This post has been written by Miss Anon and posted on her behalf:
It’s all very well for people to have a heated debate about the influx of Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish workers ‘invading’ this country but for years we’ve welcomed Australian students, travellers and workers giving them two year Visas; we’ve allowed French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch people to work in this country without ever thinking that they are different. That these countries have been in the EU for a long time has meant that we never consider their movements here an issue.
Can we really tell how many French immigrants have come to this country knowing they have a home in both countries. Are we concerned, really, that some people have their cars registered in France and are effectively immune from parking tickets over here? I would say no.
Yesterday the Daily Express wrote an inflamatory article about the price of cheap flights from eastern Europe with an indignant tone… The cost of flights from Romania and Bulgaria will be £8 from when they join on the low cost operator, Wizzair. But why the uproar? We’ve had these low cost airlines from Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc for years. Why don’t we have a similar debate about Spaniards or Greek students? All these people use our NHS, for example and students don’t need to pay for healthcare.
Could it be that there is debate because we think of eastern Europeans as slavs; do we think that they are somehow more dangerous or nasty than people from southern Europe? If we’re going to have an EU where people are able to move freely around, then they should be allowed to move freely around — otherwise what’s the point?
Miss Anon
September 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Whilst you do have a good point, Bulgaria & Romania are two countries that make Italy look like the pinnacle of honesty. The organised crime sector in the UK is already suffering too much competition.
I actually think that most of the resistance is a reaction to what has already happened rather than a worry about Romania & Bulgaria in particular.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Quite simple really; it is not the people, it is the numbers of people. The government is claming that the influx of over 600,000 workers has been a net benefit to Britain, however to arrive at that figure they have not included any of the costs.
It is already confirmed that the last round of immigration (which is the largest we have ever experienced) has had an affect on wages, so even if it is a net benefit to Britian it is not a benefit to the British worker. An increase in the nation states GDP in not the same as an increase in GDP per capita.
We are already seeing unemployment rise in the UK; Dr John Philpott Chief Economist CIPD said “With demand for labour improving, the continuing rise in unemployment is now clearly driven by strong growth in labour supply as more immigrants enter the jobs market.
The number of people out of work and claiming benefits in the UK increased for a sixth month in a row in July, the longest stretch of rises for 13 years.
Richard Layard of the LSE, who helped to design Labour’s welfare to work programme, said in a letter to the Financial Times: “There is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate.
John Denham, a former minister, says that the new arrivals have halved wages for builders in his Southampton constituency.
In Britain, the unskilled are four times as likely to be unemployed as the skilled, and non-whites twice as likely as whites. It is they who will suffer from an influx of unskilled immigrants.
More worrying are the rising levels of missed mortgage payments which is evidence that many families’ finances have become extremely tight, so tight in most cases that banks refuse to fulfil payment orders. Personal bankruptcies have also soared, Official statistics, which record mortgage arrears of six months or more, also show that more and more homeowners are getting into trouble. More than 35,320 mortgages were in arrears in June this year, the highest since 2001, the Council for Mortgage Lenders said. Repossessions have risen to 8,140 in the past six months, their highest since 2001.
If the government does allow more workers in and the majority of the other Nation states do not, there will be another large influx into Britian, that is not creating an EU where people are free to work in any other country. (they will be free to move around and I belive the self-employed will be free to work)
It would have the affect of pushing down the British workers wages, and increasing the demands on the British public services, whilst protecting the workers and services in the other states. So we will not be creating a level playing field but forcing the British standard of living down and protecting the standard of living in the other countries.
Another point is that if the government do allow even more eastern Europeans working permits next year, they the will be doing so before other countries have even allowed in those from the last round of EU expansion.
Please do not try to use the racist/xenophobic card to prevent debate on this important subject.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Good comment Ken.
I have no problem with normal immigration where people apply and get work permits based in certain criteria, but mass-immigration is a totally different phenomena that causes large sudden population shifts that can have a massive effect on the ‘host’ population.
The difference between Western European immigration and Eastern is that is an a vastly smaller scale because the countries are more similar in standards and wealth.
Its not a race thing, if a ‘HUGE’ number of Austrialians (mostly descended from the British) suddenly wanted to move here it would be as big an issue.
I don’t know if you were talking about me with the ‘invasion’ comment but I wasn’t talking about Eastern Europeans, I was responding to Bills wish to have Turkey in Europe therefor giving 100million or so of them the right to freely enter Britain.
And yes, with the death threats against the Pope, the cartoon ‘protest’, the general Muslim jihad attitudes..
I wouldn’t call them integraters…
I know its not all of them, but thats the problem with open border advocates… they try to prevent us from discriminating the good from the crazies.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I think, in Miss Anon’s defense she is not an “open border advocate” rather she believes in the principles of the EU.
I think her argument is misplaced, though. The only reason we have problems with the newer EU countries’ populations moving here, really, is because the member states closed their borders (and will again).
I am keen on EU withdrawal but I’m not against the supposed basic principles of the EU: freedom of movement within the EU, free trade etc. But at the same time, I think that the eastern European nations that are causing all this concern cannot be ready for membership if their populations are drawn so strongly to come here. When other groups of countries have joined (especially in the 80s when Spain and Greece joined) there was no sudden and massive influx.
According with my belief in the principles of the EU (supposed only) the accession of Turkey must be allowed, but only when it’s a more successful nation and only once its human rights record is significantly improved. If membership is necessary for these countries to attain this level of economic growth then it will either have been at our (read: yours and mine) expense or through pure serendipity.
So, to be clear:
- England should withdraw from the EU.
- Romania and Bulgaria should only join when they are able to maintain their populations after joining.
- Turkey’s membership myst be allowed in principle, but it shouldn’t happen until it is able to maintain its population after joining.
- The UK shouldn’t have different rules for access to other countries in the EU or we end up being overrun (sorry Miss Anon).
September 28th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
If millions of American ‘christian right’ suddenly wanted to move to the UK do you think the Labour party and the MSM would have the same stance as it has now?
I certainly don’t.
Gav, why do you think Turkey should join, more than any other country in the world that is…?
Its not a European country, not geographically, not religiously (not that I am religious), not ethnically, not historically.
I’ve nothing against Turks, but strong fences make good neighbours, they have the Islamic culture, most of Europe does not.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
The question isn’t why should Turkey join but why shouldn’t it. Europe vehemently does not have the same culture in each of its member states. I don’t think that there’s one ‘Islamic’ culture any more than there’s one ‘Western’ culture.
There’s probably not even one ‘Shia’ or ‘Kurd’ culture. The truth is cultures develop over long periods of time in geographical areas that can be independent of religion, language and environment.
Compare, for example, the Christian countries of northern Europe with the Christian countries of South America. Compare the Islamic culture in Malaysia with that in Egypt or Kuwait.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:38 am
Well by that logic you can ask why not invite the whole world to join the EU?
If you have a club or union, its gotta have some rules and identity, if its open to anyone and everything then what is the point being a member?
September 29th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Dave — you should know I’m a free trade advocate. I don’t see any problem with the EU merging with the Asian, African and American equivalents eventually…. The world’s economy would only benefit from free trade everywhere.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
i c, so you see the EU as a building block for a world government.
Wow, libertarianism meets communism…. again!
September 29th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
A world government? No.
The EU should be about free trade and free trade will solve the world’s economic poor performers.
Because the EU is not about free trade and free movement of people and is about politics (and isn’t democratic) is the reason for my support of Better Off Out.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Does your support for the “Better of Out” campaign indicate that you think that it is not now possible to reform the EU. If so do you think that we will see the Conservative parliamentary party following your line of thought?
The Conservative line has always been that it is better to be in so that we retain influence and can push the EU in the direction of free trade and away from the federalist agenda.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I think the EU may be reformed but I don’t think it is right to remain in the EU while we wait for that to happen.
I suspect the Conservatives will only make EU withdrawal formal policy when something pivotal starts street demonstrations and civil disobedience. That could be decades down the line…
September 30th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
But Gav if you I don’t see any problem with the EU merging with the Asian, African and American equivalents eventually, then you do not see a problem with a world government? because thats what it would be.
I consider a world government very dangerous and inherently undemocratic.