EU immigration row / time to get out

[Adam1]

UE - back off - you are being offensive. Stop posting until you can do so without being gratuitously abusive.

[jonny2mad]

The thing to remember about the internet is in person you may like the people you dont like on the internet.
This may not always be true sometimes Ive detested people online and detested them when Ive met them .
But some of my best friends hated me online and we still dont agree, but apart from that we like each other

[woodburner]

He's not the only one who's sick of the ......... (Edited - Ken) contempt shown by some on here for the poor of this country.

1. This is only an internet forum
2. People are entitled to express an opinion.
3. A civilised approach is to respect those opinions - even if you don't agree with them.
4. Using gratuitous insults indicates lack of confidence in your position.
5. You have the freedom to exercise the same option as UE.

[kenneal - lagger]

I can see where UE is coming from because I too get intensely annoyed at Biff's stance on immigration. With such a stance the law of unintended consequences kicks in and it is an intended consequence also. The intended consequence that has been used by the last two governments is that wages for the poorest are kept low or reduced to stop wage inflation causing overheating of the economy. Grasping Gordon used this to "abolish boom and bust": he certainly abolished any boom in wages this way.

I give Biff the benefit of the doubt here and say this would be an unintended consequence of his stance. The unintended consequence of this for the government would be a long term reduction in wealth for the wealthiest as property values are bound to reduce over time as people become unable to purchase houses because they are too expensive for current pay rates. It would also have an eventual effect on incomes for the richest as businesses fail due o lack of takings as people reduce discretionary spending.

I also cannot see how biff can place any weight on the findings of a group of people who's basic tenet is infinite growth in a finite environment. Economists cannot see either that money invested in the financial markets is money lost to the living economy of the country. Making money from money does no one any good as it is bubble economics and is bound to blow up in the end taking the main economy with it. Similarly immigrants sending money abroad strips the home market of cash which is only replaced, at the moment, by more lending by the banks, i.e. more debt!

Biff may be happy to see the nations of the West become less rich, an inevitability as far as I an concerned as well, but to do so using unrestricted immigration as a method results in intolerable hardship for the poor while the relatively rich upwards remain unscathed for a long time. Just as wealth takes a long time to trickle down poverty takes a long time to trickle upwards. For someone with such egalitarian beliefs I find this stance towards the poor of this country very strange.

Biff has also never answered my question about when we call it a day on unrestricted immigration. When we have the same population density of, say, Hong Kong, when we have a lower population density or do we never call it a day?

[woodburner]

I can see where UE is coming from because I too get intensely annoyed at Biff's stance on immigration.

Why get intensely annoyed? You could just disagree. I disagree with what I see as Biff's stated view, that doesn't make me right, and Biff wrong. I disagree with what I percieve as your view on badgers, that doesn't make me right. It doesn't make you right either. We might both be right. We might both be wrong.

I disagree with Mrs WB, that makes me wrong.

[AndySir]

The intended consequence that has been used by the last two governments is that wages for the poorest are kept low or reduced to stop wage inflation causing overheating of the economy.

I think this is one of the biggest problems with the expansion of Europe, and with free trade / globalisation agreements in general. In the case of Europe it is not the poorest who are going to have their wages repressed, they have protection in the form of minimum wages and (often European) directives on working conditions. It's the professional / skilled careers, the tradesmen, nurses, administrators, teachers... the kind of people we like to call key workers. Already facing an unfavourable market, a whole lot of skilled workers coming in to further unbalance the supply side of the equation is only going to depress wages and conditions. Given that most of these jobs require university & debt or many years apprenticeships they're going to start to look unattractive.

Having said that remuneration is not the only cost of hiring skilled workers, and having an accessible pool reduces costs in a way that only penalises recruitment agencies. I hope the entire board would join with me in a hearty "F- them."

Again, realism and idealism clash. I can see potential solutions to the problem above, but I am well aware that they will not be implemented.

Similarly immigrants sending money abroad strips the home market of cash which is only replaced, at the moment, by more lending by the banks, i.e. more debt! ...

Uh, they would transfer money home in Euros. Unless they shove it in under their mattresses they're not taking it out of circulation.

The last point is circular, rather like the debate we always have about population. In theory if we reduces the inequality within Europe the immigration would naturally slow and stop without the need for controls. At the moment we're a prime target becuase we have one of the highest concentrations of wealth.

[clv101]

...The intended consequence that has been used by the last two governments is that wages for the poorest are kept low or reduced to stop wage inflation causing overheating of the economy.

...results in intolerable hardship for the poor while the relatively rich upwards remain unscathed for a long time. Just as wealth takes a long time to trickle down poverty takes a long time to trickle upwards. For someone with such egalitarian beliefs I find this stance towards the poor of this country very strange.

This is just what I meant above when I said this debate rests on the 'nation station'. You talk of 'the poor'. Well, the poor are the Polish, the Romanians, the Bulgarians... freedom of movement in the EU has done a huge amount to improve the wages of the poorest workers.

There is no right or wrong here - biffvernon's point of view is a European one, actually a global one I guess, whereas your arguments are based on a UK centric point of view. In my opinion, the entrenchment and strength of the nation state is part of the problem, preventing us from addressing the very real global challenges. That's why I'm concerned by the nationalistic, protectionist position many would see us adopt.

[jonny2mad]

In theory if we reduces the inequality within Europe the immigration would naturally slow and stop without the need for controls. At the moment we're a prime target becuase we have one of the highest concentrations of wealth.

Natures unequal, tribe a may be more successful than tribe b thats natural like one wolf pack may be more successful than another wolf pack .

You seem to want to bring us down to the level of haiti or somalia .

Some countrys are going to be better or worse run, some people work harder or better than others, the world is unequal by its very nature

[biffvernon]

I too get intensely annoyed at Biff's stance on immigration.

But, at least in the context of this discussion which in Europe related, my stance on immigration is exactly the same as that of all the governments within the Schengan Agreement, so hardly exceptional. I think the UK should be part of that agreement, in line with the vast majority of European citizens.

I also cannot see how biff can place any weight on the findings of a group of people who's basic tenet is infinite growth in a finite environment.

I don't - you must have missed the bit in brackets too - I thought that was pretty obvious.

Similarly immigrants sending money abroad strips the home market of cash which is only replaced, at the moment, by more lending by the banks, i.e. more debt!

Yes. But the same could be said for everything we buy from abroad. What's the difference to the economy between a Pole picking Lincolnshire cabbages and sending some of the money to his mother in Poland and a Brit buying Kenyan beans and sending the money to Kenya?

Biff may be happy to see the nations of the West become less rich, an inevitability as far as I an concerned as well, but to do so using unrestricted immigration as a method results in intolerable hardship for the poor while the relatively rich upwards remain unscathed for a long time. Just as wealth takes a long time to trickle down poverty takes a long time to trickle upwards. For someone with such egalitarian beliefs I find this stance towards the poor of this country very strange.

I have tried to make the point that my liking of open borders is not connected to economics - it's about individual freedom. Of course there are economic consequences that have to be addressed but that, however important, is secondary. I'm glad you think the West becoming less rich is inevitable and I share your concern that the wealthy will keep themselves insulated. I doubt whether migration policy will affect that very much.

Biff has also never answered my question about when we call it a day on unrestricted immigration. When we have the same population density of, say, Hong Kong, when we have a lower population density or do we never call it a day?

I'm not quite sure how to answer that as it's probably the wrong question. Migration is not all in one direction. I think it is a mistake to think that, if all the world's borders were to be opened, England would automatically become as densely populated as Hong Kong. I for one, would think that quite horrid as I don't like crowded places. It's perhaps a bit arrogant for us to think that England is the most desirable place in the world. Almost everybody prefers not to migrate, the ties to homeland, grandmothers, family graves and so on are very strong in all cultures. Removing the push factors of extreme poverty, war and climate-change related factors is vital and would perhaps be given more attention if we had open borders.

[emordnilap]

People rarely realise it but they have to thank the EU for many things. The shit mentioned in this article I don't consume anyway but I know many who would and happily - if the EU wasn't looking out for them.

Mind you, that crap will no doubt be heavily pushed on youse all if the yanks get their evil ways.

[Tarrel]

I too get intensely annoyed at Biff's stance on immigration.

But, at least in the context of this discussion which in Europe related, my stance on immigration is exactly the same as that of all the governments within the Schengan Agreement, so hardly exceptional. I think the UK should be part of that agreement, in line with the vast majority of European citizens.

I also cannot see how biff can place any weight on the findings of a group of people who's basic tenet is infinite growth in a finite environment.

I don't - you must have missed the bit in brackets too - I thought that was pretty obvious.

Similarly immigrants sending money abroad strips the home market of cash which is only replaced, at the moment, by more lending by the banks, i.e. more debt!

Yes. But the same could be said for everything we buy from abroad. What's the difference to the economy between a Pole picking Lincolnshire cabbages and sending some of the money to his mother in Poland and a Brit buying Kenyan beans and sending the money to Kenya?

Biff may be happy to see the nations of the West become less rich, an inevitability as far as I an concerned as well, but to do so using unrestricted immigration as a method results in intolerable hardship for the poor while the relatively rich upwards remain unscathed for a long time. Just as wealth takes a long time to trickle down poverty takes a long time to trickle upwards. For someone with such egalitarian beliefs I find this stance towards the poor of this country very strange.

I have tried to make the point that my liking of open borders is not connected to economics - it's about individual freedom. Of course there are economic consequences that have to be addressed but that, however important, is secondary. I'm glad you think the West becoming less rich is inevitable and I share your concern that the wealthy will keep themselves insulated. I doubt whether migration policy will affect that very much.

Biff has also never answered my question about when we call it a day on unrestricted immigration. When we have the same population density of, say, Hong Kong, when we have a lower population density or do we never call it a day?

I'm not quite sure how to answer that as it's probably the wrong question. Migration is not all in one direction. I think it is a mistake to think that, if all the world's borders were to be opened, England would automatically become as densely populated as Hong Kong. I for one, would think that quite horrid as I don't like crowded places. It's perhaps a bit arrogant for us to think that England is the most desirable place in the world. Almost everybody prefers not to migrate, the ties to homeland, grandmothers, family graves and so on are very strong in all cultures. Removing the push factors of extreme poverty, war and climate-change related factors is vital and would perhaps be given more attention if we had open borders.

We could be colouring the top of our little island blue if the SNP get their way. Suggestion is that joining the Schengen agreement would be a condition of a newly independent Scotland gaining EU membership. Border controls between Scotland and England anyone? It's ironic really, as there is no longer a single ferry crossing left between Scotland and the European mainland! To travel from Scotland to, say, Amsterdam by sea would involve leaving the Schengen area and then re-entering it again having travelled through England.

[clv101]

We could be colouring the top of our little island blue if the SNP get their way. Suggestion is that joining the Schengen agreement would be a condition of a newly independent Scotland gaining EU membership. Border controls between Scotland and England anyone? It's ironic really, as there is no longer a single ferry crossing left between Scotland and the European mainland! To travel from Scotland to, say, Amsterdam by sea would involve leaving the Schengen area and then re-entering it again having travelled through England.

If Scotland joined the Schengen agreement - surely funds would found to subsidise a couple of direct ferries per day, to Oslo, to Amsterdam. There's gotta be an EU grant for that kind of thing.

In all seriousness - I'm coming around to the idea that an independent Scotland might actually be good news for Scotland (after a tricky decade+ long transitional period) and bad news for the remaining UK.

[emordnilap]

Anyone heard of the Shetland bus?

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm probably going to regret this but...

I'm not quite sure how to answer that as it's probably the wrong question.

Dodged like the worst sort of politician. It's exactly the right question, and your repeated failure to answer it speaks volumes.

You're not quite sure how to answer it because any attempt to honestly answer the question utterly destroys your position.

You are pathetic.

[Tarrel]

This is just what I meant above when I said this debate rests on the 'nation station'. You talk of 'the poor'. Well, the poor are the Polish, the Romanians, the Bulgarians... freedom of movement in the EU has done a huge amount to improve the wages of the poorest workers.

Well, to some extent. Surely poverty only exists in a local context, in terms of one's ability to survive and thrive within one's local economy. I know Poland and the standards of living that exist there. Is there a difference in average wages between there and here? Absolutely. Does this affect a Polish person's ability to enjoy the trappings of a comfortable life? Not necessarily. What there is, is an opportunity to "short circuit the system" by coming to a high wage economy and accruing relatively large sums of money in a short timeframe.

I believe the problem lies in the fact we have freedom of movement but don't yet have the free transfer of support between the stronger and weaker economies that would be possible if the EU were a single political entity. So, a Euro has very different value (in terms of day to day spending and earning power) depending on where in the EU you use it. Of course, we are used to this situation existing within nation-states. A pound will buy you more generally in Lancashire than it will in London, whether it's a week's rent or a pint of beer. It's the degree of the disparity that's the problem.

Europe seems to be stuck in a twilight zone between being a group of individual nation-states, happily running their individual economies, and a full political union in which German tax revenues can be used directly to stimulate economic activity in, say, Greece through the development of Enterprise Zones, infrastructure projects, etc.