[Closed] The free movement of people in Europe

I see immigration as a good thing. We've had relatively open borders for years. I wouldn't be here if my granddad hadn't come over form Poland after WW2 and me my grandmother. He got a job, he learned the language and he integrated into the community.
Migrant workers do a lot of work that Brits now feel is below them.

The contentious issues seem to be around the exploitation of migrant workers, the lax benefits system and the greedy industries that use immigration as a tool to drive down wages.

If people are prepared to work and put into the system that they take from, be that financially or with services to their local communities, I have no issues.

What would happen if we let anyone in who wanted to come?

[quote=Junkyard ]I apologise I meant it as a light hearted comment in relation to aracer post.

If it helps at all, I chuckled.

I wonder how much different the population size would actually be if net migration on that graph was zero during every year, I bet a lot of the recent migration has effectively only negated the negative net migration from a few decades ago....if net migration was negative further back than that graph shows.

What's the problem with dense population centres anyway, that's the way the world is going and it's better for the planet as a whole.

I know,ninfan,
I cant see how it would be achieved without creating a very large and wide ranging secure! database, bringing all member states in to line with the same policing, judiciary and record keeping standards at huge expense and I imagine what the telegrapgh/mail etc would have a shitfit over 'surrendering' more powers to the EU

Neither do I, I suspect that the only viable option would have been a visa/method of disclosure before taking up residence - one thing it does highlight to me is the likely effectiveness of CRB/DBS checks (ie. if the police were unaware of this blokes conviction for murder and supposedly had no way of knowing despite having investigated him for an alleged sexual assault on a minor, then what else don't they know about people when they are clearing people to work with kids etc?)

i'm just surprised at your position

I don't have a position. thats why I said the question was open as to further integration or stricter rules, though I'm damn sure that we should have answered it properly (in either direction) before embarking on the journey to freedom of movement

I suspect that the only viable option would have been a visa/method of disclosure before taking up residence - one thing it does highlight to me is the likely effectiveness of CRB checks (ie. if the police were unaware of this blokes conviction for murder and supposedly had no way of knowing despite having investigated him for an alleged sexual assault on a minor, then what else don't they know about people when they are issuing CRB checks?)

Personally I hope that if we leave the EU because of the open borders issue, Spain slaps us in the face by seizing all the British pensioners property over there and then cart them all back to us to bleed the NHS dry.

That'll teach us for not wanting people of working age in the country.

ninfan - Member
I know,ninfan,
I cant see how it would be achieved without creating a very large and wide ranging secure! database, bringing all member states in to line with the same policing, judiciary and record keeping standards at huge expense and I imagine what the telegrapgh/mail etc would have a shitfit over 'surrendering' more powers to the EU
Neither do I, I suspect that the only viable option would have been a visa/method of disclosure before taking up residence - one thing it does highlight to me is the likely effectiveness of CRB/DBS checks (ie. if the police were unaware of this blokes conviction for murder and supposedly had no way of knowing despite having investigated him for an alleged sexual assault on a minor, then what else don't they know about people when they are clearing people to work with kids etc?)

I don't really know what is, possibly having a Europe wide database of serious criminals(I'm surprised something like that doesn't already exist).

But the issue will be 2 fold, there will be many nasty people that the UK exports abroad too, so you send some away, you get some back...

But the basic principle of free movement across Europe must surely also need to apply to ex convicts too?

It's an evil, but one that is unlikely to eradicated via legislation. Certainly won't be solved by stopping and hassling your average joe at borders.

Immigration is fine. Mass immigration is not.

The UK population is projected to grow by over 9 million (9.4m) in just 25 years’ time, increasing from 64 million in 2013 to 73 million by 2039. Of this increase, about two thirds is projected to be due to future migrants and their children - the equivalent of the current populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Newcastle, Belfast and Aberdeen.

[quote=ninfan ]one thing it does highlight to me is the likely effectiveness of CRB checks (ie. if the police were unaware of this blokes conviction for murder and supposedly had no way of knowing despite having investigated him for an alleged sexual assault on a minor, then what else don't they know about people when they are issuing CRB checks?)

Let's just briefly derail this thread...

The other things they don't know about are the offences people haven't been caught for, and people's criminal intentions. Clearly the CRB is a limited tool, though not completely worthless, and the biggest issue is the expectations people have of it - a clean CRB is no indication of somebody totally law abiding or who won't commit future criminal acts. I'd hope that those responsible for employing people in positions where CRBs are required don't consider people to then be totally safe and require no further supervision.

As the holder of a (totally clean for what that's worth) CRB check though, the biggest bugbear is the way the system works means that I'd need a new CRB in order to work with the Beaver Scouts (or Cubs etc.) The one I have for the school next door to the village hall they meet in, and which most of the kids go to is no good (though is at least good for other local schools). I'd have happily stepped in and avoided one of their activities being cancelled due to lack of leaders had this been possible. Yes I could get a new one for Scouts, but it's stupid that I need to do that in order to be able to help out on a one-off basis.

I'd guess the majority of the anti-foreigner sentiment comes from the Tabloid press using them as an excuse for the reduction in low wage jobs. All developed economies are going through a transition right now with a large reduction in low skill roles. Blaming foreigners is far simpler than blaming Globalisation, Free Trade or Technology, all of which are continually reducing the number of low skill jobs in the developed world.

What's the problem with dense population centres anyway,

that's the way the world is going and it's better for the planet as a whole.

Its probably better for the planet as a whole if the human race ceased to exist. It doesn't mean humans would be particularly happy about it.

But the basic principle of free movement across Europe must surely also need to apply to ex convicts too?

Should it?

I personally think that depends on the nature of the offence

and, without being flippant, its not long ago that Geert Wilders was refused entry into the UK on the basis of his inflammatory speeches, so its not without precedent that we do act to control EU freedom of movement when it suits us!

You make a valid point about it not being just one way - To be clear I'd be just as concerned about the possibility of someone from the UK with a long history of child sexual offences being able to move abroad to somewhere like Poland or Latvia and disappear off the radar with no record as to his past offences as I would with one coming here. I think its a huge weakness in the system.

I don't think it would be totally unreasonable to say that anyone with a conviction for a list of serious offences had a restriction on their freedom of movement, giving a legal duty to disclose it to of the authorities of any country they intended to reside in (and perhaps inform their own country of their intentions beforehand to allow things to be linked up) - and for that 'host' country to be allowed to refuse them.

(oops, double post deleted)

Projected? How does that factor in changing economic world over the next 25 years and it's impact on immigration and emigration? Changes in many parts of europe could lead to a big reversal of the trends, a boom in another part of the world could take people away too. As earlier said the balance was previously changed by a reduction in people emigrating. Get used to a world without borders, it will be a better place.

What's the problem with dense population centres anyway

I'd move to France if London/Surrey got much more populated, quite spacious there.

[quote=seosamh77 ]But the issue will be 2 fold, there will be many nasty people that the UK exports abroad too, so you send some away, you get some back...

But the basic principle of free movement across Europe must surely also need to apply to ex convicts too?

Interesting point. Should Barcelona be allowed to sign Ched Evans?

😈

wrecker - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/02/the-myth-of-the-immigrant-benefit-scrounger/

I really can't see why you'd think foreigners claiming benefits was a significant issue unless you believe what you read in the Daily Mail/Express.

ninfan - Member
But the basic principle of free movement across Europe must surely also need to apply to ex convicts too?
Should it?

I personally think that depends on the nature of the offence

and, without being flippant, its not long ago that Geert Wilders was refused entry into the UK on the basis of his inflammatory speeches, so its not without precedent that we do act to control EU freedom of movement when it suits us!

You make a valid point about it not being just one way - To be clear I'd be just as concerned about the possibility of someone from the UK with a long history of child sexual offences being able to move abroad to somewhere like Poland or Latvia and disappear off the radar with no record as to his past offences as I would with one coming here. I think its a huge weakness in the system.

Well there is an issue of a line and where you place it though? I'd guess there could well be a scheme agreed europe wide where violent criminals with a likelyhood of reoffending are denied a passport, but it'd need to be europe wide, for it to work?

I'd guess that is possibly an issue worth looking at.

But your average criminal that has served their time. I don't see any reason why they should be denied a passport.

passport would be irrelevant within the Schengen area though (talking whole EU rules rather than just UK aren't we!) so you could move around at free will.

of course we're not talking about your average shoplifter, but I'm sure we could come up with a list of serious offences which it would seem logical and beneficial to consider as worthy of imposing conditions.

ninfan - Member
passport would be irrelevant within the Schengen area though (talking whole EU rules rather than just UK aren't we!) so you could move around at free will.

I don't see it as a reason to restrict movement of EU nationals into britain though, until that question is answered, we'll just have to take our chances.

I do agree there should be a EU database though that the UK could utilize.

saying that though, I would take the UK into Schengen.

unless you believe what you read in the Daily Mail/Express.

Nor do the benefit figures suggest there are large numbers of Poles for whom spongeing off the state is the chief reason for coming to Britain.

Seosamh - It just seems preposterous that we can stop Mike Tyson visiting the country, but have no control or knowledge of, for example, a murderer from Latvia moving here permanently.

ninfan - Member
It seems silly that we can stop Mike Tyson visiting the country, but have no control or knowledge of, for example, a murderer from Latvia moving here permanently.

Edit: It's a point that we don't have UK passports anymore, we have EU passports.

Does anybody really think that Dave, George and chums are realistically proposing to do anything significant about mass immigration, other than bluster away for a bit with some vaguely UKIP-ish noises? Seriously?

Get a grip!

They are arch Thatcherites. They believe, to quote their hero, that mass unemployment is 'a price worth paying' to suit their idealogical free-market agenda. It keeps wages down, and insecure people don't go on strike or generally get uppity! They keep their heads down.

On the one hand you've got their corporate donor mates, in their boardrooms, demanding a constant stream of immigrants to keep their wage costs down, and their indigenous workforce on their toes. And the upper middle classes who want cheap Latvian nannies to look after pre-school Jemima and Tarquin, and Polish builders to do a good cheap job on their new conservatory on their second home in Cornwall

On the other you've got the working poor, who have seen their standard of living, wages, and perks progressively whittled away, year on year, and now find their wages eroded by the same flow of immigrants, sat on zero hours contracts, and borrowing money from Wonga to make it to the end of the month.

Which way do you think they're going to jump on this particular issue? Seriously? Who's interests are they going to look after here?

Do you honestly believe that Dave and George give a toss about the bricky in Southampton who's day rates have halved? Or the school leaver in a Rochdale council estate who can't get a job because all the casual positions aren't even advertised in this country? The housewife in Croydon who can't get her kid into a local primary school?

Do me a favour! This is all just noncommittal mood music to try and shoot UKIPs goose before the by-election next month. Theres no way on earth that they plan to do a bloody thing about mass immigration. We might get some token gestures to throw to the Daily Mail pre the general election, but nothing of any substance. Thats for sure! It fits in perfectly with their neo liberal agenda. They bloody love what mass immigration has delivered!

If you think they're serious about actually changing anything, you're totally delusional! And labour are in the pay of the same people, so don't expect them to change the status quo either. And if it ever comes to really doing anything UKIP wouldn't either! As they're even more corporatist, and evangelical about the God of 'The Market' than the Tories

Yeah, but with the Newcastle example, we have a criminal record and database that would show up his convictions

we seemingly don't have that for the Latvian

it seems ridiculous that we didn't settle the answer to that problem before opening up the borders

binners, are you @Cassetteboy?

seosamh77 - Member

There seems to be no challenge to my point that they contribute more than they take. So where is the problem coming from? It's not financial.

Because you didn't make a point, you said:

why not? I'd have a guess that the tax taken from European workers far outstrips the benefits given.

Which is a guess, why would people bother to go away and do research to prove your guess wrong if you can't be botherd to find anything to suppourt it yourself.

I have no idea BTW, but I would counter guess it's not, and can at least suppourt that with a resoned hypothesis. Simple fact of the progressive tax system is that you have to be significanlty above the average earnings to reach a point where you'll be paying in more than you get out. So an influx of largely unskilled labour and tradesmen (stereotypical fruit pickers and plumbers) earning below the national average will be net drains on the tax system.

However, there's then the benefit of filling gaps in the labour market which increaces overall productivity (more plumbers means more houses get built, more fruit pickers mean a bigger cider industry, etc).

However again, imigrants tend to send money home. This is a huge drain on the economy as you kill of the multiplier effect as that wage then doesnt go onto suppourt other wages (the plumber doesnt then spend all his money in the pub suppourting the barman, and the fruitpicker who contributed to his cider).

I agree ninfan it does seem crazy

An EU wide sex offenders database or similar would make a lot of sense
I suspect it would require a lot of legislation

its just a shame that people in the UK seem to think that electing UKIP memebers as their MEP is a good idea when they have such poor attendance records (but still max out the expenses) so our influence within the EU is lessened

[i]Personaly I'd like to see a link between NI contributions and unemployment benefits. E.g. only claiming 1 year in 8, after a minimum contributing period of 3 years or something. [/i]

So would you re-instigate Workhouses for those (British) folk you are made unemployed in their first 3 years?

I have no problem with emigrants (increase gene pool etc) or getting rid of jobworths but I see no point in giving up power to the zombie maggot bureaucrats ...

😈

fair point binners.

footflaps - I'm afraid that unlike him I have no discernible talent

However again, imigrants tend to send money home. This is a huge drain on the economy as you kill of the multiplier effect as that wage then doesnt go onto suppourt other wages (the plumber doesnt then spend all his money in the pub suppourting the barman, and the fruitpicker who contributed to his cider).

I'd guess the sending home of wages, also helps build economies elsewhere, leading to less immigration from these countries in future.

binners - Member
footflaps - I'm afraid that unlike him I have no discernible talent

I'm not of the opinion that the vast majority of people come to the UK do so to claim benefits, but if the above is true then they won't mind if there are no benefits on offer.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn't get any benefits at all? If it's not to do with how much they've paid in, it's just because they're foreign? If they are out of work for 2 months surely it makes more sense for them to get benefits than face the upheaval of moving back home and potential moving back here when they find another job?

Which is a guess, why would people bother to go away and do research to prove your guess wrong if you can't be botherd to find anything to suppourt it yourself.

I have no idea BTW, but I would counter guess it's not, and can at least suppourt that with a resoned hypothesis. Simple fact of the progressive tax system is that you have to be significanlty above the average earnings to reach a point where you'll be paying in more than you get out. So an influx of largely unskilled labour and tradesmen (stereotypical fruit pickers and plumbers) earning below the national average will be net drains on the tax system.

There's certainly research showing that on average immigrants (certainly those from the EEA) contribute more than than UK citizens. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they are generally educated 'for free' by another country which we get the advantage of. The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a recently published report claimed.

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, the authors noted, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality," one of the study's authors Christian Dustmann, professor of economics at University College London, said.

That's not the whole picture of course. Quite an interesting overview here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn't get any benefits at all? If it's not to do with how much they've paid in, it's just because they're foreign?

I'll answer your question with the original quote:

Why is that a problem?

kill of the multiplier effect

I agree with the rest of your point, in the long term it'll lead to an average/fairer EU. But you could be looking at generational timescales.

And it's of dubious benefit too. Remeber in recent years charities banging on about 'trade not aid'? It's far better to invest in, and buy products from, countries than simply pay money into them. For example as this is a sporty forum if I buy a boat from Devotti, or a bike from PYGA then that money is far better for the Polish or S.African economy than just giving them the money as they can then build another boat/bike, whereas just giving the money is a finite process.

The movement of people in Europe crosses and confuses politics.

The freedom of movement of people is supposed to be one of the core 4 freedoms of the whole project but like so many EU issues this gets confused with national interests. Some of the most pro European parties and countries struggle to come to terms with this - which, while unsurprising given that the whole EU is based on so many fudges and inconsistencies, is depressing.

The freedom of movement of people is a good thing and immigration is a net positive for the UK economy. Ditto the freedom of goods, services and capital. They are fundamental to what Europe SHOULD be about.

Funny how people who support freedom of movement for people and respecting immigrants to this country are often unhappy about EU companies coming here and bidding for work.

But then again Europe is a very confused issue!!

yes, I believe that the parent country is responsible for the support of it's unemployed citizens. Goes both ways, the UK govt would be responsible for paying the welfare benefits to UK citizens working wherever.

OK, I've lived in Spain for 18 years now. I pay all my taxes here, use the local services (Spanish NHS, for example) and if unemployed I'd not hesitate to claim Spanish dole. Why should the UK government support me (particularly when I don't even have the right to vote for them anymore)?

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country? Being able to pay your own way should be a prerequisite to permitting you to stay. It certainly is the case in Canada (you must prove that you have sufficient funds to support yourself in case you fall unemployed). They have the best system IMHO, tough as it is.

I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I've yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that's worth worrying about either.

whatnobeer - Member
I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I've yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that's worth worrying about either.

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country?

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish - having lived there for 18 years. 😕