So why should Britain be particularly in the frame? Because we, alone among major EU countries, have opened our labour market to workers from Eastern Europe from the day they join - the May 1 this year. Greece, Sweden, Ireland and Holland are doing the same. Denmark is retaining tight control of her labour market. Other countries are continuing to require work permits for a transition period of up to seven years.
It is pretty clear that the British Government took this decision without thinking it through. They are acutely aware that, in Britain, there is a thriving black market for labour over which they have absolutely no control.
So they decided to let the newcomers work legally and collect the taxes. No thought was given to the numbers, still less to the persecuted minorities such as the Roma and the possibility that they would, so to speak, jump on the bandwagon.
Indeed, the Government Paper estimating the numbers was published after the decision was taken. Indeed, its top estimate was below the number of people who tried to enter Britain from the candidate countries last year. Because the Iron Curtain, in place for 50 years, prevented virtually all migration there is no relevant historical data. You have to make an informed guess. Ours, at Migrationwatch, was that perhaps 40, East Europeans would come to Britain every year but we also pointed to two wild cards - the Roma and the Russians.
There are 1. Indeed, special checks were introduced at Prague airport to deter them. The other wild card is the 1. Sent there originally by Stalin to place a Russian stamp on the area, they have not been granted citizenship and have not, for largely economic reasons, returned to Russia.
From May 1, they will be free to come to Britain to seek work. Perhaps the Government was not entirely deaf. When the relevant Bill came before the House of Lords, it slipped in a clause permitting it to impose restrictions if there was evidence of serious disturbance to our labour market. But by then the damage had been done. We had given the clear impression that Britain would be an open house for whoever felt like coming. The theme appears to be - if you come seeking work you are welcome but if you come seeking benefits you are not.
There is a serious risk that this campaign will backfire by drawing attention to the possibilities rather than deterring potential migrants. What an unforgivable mess. All the Government can do now is to hold its breath and hope against hope that there will not be a significant movement into Britain. If so, it has only itself to blame. It has been far too slow in getting to grips with these issues.
To give him his due, David Blunkett has made a start on false asylum seeking. But he is still not removing failed asylum seekers of whom four out of five stay on illegally. Above all, he has done nothing to restore our border controls.
Every year we issue 1. Indeed, the Home Secretary has admitted on television that he 'hasn't a clue' who is in this country. Instead of focusing first on getting some order into the system, he is actively promoting additional immigration. Quite apart from this ill-considered decision on Eastern Europe, he has quadrupled work permits to , a year plus dependants, and he has significantly widened several other schemes for importing workers.
All this is having a huge impact on our country and its future. Last year, nearly , additional foreigners came to Britain and 90, British citizens left. This adds more than , a year to our population or 1. They also tend to be in jobs earning less than British workers. In the early days of eastern European migration, there were no end of anecdotal stories of highly qualified people coming to the UK to do very basic jobs because they could earn so much more than at home.
But the all-important question is what effect does this have on the national coffers? Old member state citizens contribute the most - but even the lower-paid eastern European workers are making a net public contribution.
It's a big number - but the MAC says it's small beer. Take one example, in the agriculture sector: the graph clearly shows that there had been a long-term decline in British production of asparagus, cherries, raspberries and strawberries. But all four crops have grown or stabilised since when new workers from the east became available. Farmers, quite simply, saw an opportunity to expand thanks to a massive supply of cheap labour they didn't have before. They say that British workers, by and large, don't want the jobs, with long hours and not-so-fantastic pay.
What's not remotely clear is how employers would respond if the ready supply of EEA labour dried up, should free movement end. Critics of the current system say they would inevitably have to offer better terms and conditions to existing workers in the UK and invest more in productivity and technology - think strawberry-picking machine, rather than strawberry picker. That, say critics of free movement, would be a good thing for the UK. And that brings us to the other big topic - is the disruption caused by mass migration affecting the UK in other ways?
EEA workers make up an increasing share of the workforce in this sector, although historically the UK has relied more on nurses and doctors born in Commonwealth countries. The NHS doesn't record the country of birth of patients. So the report used the fact that EEA migrants to the UK tend to be younger - and we know that more is spent on caring for elderly than young people - to conclude that they're contributing more through their taxes than they are taking out.
The MAC did find an effect in both private and social housing, though. Its analysis suggests that migration has increased house prices and added to the demand for social housing, "inevitably at the expense" of others.
Although migrants are a small fraction of people in social housing, they are a rising number. However, the report concludes that the reduction in stock - because too few homes for social rent are being built - has a part to play too. Skip to main content. Main Menu Utility Menu Search. Anna Stansbury Ph. Candidate in Economics. Citation: Anna Stansbury.
0コメント