Continuing the debate on migration; folks, I believe the
damage (if that is the right word) has already been done. I feel the Coalition Governments 'cap on
immigration' concept smacks of closing the door after the horse has bolted!
When is enough, enough? Has anyone in the Westminster bubble
given a thought to just what impact a population of 70, or 80million will have on
our standard of living?
Has anyone researched whether we have the land availability
and sufficient agricultural usage, the impact on our environment and water provision;
and that’s before we consider jobs, infrastructure, transport and the
affordability of social services, utilities, pensions, education and the NHS?
According to the latest figures 63 million people now live
in the UK – an additional 4.3 million since 2001. England and Wales have
experienced the largest ten-year rise since records began and approximately 25%
of all births were to mothers born abroad. Much of this has been brought about
by the uncontrolled inter movement of migrating peoples across Europe.
Because of this so-called ‘free movement across Europe’ we do
not accurately count the incomers, nor count the leavers; so how on earth can
we possibly rely on any of the guesstimates given by our Governments? The truth is, as I see
it, is that people here in the UK are so used to be fed lies and more lies from
successive Governments, the thinking ones no longer believe anything they’re told.
What they do believe is what they see with their own eyes; in their own towns
and cities.
In a nut-shell, I think most people agree that the balanced immigration of productive,
tax-paying workers is good news, likewise fee-paying, short stay international students.
The more the better. What we don’t want is criminals, terrorists and social
security scroungers.
But the problem we all face now, with all this extra
pressure on or creaking systems, is that our politicians have not dealt with the
population growth problem, by investing sufficiently in the infrastructure
needed to support the increasing numbers – transport links, places of work,
schools, and hospitals.
If I may quote the bleeding obvious, investment was needed at the
same pace as the growth. Houses and infrastructure cannot now be conjured up
out of thin air!
So basically, we have been ignoring a rapidly rising
population aligned with a declining economy, and now find ourselves unable to
pay for the infrastructure expansion needed …but, I fear that we do not have
the calibre of politicians capable of sorting this out.
I read that the Migration Observatory, which is based at the
University of Oxford. It said margins of error mean that net migration figures
could actually be 35,000 higher or lower that those stated by the ONS.( Office
for National Statistics) – Which shows we still do not know just how many
arrive and just how many people leave! What is clear though is that while we
are told inward migration is falling (According to the Home Office website
there were 165,000 EU migrants into the UK in the 12 months up to March 2012 –
down from 185,000 in the previous 12 months) it is not clear how many are
leaving.
Another aspect, as I see it, is that many of those who are
leaving are wealthy and self-financing and very many of those arriving are not
and will just be a net cost on other tax payers. Many will, in due course,
bring over elderly relatives and other dependants who may also be a further
huge burden on the state. The current tax system together with our very
generous benefits system tends to deter the rich and productive people and
is attractive to spongers.
The real answer to this, and many other of the UKs economic
problems, would be to leave the EU. We would immediately regain the ability to
control our own borders and we could also get rid of the EU human rights laws
that make it almost impossible to remove undesirables, criminals and suspected
terrorists, like Abu Qatada.
Come the next General Election, immigration will, again, be
at the forefront of politics, but unlike last time, it will not be ignored.
We desperately need brave politicians and people with guts,
who will introduce a properly controlled immigration policy which works for all
the peoples of these islands and direct these matters for us and for once, in our
favour, and not merely pick a few morsels of the low hanging fruit in an effort
to appease those who believe the popular press and acquiesce to those unelected
EU bureaucrats who pull the strings from Brussels.
I look forward to receiving your comments.
Me again...
ReplyDeleteSome more interesting points. As you say, much of this is a political issue of lack of investment. We have more than enough space to accommodate our current population and its expansion, yet investment in housing and infrastructure has been severely lacking since the eighties.
Taking a long-term view, there's little doubt that our ageing population will put severe strain on resources, and migration is one way to make up for our shrinking birth rate.
As you rightly say, the coalition is reaching for the low-hanging fruit, which is only making things worse. They champion reductions in migration made up primarily of those who pay thousands of pounds to sit in a lecture hall for three years. Not a smart move, I think we can all agree.
As for the "social security scroungers" and the benefit tourists, the stats don't seem to back this up at present. The DWP did some research on benefit tourism last year (I assume they hoped to find lots) but found that: "As at February 2011, 16.6% of working age UK nationals were claiming a DWP working age benefit compared to 6.6% of working age non-UK nationals". Even Chris Grayling was forced to concede at the time that it "isn’t a problem right now". (http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2012/nat_nino_regs.pdf)
As for the generosity of the UK benefit system, this also seems to have been conjured up from somewhere unknown. Eurostat research from 2009 showed that there were twelve EU countries who paid out more in social protection benefits than the UK does. (Fig1: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-SF-09-102). There's an EU report which produced similar stats.
I'm also wary about accepting the simplistic 'silver bullet' solution of leaving the EU. Firstly, regarding concerns around human rights law, people often confuse the EU with the ECHR, despite them being completely separate institutions. Leaving the EU would do little to affect the existing human rights legislation.
Secondly, the levels of misinformation on human rights law is astonishing. So much so that I can't really blame those who disparage the ECHR, given the sheer weight of lies they've been subjected to. Theresa May's fibs about immigrants staying because they own a cat being a perfect example of these. In reality, since the Human Rights Act was incorporated into UK law in 1998 the number of cases going to Strasbourg has fallen to the low double (sometimes single) digits. This is because the HRA allowed British courts to adjudicate on these matters, rather than all cases going to the European Court.
Moreover, the HRA is designed to protect us against the power of our own governments. They're supposed to apply to ALL of us, that's the point, in the same way that free speech applies to ALL views, no matter how objectionable they may be. It's a backstop against our own incompetent politicians, to protect us from them, something which I hope you'd be able to identify with as a frequent critic of them.
It's often said that the shortest debate in this area of politics is to ask a critic of the ECHR to read the rights included in the treaty and ask which of them they would like to discard.
Newspapers such as the Mail are quick to denigrate the ECHR, but that doesn't stop them using the protections of the convention themselves: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/57.html
This isn't to say that the EU itself isn't devoid of problems (much like our own government, might I add) - personally I'd like to see the costly CAP scrapped, as it only benefits wealthy landowners - but I don't see this as a reason to leave the EU, just as I don't see Cameron or Miliband's incompetence as a reason to leave the UK and set-up a stateless society.
This discussion is proving interesting...
I don't for one minute doubt that some immigration is healthy and benefits the UK. Look at the 28,000 Ugandan Asian Immigrants/Asylum seekers, probably the most successful migration ever to our shores, or the migration of tens of thousands from the West Indies or even the fact that London is France's 6th most populous city. Take a look at the Bangla community in Tameside, note the very high rates of self employment, Taxis, Takeaways, Shops etc. All of these communities have competed in business with the indigenous population and have beaten them, because they are prepared to work to smaller profit margins or for longer hours. I am a great believer in competitiveness and that only strong businesses should survive, this however must be weighed against the fact that we have somewhere between 2.5-5M people out of work in this country. The costs of these state funded benefits must be balanced against the success of the immigrant community. Our governments duty must always be to the people who live in this country NOW, not to those who may come along later and depress wages or undercut established business. So I think it is time to close our borders to unskilled/low skilled immigration and operate an fair points based system.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1980's I was a mature student at Salford university. The chair of politics was occupied by Prof David Marquand, advisor to Roy Jenkins in his role as President of the European commission and a former Labour MP.
ReplyDeleteOne evening he gave a guest lecture. He openly stated that amongst the political elite the big question was not "Will there be a united Europe?" but "When will there be a United Europe". No question of democratic choice.
So there we have it,from a major 'player' in politics. The elite have decided already our future!
Thanks for the insight on 'Europe'; it's long been expected. C
Delete