to manipulation). If migrants from outside the EEA have skills that are in limited supply and jobs are available, it is unsurprising that these migrants are a benefit to the economy.
@Martin
“As for immigration from outside the EEA, no one here is suggesting that the UK abandons immigration controls, nor controls on who should be awarded work permits.”
Are you sure Paul Stocker wasn’t suggesting that? And if not, why not?
Simon: Of course I am sure; the whole article is in the context of the fact that Bulgarians and Romanians have full reciprocal rights within the EEA. Although Paul Stocker clearly appreciates the benefits of immigration, no where does he suggest there should be unrestricted access into the country from anywhere in the world.
A banker, a working class Englishman and a Bulgarian immigrant are sitting round a table with a packet of 12 biscuits. The banker takes 11 of the biscuits and says to the Englishman “watch out, that Bulgarian wants your biscuit”.
@Martin
I disagree. In his article Paul Stocker talks about both EU and non-EU immigration.
In relation to racism we all know to be extremely careful in what we say and how we say it. I think we need to be equally careful in relation to talking about immigration.
If Paul meant that EU immigration has been shown to have a positive impact and EU immigrants are net contributors, then he should say that. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know if and why the same does NOT apply to non-EU immigrants.
@ Mike
Are you aware that Theresa May announced in October that the crime rate amongst foreign nationals in London is in direct line with their representation? About one third of crime in London is committed by foreign nationals and one third of the population of London are foreign nationals.
Perhaps things are different in the West Country. Which part of the West country are you referring to?
Don’t you think that you are being a little over sensitive? First you start off assuming ( wrongly) that your post won’t appear because you are opposed to mass immigration, then you claim that people like yourself are labelled racists. Who has labelled you and people like you, racists?
Paul in Twickenham “A banker, a working class Englishman and a Bulgarian immigrant are sitting round a table with a packet of 12 biscuits. The banker takes 11 of the biscuits and says to the Englishman “watch out, that Bulgarian wants your biscuit”.”
Brilliant! That’s the best comment on immigration I’ve seen yet.
Excellent analogy Paul!
I haven’t at any point said I believe in unrestricted immigration – that would be chaotic. I am saying that freedom of movement within the EU is beneficial. Millions of Brits live in the EU and other EU citizens live here. It is one thing to say you agree with freedom of movement between EEA members and completely another to say opening the door to nearly 7 billion people!
Paul’s apparent excellent analogy also says the public are stupid and won’t notice if bankers take 11 biscuits of them, but will if an immigrant takes one. It’s just playing a game of “swapping the scapegoat”.
Stuart, so a Lib Dem MP saying it makes it not ridiculous? I never realised that you had such blind faith in the ability of our MPs to never say stupid things. Well, anyway, that aside, his comments were ridiculous, as is anyone who actually agrees with them.
“The fact is that before the last election, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg were going around telling voters that immigrants would be prevented from living in the south east on the grounds that there wasn’t enough water there for them.”
That is not what that quote says, but anyway.
paul Stocker – thanks for a very good article, we need to get the message out.
@Liberal Al
If you think Andrew Stunell’s views are so “stupid”, you must be pretty worried that he’s in charge of drawing up Lib Dem immigration policy for the next election.
My description of Lib Dem policy at the last election is entirely accurate – Stunell even claimed that identity cards and police check points might have been necessary to enforce it and keep foreigners out of the south east.
Of course you are welcome to dismiss Stunell as an idiot rather than engage with his views. But that would mean you believe Lib Dem immigration policy is now in the hands of an idiot.
@Paul Stocker
“I haven’t at any point said I believe in unrestricted immigration – that would be chaotic.”
But in your article you haven’t said that you are opposed to unrestricted immigration.
When you say things like:
“I am at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for ‘Johnny Foreigner’,” and
“What I deplore is those who hide behind so-called ‘economic arguments’ for restricting immigration, afraid to tell us what they really think of immigrants from poorer nations, arguments which simply do not stand up to scrutiny.”
then many ordinary voters might think that you DO believe in unrestricted immigration.
For example, based on what you have said, the only reason you wouldn’t open the door to nearly 7 billion people is because you have a palpable dislike for ‘Johnny Foreigner’.
I assume that isn’t the case. All I am saying is we all need to be really careful and precise in what we say about immigration.
@Paul Stocker
“I haven’t at any point said I believe in unrestricted immigration – that would be chaotic.”
Hang on a minute. You said in the article that you were “at pains to understand why anyone would be against immigration for reasons other than a palpable dislike for ‘Johnny Foreigner.'” You also dismissed economic arguments against immigration.
So why do you want to restrict immigration?
@Stuart Mitchell
“The fact is that before the last election, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg were going around telling voters that immigrants would be prevented from living in the south east on the grounds that there wasn’t enough water there for them.”
Where or when did Nick Clegg say that? Liberal Al and I have both challenged you on that.
@Simon Shaw
“Where or when did Nick Clegg say that?”
I’ve already given you all the information. But I’m happy to help you out with yet more quotes.
Andrew Marr Show, BBC1, 17th Jan 2010 :-
NICK CLEGG: I think some parts of the country, clearly we have a lot of pressure on public resources, on public services, even on water resources – in the South East, for instance. It’s not the case in other parts of the country…
ANDREW MARR: I’m interested because you mentioned it again… about this idea as to whether you could have more immigration into the borders of Scotland as it were and yet stop people who’ve immigrated there coming to the South East of England. It doesn’t seem to me to be plausible.
NICK CLEGG: It is plausible; it works in other countries. We are now looking at the way that works in other countries. So, for instance, the …
ANDREW MARR: People would have to be tied to a particular postal code.
NICK CLEGG: Well it’s relatively easy when people register to work, that they do so with local authorities so that you know who is working where…
ANDREW MARR: You could make sure they didn’t then move to London?
NICK CLEGG: You could easily do that…
Stuart Mitchell
“Where or when did Nick Clegg say that?”
I’ve already given you all the information.
Sorry, I’ve checked back on your previous comments and I cannot see where you did that. Where did you explain your claim that “Nick Clegg was going around telling voters that immigrants would be prevented from living in the south east on the grounds that there wasn’t enough water there for them”?
On the Andrew Marr Show he referred to pressure on public resources and public services (and clearly water is a public service). Is that all you have?
@Simon
Which bit can you not find in the quote – the bit where he talked about the strain on water resources, or the bit where he talked about preventing immigrants from moving to the south east?
Although I do not know the details, I am aware that Nick Clegg has spoken in favour of a points based system for judgements about immigration from outside the EU (so not what this article is about, as Paul Stocker has clarified this now).
As I wrote before there are advantages and disadvantages to a points based approach, but it would make it easier to relax immigration restrictions where there is unfilled demand. This then has been translated by Stuart Mitchell into “preventing further immigration in to the South East”.
Why distort the argument? It is clear that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and others in the Party have defended free movement within the EEA and immigration from outside the EU that meets skill requirements; in fact they have warned of dangers to UK industry and commerce if such immigration was prevented. Their rational approach has sought to make immigration more palatable; the opposite to what we have witnessed from Conservatives, Labour and UKIP.
ANDREW MARR: You could make sure they didn’t then move to London?
NICK CLEGG: You could easily do that…
And yet in this Youtube video with Andrew Marr he says from about 3.90 in :
Copy and paste this into Youtube ( Andrew Marr talks to Nick Clegg (2 of 3) )
Andrew Marr : All I’m saying to is, you can’t stop people moving around the country, once they’re here?
Nick Clegg : Of course you can’t,….
So which is it? Clearly Nick Clegg doesnt know, and gives clear evidence to the point that Lib Dem policy is ill thought through and just not practical.
Martin: “This then has been translated by Stuart Mitchell into ‘preventing further immigration in to the South East’. ”
I haven’t “translated” anything. Nick Clegg stated unambiguously(!) that immigrants admitted to other parts of the country would be PROHIBITED from moving to the south east. See my post from yesterday, 6:17 pm.
“It is clear that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and others in the Party have defended free movement within the EEA”
Clegg has defended the principle, yes – but at the same time he has chaired the cabinet committee tasked with coming up with as many legal ways as possible of putting these EEA immigrants off coming here.
The only point I’ve been trying to make here is that the Lib Dems are just as guilty of hiding behind masks when it comes to immigration as any other party. The OP suggested that people from other parties who use economic arguments against immigration are crypto-xenophobes. I find that deeply hypocritical, given that the Lib Dems spent the last election campaign deploying exactly the same kind of arguments in respect of the south east. (For a master class see “Huhne calls for immigration clampdown in the south” http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politics/elections/election_2010/eastleigh/news/8102360.Huhne_calls_for_immigration_clampdown_in_the_south/ )
I put those who make unfounded accusations of xenophobia in the same category as those who propagate scare stories about Bulgarians and Romanians. They are both poisoning the debate, and between them make it virtually impossible for any sensible discussion to take place on what is an important issue.
Stuart Mitchell; given that the Conservatives were going to push for and form such a committee, who would you rather have had chair it?
I saw this as Nick Clegg trying to put a dampener on this and prevent the committee coming up with illegal actions, partly explaining why the Tory right only came out complaining a couple of days before the 1st Jan.
@Martin
That’s a fair point, and I accept it’s a possibility.
Stuart, first, can you ever read a comment by someone without changing what they say? Where did I call Andrew stupid or an idiot? I said his comments were ridiculous and that it is possible for Lib Dem MPs to say stupid things; that is quite different. As for my views on his work in relation to immigration; well, the immigration group is full of talented people who I have much faith in and I waiting expectantly on their results. As for Andrew himself, if you must know, he has said some things I agree with and others I disagree with. This is hardly shocking.
@John Dunn
Thanks for the Youtube video :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swfFCZpKB_c
Yes, Clegg was all at sea with this. It was a terrible policy and Andrew Stunell’s withering attack on it is very sensible.
@Liberal Al
This is very tiresome, but you did say (in relation to Andrwe Stunell) :-
“Stuart, so a Lib Dem MP saying it makes it not ridiculous? I never realised that you had such blind faith in the ability of our MPs to never say stupid things.”
If you *didn’t* mean that Stunell’s comments were “stupid”, then how does the second sentence relate to the first? If you’re now saying that Stunell’s comments were ridiculous but not stupid, then thanks for the clarification.
Walking past my house I hear Polish, Lithuanian or Russion more often than I hear English voices. From a limited sample, the Russians are older and male, the Lithuanians are single young men and women, the Poles are familiies with young children. My street used to be largely owner occuppied, but many moved on in the ‘years of plenty’ before 2008 and sold to ‘buy to let’ landlords. Ethnic English families probably make up no more than 2/5 of the street now and half of these are retirees like myself. South Asians are a small proportion, mostly small business people who have moved away from the more traditional ‘ghetto’ areas between Lincoln Road and the railway.
This city has had significant immigration since the ’50s: Italians in the Brickworks, Caribbeans at Perkins and other engineering firms; later, South Asians in restaurants and corner shops. Numbers of Portugese, many of them from the former Portugese colonies in Africa arrives in the ’90s. The character of the South Asians changed at that time: I can only assume that cheaper flights to Pakistan and the influence of conservative imams from Pakistan, as well as the prevalence of arranged cousin marriage meant that community had an increasing divide between the more successful and westernised business families in my neighbourhood and the poorer, less educated and intrinsicly conservative families of the Gladstone Road area nearer the city centre. I don’t have figures from the last census, but my impression is of a reduction in the South Asian population as the numbers allowed in to marry UK residents are much more restricted now the over-21 rule and the Written and Spoken English tests are being applied
The City was also a Home Office dispersal area from 2001 for asylum seekers, including under-18s with no apparent family – many hundreds of Kosovo/ Albanians, Somalis, Iraqis (including Kurds) and Afghans came here this way. There are some Roma who came from Czech Republic before 2004 as asylum seekers. The East Europeans are generally better educated and more able than the South Asians, for various reasons and this is coming through in SATS scores at Key Stage 2 for primary schools where the various ethnic groups predominate.
Our Tory MP is a right wing Europhobe and appeasing him and his allies is one reason why Cameron goes along with current hysteria about Romanians and Bulgarians. It is interesting that there was never the same public outcry from the Right over clearly identifiable problems with the South Asian community, including the Postal Vote-rigging scandals of a few years ago, and the high levels of inherited disabilty in UK born children of South Asian parents. Perhaps the ability of South Asian community leaders to deilver large blocks of votes at electon times may have something to do with it.
Thus the essential problem with the supposed influx of Romanians and Bulgarians from this January 1st is that their access is guaranteed by European Treaty and has nothing to do with race (although confusion with the Roma problem, such as it is is a popular tactic with those like the Daily Mail and the Daily Express who are happy to whip up the same resentments among the ignorant as the Nazis did with over their Jewish minority in the 1930s.) In this, Andrew Stunnell was correct.
The fertile ground on which such resentments grow was in part due to the total failure of New Labour in their 13 ‘golden years’ to provide adequate affordable housing for low income families, or to police properly the National Minimum Wage, or to ensure a fair labour market for those with a lack of formal skills by regulating the employment agencies by enforcing the Gangmaster legslation, and in this Labour’s David Hanson was correct.