Non-EU citizens will be able to work in Britain after Bulgarian restrictions lifted

[Steely Dan]

An interesting article.

To stick to the actual topic of this thread; EEA migration.

The author makes several valid points which the anti EU/EEA people would not agree with, for example

EU migration boils down to a deal people can understand. In return for accepting Poles and Romanians arriving here, Brits get the right to live in France, Spain or Poland with access to health/welfare services there. Poles, Czechs and Romanians are part of a shared European cultural and political space.

Some thoughts on that:

The freedom of movement rights are enshrined in EU/EEA treaties, the only way the UK can change them is with the agreement of the other member states; unlikely.

There is no opt out; if the UK wants to control, limit or even stop migration from the EU/EEA then the UK will have to leave both organisations.

Now, there are many people who would argue that would be a good thing; but were it to occur, what would happen to the million plus Brits currently living, working or retired, in other EU/EEA states?

Would those states say to them that nothing has changed? Very unlikely.

What's more likely is that they would be told that if they wanted to stay then they would have to apply to remain under the requirements of the relevant state's immigration rules; whatever they may be. Any that couldn't meet those requirements being told to leave.

So many of those currently working in another EU/EEA state could have to return to the UK and then be looking for work

Those who are retired would be returning and placing an extra burden on the NHS and welfare services. Pensioners are far more likely to use these services than fit, young Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians etc. who are currently coming to the UK to work.

The UK has more to lose by closing the door on EU/EEA migrants than it has to gain.

I suspect you are indulging in a bit of scaremongering, I would expect much more should there ever actually be a referendum on whether or not the UK stays in the EU. Most Countries which are not banana republics don't engage in post-hoc legislation. In other words should someone be granted residency under one set of rules I find it highly unlikely this will be revoked due to legislation after the fact. This would be akin to the changing the criteria for someone in Thailand on a retirement visa causing them to have to leave because the goalposts change for future would be retirees. This is a matter of simple equity, there are many people I think should never have been granted UK citizenship, but you can't change it after the fact. I would add that any drain from returning pensioners may well be offset by deporting foreign born benefit claimants, but it will never happen.

Incidentally here is a link showing what makes intuitive sense - The UK makes a profit on immigrants from within the EEA and a loss on those from outside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487501/How-migrants-outside-Europe-leave-100billion-hole-public-purse-Amount-taken-benefits-services-14-higher-money-back.html

So it's a tough call as to the effect of current rules vis Bulgaria and Romania will pan out, I suppose it may well depend on how many of them are EU citizens. I take note of Foliums comment that most Bulgarians with get up and go have already got up and left, leaving who exactly to benefit from the new rule.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Steely Dan

[7by7]

Maybe I have presented a worst case scenario; but no one can say for sure that it would not happen. Especially what the status of those Brits who do not have PR in their country of residence would be. (PR is available after living in the other EU/EEA state for 5 years. It's recommended, but not compulsory; many don't bother.)

You mention foreigners living in Thailand with a retirement visa; a good example. If that person's income falls below the required level then that person's retirement visa is not renewed and they either have to find some other way of staying in Thailand, .e.g. visa runs, leave or remain there illegally; correct?

What would happen if the Thai government raised the required income level?

If a UK referendum decides that the UK should leave the EU/EEA the terms of the UK's relationship with the EU/EEA, including freedom of movement, would have to be negotiated between the British government and the EU/EEA. The UK could not dictate which parts of the various EU/EEA treaties it wished to keep and which not.

That Daily Mail article says that non EEA immigrants take out more than they put in. But it does not say how many of those immigrants are family members of British citizens who do pay tax.

For example, we have many posts in the visa forum from British citizens bringing their spouse and step children to the UK. The Thai step children will go to school in the UK; a cost to the British tax payer. But the British spouse, and in many cases the Thai spouse as well, will be working and paying taxes.

As usual with any article from that source about immigration the Mail has highlighted the points which agree with their agenda but, apart from a couple of sentences at the end, ignored those which don't. But I'll need to read the actual study report to comment further.

I don't know if this is available outside the UK; if it is you may find it of interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03phwk5/The_Truth_About_Immigration/

Edited January 8, 2014 by 7by7

[chuckd]

Your video is not available outside the UK.

This from the Telegraph was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Record support for severe curbs on immigration

By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor 6:00AM GMT 07 Jan 2014

Support for sweeping curbs on immigration to the UK has reached record levels, a major study of public opinion shows.

Almost eight out of 10 Britons now believe that the number of new arrivals should be limited and nearly six in 10 want to see major reductions in the number allowed in.

The numbers advocating a large cut have swelled by more than 40 per cent since before the expansion of the European Union, according to the latest findings from the British Social Attitudes survey, which has been charting public opinion for more than 30 years.

Strikingly, it shows that even among those who believe that immigration has boosted Britain’s economy and enriched its culture, clear majorities now want to see it cut.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10553804/Record-support-for-severe-curbs-on-immigration.html

[7by7]

Your video is not available outside the UK.

Here it is on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pek6teneWas

[FiftyTwo]

Councils can't pay more for these jobs because the budget is eaten up by welfare. Had a council officer in the UK tell me this. He was quite open about it and scathing of the welfare state.

Councils can't pay more for these jobs as they are busy spending money on new council offices and expensive carpeting.

I'm telling you that as a former UK councillor.

As for UK immigration,

Most common people in the UK see other EU citizens working there as "Immigrants".

That is what most UK people oppose, but of course that isn't immigration at all.

Edited January 8, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[Steely Dan]

Free trade and the freeing up of the movement of capital, ideas and people have been the hallmarks of most successful nations, with the US being the classic example of this.

Japan' s now multiple decade "funk" illustrates the corollary of this positive cycle. You mention IVF and tax breaks but please name a single nation where such approaches have had any material impact on fertility rates. By contrast allowing the migration of young, fecund workers would address 2 key issues in Japan's ageing population crisis, namely a shortage of economically active to shoulder the costs of the elderly section, plus producing the babies that will perform a similar function for the next generation.

Funny that you should jump straight on the "racism" card, as Japanese tend to have a similar view of say Koreans as they do western folk. Thus "xenophobia" is probably a more accurate description.

"Preserving cultural identity" is an interesting concept. Perhaps we should bring back slavery to allow Confederate types to really enjoy there "cultural identity", or perhaps a few serfs in European countries to allow the wealthy to enjoy that authentic feudal experience. Cultural identities cannot be set in aspic or they will die the death of irrelevance and inefficiency.

Change is not a dirty word and historically has been the hallmark of nearly all successful nations. A fear of or reluctance to embrace change has similarly doomed many nations. Creative destruction requires the right attitude and adaptability and like anything in life produces winners and losers but the focus is typically in favour of the former group as they create the conditions for further improvements.

This topic is complex to be sure. Contrary to received dogma that the UK is a mongrel nation the actual rates of migration were historically low in both absolute and percentage terms. The persecution of the French Hugenots in the 16th century causing one of the few influxes of note. The current trend of ever accelerating immigration dovetails quite nicely with the expanding of the credit (debt) bubble as well as with declining birth rates. Indeed the debt bubble has expanded so rapidly that even had birth rates remained stable it is unlikely the Ponzi scheme could be indefinitely maintained without large scale immigration.

I would recommend a book titled 'This time it's different' which details the history of government debt default worldwide and over centuries. In all cases printing currency to service debt has resulted in the collapse of the currency. Ancient Rome went into decline due to mismanagement of it's tax base.

Of course immigrants bring new ideas which are often beneficial to an economy and society, but on the other side of the ledger they bring negative consequences too. Rapid increases in immigration are felt first by those relying on state provided services such as health, housing, transport and crime prevention. David Blunkett warned of this leading to potential race riots in his Sheffield constituency.

Finally Japan, existing culture can be worth saving and is not something to be sneered at, if you drop your wallet on the streets of Tokyo you have a far better chance of seeing it again than just about anywhere else on earth. To balance this positive there has been a recent scandal exposed with a widespread failure of Japanese families to report the death of a family member, some were still receiving benefits decades after their actual death. Perhaps a systematic investigation may alleviate Japan's age crisis if it turns out many of the old have been dead for years.

[samran]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

Japan has also been singularly reluctant to encourage mass immigration, perhaps they will have the last laugh if robotics and nanotechnology plug the gap;- to the best of my knowledge robots don't do religion, vice or drugs.

Japan has truly shocking demographics (see below), and its aversion to immigration (for none too pleasant reasons) means that the future for being old in Japan is pretty bleak:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/japans_population

http://www.dw.de/japan-turns-to-robots-as-population-declines/a-17270786c

Diverting a nation's resources into caring for an increasingly elderly population with all associated ailments and diseases is not the best/most productive use of resources, time, energy or capital. There are some export opportunities to other nations that will face this ageing issue, but having a more open-minded approach to immigration might be a better answer. In the meantime would you fancy being an economically active Japanese citizen who will have to pay for the vast increase in pension funding, the restructuring of Japan's housing and infrastructure, and the exponential increase in health costs?

There will need to be a totally different approach to the elderly and the whole concept of being "old". Kids today in developed countries are unlikely to experience retirement before they are in their mid 70's. That's the downside of increased life expectancy. It will need some major alterations in mindset. The clip below highlights this superbly:

When to you write Japan has 'an aversion to immigration (for non too pleasant reasons)' it reads like an accusation of racism. Wishing to preserve ones cultural identity is not necessarily racist. It does reveal however that having policies to limit immigration, explicit or otherwise seems to attract such insinuations at the drop of a hat, which are never leveled at some other insular Countries, providing they are deemed oppressed rather than the oppressors.

IVF has made great strides of late and governments do have the prerogative to change their tax and benefits system to increase birth rates, and as you mentioned the old and infirm can be outsourced, in Japan's case I would suggest Thailand could be a hub.

Careful, you are sounding like you are advocating government intervention in people's personal decisions.

[7by7]

Contrary to received dogma that the UK is a mongrel nation..........

Point of order.

Unless your DNA shows you to be pure Celt or Pict, you are the descendent of immigrants. Even if it does, there is archaeological evidence to suggest that neither the Celts nor the Picts were the first to settle these islands.

People have been immigrating to these islands since before recorded history.

So how far back do you go before accepting someone as being a non immigrant?

1 generation, 10, 100, 1000?

Edited January 8, 2014 by 7by7

[Credo]

You can, by the way, be anti-immigration and not be anti-immigrant.

[marcusd]

Europe is dying a slow death inflicted by the Europeans themselves. Apart from those "domestic" issues there is a never-ending flow of Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese and all those North Africans taking the Lampedua-express. The collapse is predictable

doom and gloom. It wont happen. There will be changes. Or war. But Europe will not die

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk