Theresa May’s 75,000 migrant cap might undermine pro-migrant arguments
Jonathan Lindsell, 16 December 2013
In late November I dissected David Cameron’s plans for restricting EU migrant benefits and rights, calling them ‘old, wrong or useless’. Over 70 Conservatives have signed a proposal defying European law to retain migration controls. This led the government to delay the Immigration Bill so rebels cannot humiliate the government or raise anti-Romanian/Bulgarian amendments before January. A Home Office document leaked to the Sunday Times suggests the Tories are proactive, not running scared.
The proposals include:
– An annual cap of 75,000 EU immigrants.
– ‘Professionals and high-skilled migrants from countries such as Germany, Holland or Austria could move here only if they had a job offer.’
– ‘Lower-skilled workers would be allowed into Britain only if they had jobs on an approved national shortage job list.’
– ‘Barring EU migrants’ access to benefits and tax credits for their first five years here’
– ‘Giving British citizens a “national preference” by explicitly reserving jobs for them’
– ‘Limiting all labour movement from poorer countries who are new EU members until their GDP per capita is 75% of Britain’s.’
This goes beyond moves to counter ‘welfare tourism’ – this is outright opposition to the EU’s principle of free movement. The Liberal Democrats are outraged – Nick Clegg called the plans ‘illegal and undeliverable‘. One Independent source assuming this was an attempt to get expelled altogether: ‘Even the Tories don’t think they can renegotiate to that extreme… British business would be crippled. We just cannot see how anyone would think this is a good idea, unless their priority is cheap easy headlines.’ Well, it’s worked for me: these audacious proposals would cut annual immigration by 30,000.
European Commissioner László Andor called Cameron’s previous comments ‘nasty’ and announced on Friday that any benefits restrictions could land the UK in court. I wonder what colourful term he will apply to May’s turbo-measures?
Speaking this morning on BBC Radio 4, May was coy about her chances of success: ‘This is something I’ve been talking about with my opposite numbers – interior ministers in other countries within the European Union – for some time now.’ At the very least, this will add to the pressure on No.10 to launch formal renegotiations after Hannan and Leadsom’s exhortations.
Earlier this month, the Home Office reportedly delayed publication of the ‘Balance of Competences’ chapter on free movement, possibly on the grounds that too few sceptics had submitted evidence, resulting in too positive a conclusion. New emphasis includes on the spread of crime, drugs and vagrancy from Europe.
A new ICM/British Future poll showing a ‘generational gap’ in attitudes to migration, with younger Britons far more sympathetic, with 18-24 year olds understanding free movement as a ‘two way street’ according to Sunder Katwala.
In theory, Europhile supporters of migration could not pan May’s plans too harshly. They downplay migrants’ labour competition and wage deflation: their main argument is that EU migration is good for the economy and the treasury. May’s approach would enhance those wheaty aspects and cut out the low-skilled or benefits-scrounging chaff.
The Tory rumblings about immigration are all pie-in-the-sky while Britain remains in the EU because the other members will not wear it. Moreover, 75,000 pa – and you can bet the figure would always be reached – would be equivalent to a city the size of Leeds in a decade.
Apart from the question of legal immigration from the European Economic Area (not just the EU) there is also the easy entry of EEA nationals to Britain regardless of whether they say they are coming to work. Once here they can easily vanish into the black market. To make a scheme such as May’s effective much tighter controls on EEA travellers to Britain would have to be introduced.
It is also worth remembering that most immigration to Britain comes from outside the UK. If the Tories were really serious about restricting immigration they would have clamped down on that long ago.
As for attitude of the young in Britain towards immigration, what they say and what they feel are often two different things. 18-24 year-olds in this country have spent their lives having the globalism is good message pumped into them. They will by reflex say immigration and emigration are goods, but press them on whether they resent immigrants taking jobs or housing which they want and you will get a story told.
One final point. The claim that freedom of movement works both ways and is thus a boon to the British population because they can move abroad does not hold water. When a Briton goes abroad that is of no benefit to those who stay in this county.