6 thoughts on “Ending free movement of people in Europe will create a bureaucratic nightmare”

  1. Posted 08/07/2016 at 11:41 | Permalink

    Very simple. if they have a job they can come in. No benefits. If they lose their job, they go home pronto. All EU nationals with no job to be deported. We tell them how things will be. German industry still want to export to us as does France, Italy et al.

  2. Posted 08/07/2016 at 13:13 | Permalink

    I don’t know (and don’t particularly care) what would be “politically feasible” at the moment in the UK.

    I just know two basic truths:

    1. (In the long run) one cannot afford open borders AND a universal welfare state at the same time
    2. Government planning of immigration is cumbersome and expensive (as pointed out by Jonathan Portes)

    So why not simply make the welfare state two-tiered, i.e. exclude first-generation immigrants from its benefits?

    This way, the British can keep their welfare system (if they wish so) AND one avoids the bureaucratic monstrosities associated with government planning of immigration.

    Immigration would finance itself.

    Instead of having to sacrifice resources for immigrants (by having to finance the immigration bureaucracy and/or welfare benefits) the British would profit by trading goods and services with them.

    P.S. @Dr Evil: If there aren’t welfare benefits for immigrants, then immigrants without a job will leave anyway to find a job elsewhere. They would, of course, be happy to be deported by the government – instead of having to pay for the flight themselves.

  3. Posted 08/07/2016 at 14:35 | Permalink

    A large article that assumes access to the eu market more important than immigration. Wrong assumption.

    I beginning to think that ukip is going to win the next election as current politicians and business leaders are determined to sabotage our democratic vote.

  4. Posted 08/07/2016 at 22:10 | Permalink

    Good article – as always with good articles it is easier to pick out the obvious error than to expand on the good stuff. The obvious error in this case being “it is impossible to view the referendum result as anything other than a rejection of free movement in its current form”.

    The referendum question was on EU membership alone. I know a lot of people didn’t read and understand the question, like you’re told to before you do your A-level exams, but EU membership was the only question. Surveys indicate that immigration was not the dominant reason for voting leave. And even among those for whom immigration is a big issue, a good portion of that is fear of terrorism which currently comes overwhelmingly from one specific sect of one religion.

    More on topic, I know the UK had free movement with Ireland before joining the EU. Why would we want to include Ireland in some kind of NINO quota when they were not previously limited? How could you then justify treating say Spanish or other EU workers differently from the Irish. And were there any other countries with which the UK had free movement with before joining the EU in the 70s?

  5. Posted 10/07/2016 at 21:27 | Permalink

    @Evil.
    IEA publication: “Recent EU migrants (those who arrived after 1999) contributed 34 per cent more in taxes than they received in benefits over the same period. In contrast, over the same period, the total of UK natives’ tax payments was 11 per cent lower than the transfers they received. Recent EU migrants were more than 50 per cent less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They are also far better educated than natives: 32 per cent had a university degree. The comparable figure for UK natives is 21 per cent.”
    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Chapter%2006%20Freedom%20of%20movement%20Legrain.pdf

    Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the system of British welfare state. Maybe government should kick out everybody without work from the UK? Even unemployed Britons…

    PS. Some people love democracy much more than freedom. Their choice. I love freedom and economics. I’d like to see benefit-cost analysis first.

  6. Posted 11/07/2016 at 20:01 | Permalink

    MartinCh: EU migrants contributing 34% more taxes than they receive in benefits is likely true because people who have the ability; motivation; and confidence to move country are likely to be a success. It is also true for those over 20 years old the UK state will not have to pay for their education. However does this figure include in rich EU nationals who live in London and drive sports cars? If so they will bring the average up.

    I don’t see Immigration as a problem myself but I’m from Scotland. We have not had as much immigration as down South. We also have a small population and have a large financial services sector; oil and gas jobs and Barnett formula for our public sector. We even get one fifth of the lottery money for our charity sector despite being an eleventh of the population.

Comments are closed.