Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Has More Chutzpah Than Logic

Civitas, 7 September 2006

In a display of rhetorical prowess that would doubtless immediately qualify him for the award of an A-level in Logic should this subject be offered at that level, Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev has recently strung together an astonishing series of non sequiturs in support of his country and Romania being allowed to enter the EU next January on the same terms as were offered to the east European countries who joined in 2004, which include full and immediate rights for their nationals to enter and work in the UK.
First, he denies Bulgarians will come to Britain in large numbers. Its climate, he says, is far too cold for their tastes, as, he says, is shown by their having chosen to settle in southern Europe when they do migrate.
Second, he argues, unlike Poland, Bulgaria lacks close historic ties with the UK or any established ex-patriot community there to serve as an inducement for them to come in the way he claims such things have done in the case of Poles who have entered Britain to work since the accession of their country in 2004.
Finally, he contends, should the UK withhold the right to settle and work there from Bulgarians after their country joins the EU, then any shortfall in labour needs in the UK will be met by illegal immigrants from Africa and Asia, who, he points out, would pose a greater security risk for Britain than Bulgarians would.
The Bulgarian Prime Minister set out his case for his compatriots being allowed to settle and work in Britain on the same terms as the Poles and others were given in 2004 in an interview with the Times reported in its issue today.
Let us briefly consider its cogency.
First, if, as he says, Bulgarians wouldn’t come to the UK, despite being allowed to, because its climate’s too cold for them, then they won’t be disadvantaged should they be denied the right to come and work here. Moreover, that they have to date emigrated only to warm southern Europe countries does not show this is where they will chose to remain content to emigrate, should, in future, they become able to emigrate to colder but more affluent countries in the north.
Second, nationals from other east European countries besides Poland that entered the EU at the same time as it did, such as Slovakia, have come to work in the UK in very substantial numbers, despite their country not enjoying the same close historic links with Britain that Poland has long enjoyed. So, the absence of such links between Bulgaria and Britain cannot be thought of as necessarily serving as any psychological impediment to immigration by those standing to earn considerably higher wages, as Bulgarians would, if given the opportunity to work in Britain.
Finally, in view of Africa and Asia being even warmer than Bulgaria where temperatures in winter are reported to reach as low as minus 20C , it would seem that job-prospects in Britain must be more attractive to Africans and Asians than to Bulgarians, since they are apparently prepared to suffer steeper falls in temperature to gain them. So, if the Bulgarian Prime Minister is correct that low temperatures in a country inhibit migration to it, it follows Africans and Asians must want to work in Britain more strongly than do Bulgarians, from which it follows that they would be willing to accept lower wages than Bulgarians for the same work, or prepared to do jobs work at wages lower than those any Bulgarians would be willing to accept. Hence, Bulgarians becoming able to work in Britain after 1 January 2007 is unlikely to choke off demand for or the supply of illegal immigrants from Africa and Asia.
Of course, all this discussion about EU immigration to Britain is besides the point in many ways, as Sir Andrew Green has pointed out recently in an article that first appeared in the Daily Telegraph at the end of August under the title ‘EU Immigration is not the problem’. Such concern is deflecting attention from where the most acute immigration challenge Britain is currently facing lies. This is from legal immigration from non EU countries currently running at over a quarter of a million a year, a three-fold increase since 1997. As Sir Andrew explains in his article:
‘In the long run, this is a much more important issue [than immigration from EU countries]. Not only are immigrants from outside Europe more likely to stay on here, but also some are from distant cultures that find integration more difficult.’
The more legal immigrants from outside the EU allowed into Britain the easier does is become for illegal immigrants from these same countries to enter Britain and remain there undetected and unchallenged by the authorities.
Maybe, it would be better, on balance, for Britain, should a temporary freeze on immigration to Britain from future EU accession countries to give the country time to absorb and adjust to the levels of those who have already come. It would be far better and is even more urgently needed for there to be a more than temporary freeze on the number of immigrants from non-EU countries allowed to enter and settle in Britain.
One thing one has to say to say on behalf of the credit of the Bulgarian Prime Minister, he’s certainly got plenty of chutzpah, if little logical prowess!