Today the findings of UCL’s academic analysis of the
financial and other impacts of immigration on the UK economy hit the headlines.
Amongst other things, it puts the final nail in the coffin of the ‘health’ and
benefit tourists’ myths at the heart of UKIP policies, with European migrants
making a net contribution of over £20bn over a ten year period. It even makes
the recent increased contribution demand of £1.7bn look tiny. It is precisely
why the idea of free movement is at the core of EU policy – the economic
advantages of a mobile workforce as well as the trade that brings are immense. Effectively,
the report removes all financial reasons why the current level of immigration
from the EU would be opposed.
So, what is UKIP’s response to this academic, fact-based
analysis of the data?
Steven Woolfe MEP, UKIP’s immigration spokesman, replied here.
Let’s have a look at this in detail.
1. “The principal issue for UKIP has never been
about whether immigrants are all 'benefit scroungers'. We recognise that
immigration can be economically advantageous for the UK.”
Really? These posters and leaflets really put that message
across don't they?
We already operate a quite restrictive
points based system for non-EU immigrants – but the UKIP policy would actually close the borders to all but the rich – also startlingly, removing
residency rights and allowing ‘application’ for these only after TEN YEARS.
3.
"What this study doesn't do is to show what
wealth our own people could have generated if they weren't subjected to
wage-reducing, employment-displacing mass immigration from the EU. Nor does it
truly take into account the opportunity costs to the UK of substituting large
sections of Britain's workforce with migrant labour.”
No, because it is based on fact, not
speculation. Also, there is no mass immigration; no work displacement due to
migration (because that is the Lump of Labour fallacy); the changes in
employment practices and fall in wages are a direct result of government
policy. As for substituting the UK
workforce – the study reveals that the EU migrants are better educated
and qualified (“in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10
countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while
the comparable share is 24% among natives”) – equivalent to a £6.8bn investment in education. Again, this is
the fault of government policy, the destruction of proper apprenticeships, polytechnics,
EMA and the scandalous university fees . Employers will employ the best
qualified (and isn’t that a ‘libertarian’ idea?).
4. “I am also very alarmed how the methodology of
the report pits migrants from the EU against immigrants from the wider world. I
fundamentally disagree with the discrimination of our current system which
favours Europeans at the expense of people from the Commonwealth and the rest
of the globe. It shouldn't matter which country you are from when applying for
a visa. A fair and ethical immigration policy should be based on merit and
need.”
He’s trying to discredit the study by
accusing it of discrimination! This is farcically nonsensical; the study has to
consider the different groups as different laws and restrictions apply, aside
from the greatly differing demographics of the source populations.
The current points system does discriminate
depending on home country. Is he suggesting that English native-speakers are
treated the same as non-speakers? That the security measures applied to some
nationals be applied universally? That the differing treaties we have with different
countries all be negated?
The core message here is that the anti-immigrant fears and
myths are just that and have no basis in fact. Any attempt to continue them
after this report should be carefully scrutinised – exactly why would anyone oppose
immigration, when it supplies vital support to our economy?
No comments:
Post a Comment