Should migrants from the European Union have priority to enter the UK after we leave the union?
In a policy announcement at last week’s Conservative party conference, the government declared that EU citizens will no longer be given priority to live and work in the UK after Brexit. As a consequence, UK citizens may have to apply for visas to work and travel in Europe.
A recent report from the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, concluded that EU immigrants contribute more to the economy and use less public services than migrants from outside the EU. It also found no evidence that immigration had significant impact on overall employment and unemployment of the UK-born workforce, although on the latter point it conceded that impact may vary between lower-skilled and higher-skilled workforces.
Despite the statistics, respondents to our poll overwhelmingly backed a merit-based system where the same criteria are applied to all potential immigrants, regardless of nationality. A significant majority of 65 per cent favoured this option in last week’s poll, ostensibly showing support for the government’s declared position. A quarter of respondents signalled that priority for EU citizens should be maintained on the basis that it smooths relations with our closest trading partners, while just two per cent felt EU citizens should be prioritised to maximise tax revenues.
Unsurprisingly, given the subject matter, opinions below the line were impassioned.
“It looks like we will need another ‘Windrush’ input from the Commonwealth countries – if they want to come – to do the jobs that the UK workers won’t do,” declared a reader with the username Sandy. “Who will pull parsnips, wash cars, change sheets etc. when the Eastern Europeans can’t come?”
Elsewhere, Another Steve commented: “Immigration should be directly tied to the country’s skill needs. Applicants should be assessed based on a fair and open competition that looks at the skills, a definite job offer, financial viability and health of all applicants. Short term, low skilled, seasonal workers should be managed outside of this system using temporary visas.”
The comments section below will remain open and we welcome further contributions, but please remember to keep it civil. Our reader guidelines for engagement can be found here.
The MAC report does indeed assert ‘The positive net contribution to the public finances is
larger for EU13+ migrants than for NMS migrants’: however correlation does not imply causation and this MAY simply be a statistical effect from comparing two diverse migrant groups with different skill levels, doing different jobs. For two equally qualified applicants – say a Swede and an Australian, I see no reason one would contribute more than the other to UK plc, simply because they come from an EU country, nor any grounds for preferential treatment
There is every reason to favour neighbouring EU country’s……they have more engineering on a par and type with us and being adjacent involve no great shipping costs. Shipping is surely the most polluting form of transport–note the familiar trail of sooty exhaust a ship leaves trailing behind from the cheap crude fuel oil they (have always used) in their diesels. No Cross Channel ferry/Tunnel to the southern hemisphere
Well, there is at least ONE reason not to – the 2016 Referendum Result – and just to be clear I’m not advocating discrimination AGAINST EU citizens only that everyone else can also have a ‘fair go’ as my (hypothetical) Aussie job applicant might say
“Theresa May … plans to end free movement “once and for all”, ”
Well, that’ll work both ways … (& not to our advantage).
I wonder how long before we become a democratic country like –
democratic republic of Congo, democratic peoples republic of Korea,
the East German Democratic Republic.
Why have we stupidly given so much power to short term thinking politicians who put party dogma before everything else ???
All sides of this argument need their heads banging together.
There is no correlation/causation relationship alluded to here. There is the simple statistical fact that EU migrants contribute more than non-EU migrants.
The report states: ‘EU migrants contribute more than non-EU migrants’ (correlation) … but do they contribute more BECAUSE they are EU migrants (causation)? I’m simply suggesting there MAY be other factors such as the two groups having different skill sets & going for different jobs with varying ‘added value’. If you compare like-for-like two equally skilled applicants for the same job, does the mere possession of a burgundy passport make one inherently pay higher tax / draw less benefits?
The exact reasons why EU migrants contribute more are no doubt many and varied, including socio-economic, cultural and perhaps even political. What is indisputable is that they contribute more. Talk of correlation and causation simply obfuscates the issue.
There are one and a half million unemployed people in the UK, why don’t we get them to do some work?
Due to the post WW2 baby boom we are faced with a growing pensioner population that have a large impact on government spending in a period of shrinking government income. I have little doubt therefore that the country needs more young taxpayers to fill the gap. It is of little use allowing none English speakers with low skill levels into the country when they have little hope finding work, but can come with impunity as the free movement principle allows. Also unskilled migrants are far more likely to make demands on social securities and tax benefits. Within the EU we may have been able to negociate with other members to make changes to the Free Movement ideology. But outside of the EU the likelyhood is that migration from the EU will dry up and we will be the poorer for it.
“It is of little use allowing none English speakers with low skill levels into the country when they have little hope finding work, but can come with impunity as the free movement principle allows. Also unskilled migrants are far more likely to make demands on social securities and tax benefits.”
How can you make such a statement after reading this in the article:
“A recent report from the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, concluded that EU immigrants contribute more to the economy and use less public services than migrants from outside the EU.”
It looks like we will need another ‘ Windrush’ input from the Commonwealth countries – if they want to come- to do the jobs that the UK workers won’t do. Who will pull parsnips, wash cars, change sheets etc. when the Eastern Europeans can’t come? It’s the same in the U.S. where Trump’s Texans won’t clean their own pools and mow their own grass, yet he wants to keep the Mexicans on their side of ‘The Wall’- or the Rio Grande as it’s usually known.
Employ the best worker for the job, from anywhere as long as they turn up consistently and have high productivity; whether this is on a points system will be up to the Govt. at the time- hopefully not this one!
Of course the UK should give preference – or better still freedom of movement – to EU citizens. That way UK citizens will also be given the same rights in Europe.
As for skills based admissions, that is currently determined by the market for EU citizens. In future, will it be a committee of civil servants deciding whether we need injection moulding experts or specialist welders?
The Poll question doesn’t mention making reciprocal treatment for UK workers a precondition for allowing EU citizens free access to the UK job market. Even if it were, you appear to be arguing to disregard the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the EU and it’s ‘four freedoms’: Free movement of goods, of capital, of persons and the freedom to establish and provide services. Keeping just migration and losing goods, capital and services seems like throwing away the baby and KEEPING the bathwater
There was no referendum on leaving the four freedoms. It’s quite feasible – and sensible – to leave the EU whilst keeping the four freedoms.
That includes freedom of movement whoich provides benefits by itself.
No, that is precisely what the referendum _was_ about, abrogating the Treaty of Rome
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_European_Economic_Community
I would be surprised if any gathering of civil servants knew what an injection moulding or weld was, let alone could make a decision about such. I recall an uncle telling me that during WWII folk who were unemployed were taught to be welders in weeks: and this publication has already corrected my comment about Rosie the Riveter. If it was good enough in those days, surely to do the same to prepare for the newest economic conflict post Biscuit would be acceptable as well!
We didn’t give it! they took it! because to do so continues their status to remain in power.
Short term? What extent of short-term pandering to short term fads will keep us there?
Then do that!
Immigration should be directly tied to the country’s skill needs. Applicants should be assessed based on a fair and open competition that looks at the skills, a definite job offer, financial viability and health of all applicants. Short term, low skilled, seasonal workers should be managed outside of this system using temporary visas. Like many other countries if a UK employer wants to hire a foreign worker they should have to demonstrate that there are no UK residents available that could do the job.
There are no reasons why EU workers should receive special privileges, particularly, if we are an egalitarian society – hire the best person for the job regardless of race, religeon or sex. The argument that such a policy would restrict UK workers ability to work in EU countries is a fallacy as most UK workers only have one language, english, and therefore could only get unskilled work abroad at best.
Assessed by who? By a bunch of civil servants trying to decide on the appropriateness of some one’s skill sets?
Forget it. If a company needs to go through this bureacracy to hire someone, better just move to the single market where there’s a pool of 500 million people, many with the required skills.
Read my comment !
I suggested they needed to have a definite job offer, so the skills assessors would be UK Industry. The civil servants would just be ticking boxes, which they are well capable of.
The UK needs to be getting appropriate labour, as needed, from the World pool not just the EU pool, why make it easy for 27 countries of which maybe only half a dozen are not borderline ‘third world’ when we can deal openly and equally with all 195 countries on our planet ?
I suspect the companies you refer to are the ones who like the cheap labour and exploitation potential offered by the EU – I’m quite happy to see the back of such companies.
Well, who complained & did anything about it ?
&
who keeps voting them back in then ????
who complained?- approx 50% of voters every time
Who keeps voting ’em back?Well, unless saveenergy is advocating an alternative to Parliamentary Democracy, elections every now-and-then (often chosen to co-incide with some give-away of ‘our money -Governments (like banks) have none of their own…) are our only option. Approx 50% of voters every time