You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
What do people think is a fair and just policy regarding freedom of movement and immigration?
A lot of leave votes seem to have been attributed to a desire to close down immigration, and several posters on here have alluded to their children's opportunities being curtailed, but obviously those comments apply to movement within Europe.
I've seen mention elsewhere of CANZUK, a wish for freedom of movement between Canada, Aus, NZ and UK, supported by a few Tories, but I think that's in the category of fantasy, and just replacing one set of countries with another (perhaps perceived as more desirable destinations).
I'm an alien living in the UK, and don't really have a grasp of what the British (of either leave or remain persuasion) really want, and why? I'm not sure outside of the EU and the Aus-NZ relationship whether there are any other countries which support an FOM duality?
Is there anything inherently wrong, or racist with moving to a needs-based immigration system? I understand from a selfish perspective that loss of right to head off and work elsewhere at a whim is a personal limitation- is that the main driver for people to want continued freedom of movement, because from a country's perspective I'm not sure that it's the ideal.
If NZ allowed freedom of movement from UK the North Island would quite possible sink beneath the weight of all the people! There is a housing shortage already. Although I guess we could always hand them an axe and some nails and they can clear fell some of the high country on the South Island and build their own farm.
As indicated by the above answer, too much immigration is anyone who got here after my people.
I'm not sure even the British know what they want...
Fair doesn't really come into it, I don't think it's possible, however you do it you discriminate unfairly because someone might be too old, too young, too poor, too rich (doubt it) born in the wrong country etc.
Yeah I'm sure the Tories would love CANZUK, they're after all mostly white, English speaking countries and along with the US pretty much the top destinations people currently spend months and thousands of pounds trying to emigrate to. We already have some pretty pally deals with the for working visas etc.
I'm not sure how likely it is though, we'll still at the Unicorn stage and they each have pretty strict migration rules. I'm not sure for example we could offer Australia to accept thousands of Pomms arriving all looking for Britain with Sun. (I find a pretty high correlation between people who want to emigrate to Oz and people who've never been there).
I think we'll end up with all-but-name freedom of movement with the EU when Johnson and co realise the rest of the world isn't dying to trade with the worlds' largest financial services provider when they've all be trying to take that from us for decades.
needs-based immigration system
Who defines the need? Is it the farmer trying to hire fruit pickers, the hospital looking for nurses, the multinational looking for a new CEO or the government minister looking for votes? Oh and if someone can come here and set up a successful business then surely that means they are meeting a need that existed? (Even if that need was for a service that already existed but at a higher price and/or lower quality).
Immigration has been conflated with decades of cuts in spending and a fairly pathetic state pension allowance by Northern European standards, which has fuelled a sentiment that other people are getting one's share.
Personally, if immigrants are paying tax and NIC then I am happy for them to be here. I realise that this might be a controversial view, but it's mine.
I’m an alien living in the UK
I for one welcome our Lizard Overlords (please be careful where you point that death ray)
Most people don't even accept or understand the need to let anyone in for economic reasons at all, so won't be a majority consensus for a good long while yet.
Who defines the need?
Yep. After all a “accept the brightest and best” policy is a great way of minimising investment in education and training in the UK and holding back the indigenous population (unless mummy and daddy can afford to pay for education and training of course).
I’m an alien living in the UK
I think New York got the shitty end of the exchange programme when we sent Sting over there
My salary wouldn't qualify me for entry to the UK. That's the full time salary for an EO in the civil service, who's job it would be to tell other people that their salary isn't enough to come into the country? WTAF?
Who defines the need?
The need is simple. Any jobs that are open and cannot be filled by the people already in the country (either because they don't want to do it - fruit picking, or they don't have the skills - doctors, or a bit of both - nurses)
However not just letting that happen naturally as it does today and replacing it with a bureaucratic nightmare will only slow things down and/or put people off and leave loads of jobs open for ever with the obvious impact of less growth, less tax revenue, etc,.
It will keep the racists/xenophobes happy though I suppose
Most people don’t even accept or understand the need to let anyone in for economic reasons at all, so won’t be a majority consensus for a good long while yet.
I don't want to play the "everything is better in Scotland" card but I'd say its more generally accepted up here. It's certainly been a key element of the SNP message regarding Brexit and didn't harm them at the polls.
The Australians have said CANZUK is a non-starter, and they have no interest in visa-free movement between here and there.
In theory, Freedom of Movement was really Freedom of Labour, and lots of other EU countries enforce provisions that you must have a job within 3 months or back you go. We don’t, but even then, immigrants are net contributors in terms of tax income vs. Use of public services etc.
India have already said they won't consider a free trade deal without free movement.
That could be interesting for the sort of people that post this:
If the argument against immigration is that it pushes down wages, surely a skills-based immigration policy is not desirable?
Without immigration wages would rise, encouraging more UK born people to get trained up etc.. but instead, you'd just open the door up to people from abroad.
At least with freedom of movement, you'd get a mix of people, so you get more demand as well as supply?
Who defines the need?
I voted remain so apparently not 'traitors' like me.
I'm sure the 52%ers have a bulletproof plan, just check FB for details.
I'm told We'll be doing a points mean prizes system or something. The draft questionnaire will probably run like this:
1- are you an Oligarch / Oil Sheik / tech billionaire? (delete as applicable)
2- To the nearest Billion what is your net worth?
3- To the nearest tenner what net worth will you be reporting to HMRC?
4- How much will you be contributing to the Conservative party?
5- How many London properties will you be buying? (no need to mention any valued under £2.5m)
6- How many premiership football clubs do you plan to buy?
7- Will you be requiring the use of our Laudry Service during your stay?
8- Do you have any friends that might want to buy any of the following:
a) Short range Ballistic missiles
b) Anti-personnel mines
c) An Aircraft Carrier
d) All of the above
9- Are you a qualified Nurse/Doctor/Rail Engineer/Road sweep?
There is already a points system in place in NZ - why would a country of four million people open their doors with no controls to a group of countries more than ten times the population size?
But in any case - surely it wouldn't be that difficult to arrange a visa system for certain occupations, regions, seasonal jobs etc. Scottish Government is already putting forward a plan for HO to issue work permits that only apply in Scotland.
There is already a points system in place in NZ – why would a country of four million people open their doors with no controls to a group of countries more than ten times the population size?
Exactly. Before you know it you'd have the entire population of Turkey moving there. And they've got ray guns! Muslamic ones!
I don’t want to play the “everything is better in Scotland” card but I’d say its more generally accepted up here.
No it isn't, Scotland takes hardly any net immigrantion, Scotland's population is near static. (Scotland has 30,414 square miles to England's 50,346.)
why would a country of four million people open their doors with no controls to a group of countries more than ten times the population size?
New Zealand is *bigger* than the Uk. If you think the Uk's population density isn't high enough then New Zealand need another 70 odd million just to get to a point that many UK people already think is under populated!
That's not what I mean Binners and you know it. Which bit of Canada/Aus/UK is Turkey in?
NZ is a small country with infrastructure that barely manages to cope with that small population size. What's the combined pop of Canada/Aus/UK - close to 120 million?
It is possible to have a reasoned and factual discussion about immigration without being accused of being a racist - but clearly not here.
And for the record my father was am immigrant from Scotland to NZ - I returned the favour so I am calling that even.
What do people think is a fair and just policy regarding freedom of movement and immigration?
Pick the population density you want, manage immigration accordingly. I'd control the birthrate as well, not sure how you'd manage that, nor would it win many votes. Never happen, I think we've all just decided to increase our population and consume resources until war, climate change, the phosphates crisis, famine and lack of resources/energy kills us all down to reasonable levels.
That’s not what I mean Binners and you know it. Which bit of Canada/Aus/UK is Turkey in?
Sorry Hels. I was taking the proverbial, obviously 😀
In reference to Farage's claim that millions of Turks were about to invade the UK as the EU was going to let them in, despite Turkey having no chance of EU membership
I'm presently doing some work in... erm... how to put this.... one of the less metropolitan areas of the north west of Engerland. Brexitland.
Someone has just brought up the subject of immigration and a few people got very animated. I'm just ticking the tropes off:
'They' come over here for free healthcare
'They' come over here to claim benefits
'They' come over here to rape and kill people
'They' want to stop us celebrating Christmas and remembrance day
On and on....
My personal view is anyone should be able to live and work anywhere in the world they like, being subject to the same obligations, and given the same rights, as any native of the country they are living and working in.
My personal view is anyone should be able to live and work anywhere in the world they like, being subject to the same obligations, and given the same rights, as any native of the country they are living and working in.
+1 I've paid into this countries system for the last 25 years, that should automatically give you a right to live anywhere IMO. That goes for any resident of any country in the world.
Personally, if immigrants are paying tax and NIC then I am happy for them to be here. I realise that this might be a controversial view, but it’s mine.
Have a plus one, but with the qualifier that if you fail to pay the correct tax you leave with what your brought (adjusted for inflation) and the treasury gets the rest.
Can we deport people born here and not paying the correct tax as well?
You'll have to find somewhere to take them, but why not? (It is in keeping with the current mob's illiberal approach to citizens).
At the moment the UKs immigration policy is based on money. Hell if you are rich enough they will come to your house and fill out all the forms for you, All you need to do is sign them, prove your rich enough pay the fee and your in. I don’t see it changing much.
If your poor you have no chance even if you’ve worked and contributed to this country for years, look at the Windrush scandal.
Op, you misunderstand the situation. It's not about stopping themmuns getting in, to the tories it's as much to stop us getting out. The GB island will become a prison where the hard right will run us all into the ground for their amusement.
However, as a chap lucky enough to have a UK and irish passport, my tolerance for the crap the tories will unleash is limited and I've a pretty good escape plan should the time come.
I don’t want to play the “everything is better in Scotland” card but I’d say its more generally accepted up here.
No it isn’t, Scotland takes hardly any net immigrantion, Scotland’s population is near static. (Scotland has 30,414 square miles to England’s 50,346.)
I'm sure there's a point you are trying to make but I'm failing to see it.
There are no immigration controls in Scotland that don't apply to the UK as a whole. The electorate in Scotand has consistently voted for parties that support net immigration.
I don’t want to play the “everything is better in Scotland” card but I’d say its more generally accepted up here.
I lived in the Central Belt for 6 years. Hardly saw any brown people and the locals were not exactly open minded towards them. A lot of deep seated racism and sectarianism.
Not sure where people get this idea that Scotland is full of open minded liberals? It may be left leaning but not very liberal.
Given BoJo is as I recall an American, can we check he’s paid his taxes.
Boris gave up his US citizenship.
if you fail to pay the correct tax you leave with what your brought
We already have draconian laws for any immigrants who make a slight cock up on their tax forms, or anything immigrant who doesn’t cock up the form but HMRC thinks they have.
No right of appeal, no renewal of indefinite leave to remain.
Sea levels will rise.
Millions of people will be displaced.
We will have to accommodate them.
There is only one way of accepting this.
If we are to stay together.
Freedom of Movement within Europe was one of the best aspects of EU membership. It's not only nice/interesting having colleagues from Greece, Holland, Germany etc. but it brought a lot to the UK in terms of skills, idea, etc. It also culturally integrates European identity and makes further conflict much harder to sell. Remember, EU integration came after 2500 years of near constant war.
If you look at it from a racist point of view, removing it doesn't even make sense because the need for immigration isn't going to go away and even the Tories openly admit that (though they present themselves as a party 'tough' on immigration); it will be replaced by non-EU immigration, so north Africa, India, Middle-east, etc. As for replacing it with (white) Commonwealth nations, what the bloody hell is the point. It's like trying driving to Tesco to do your shopping in Surry when you live in Manchester.
The fact that blame for 'open borders' was placed at the step of the EU was also false - personally I think the government encouraged high immigration because they are easily scapegoated instead of questioning how wealth is actually distributed in this country. The billionaire press went to town on this naturally, along with conveniently blaming the EU for an incompetent/malicious national government which allowed huge swaths of the country to go to rot post de-industrialisation instead of retraining/investing in education, etc. The EU actually tried to combat this through regional development, but then Brexit wasn't informed by facts was it?
Free, unrestricted, rights to live, make business, marry, retire, travel etc. in the most developed, democratic, culturally diverse and progressive continent in history is unprecedented and voting to have this taken away is just incomprehensible to me.
I’m an alien living in the UK, and don’t really have a grasp of what the British (of either leave or remain persuasion) really want, and why?
I think 'remainers' had a very clear want - i.e. to stay within the EU and collaborate - they were proud of being part of European, both culturally and economically while Brexiters had a vast array of different ideas and I think what Brexit meant to each one would be completely different to the next. For some, it was just a protest vote, for others maybe it meant going back to some distant ideal of what England was like in the past, for one I spoke to it meant 'getting rid of muslims' (I kid you not). Demographically, Brexit voters were overwhelmingly uneducated and over the age of sixty-five, with both those groups almost certainly fed on a drip-drip of constant propaganda against the EU via the right-wing press.
I mean really, we're 4 years into Brexit now and what has the country gained? It's genuinely bewildering. If they manage to negotiate a trade deal, then we'll maybe get away with a Norway type situation where we'll basically be in the EU but with no voice or influence. IF we hard Brexit, well then who really knows what will happen. Experts say it will probably lead to stagnation at best, or at worst a full on recession, but hey, apparently we've 'had enough of experts'.
No it isn’t, Scotland takes hardly any net immigrantion, Scotland’s population is near static.
That isn't a reflection on attitudes to immigration, it shows that despite free movement Scotland has failed to attract the immigrants that it economically needs.
I think Scotland is more open minded towards immigration, perhaps because it is at a low level. Whether that view would persist if we had the same levels of immigration as the south east is a different question.
Immigration is clearly good economically. Managing it socially (including public perceptions) is harder.
I saw Australia mentioned above - some utterly awesome places there. Also utterly racist, More than I've seen anywhere else.
To say that there is little immigration into Scotland because there are few "brown" people exhibits a particular kind of racism.
Where do I mention skin colour? That you link brown people and immigration exhibits a particular kind of racism. Most migrants into Scotland are from England and Wales. Or would you prefer blood and soil Scots only?
The low net immigration figures for Scotland come from the Scottish govt. Scotland simply isn't attracting people in spite of freedom of movement within the EU and UK. That tends not to include many countries with a majority "brown" populace, but skin colour isn't something that particularly bothers me.
Approx 1 in 10 Scottish residents are "foreign born" compared to 1 in 6 for England (the English figures have a strong bias towards the south and midlands). That probably changes the cultural impact of migration. Scotland still seems to be more popular than Wales which is around 1 in 15.
Where do I mention skin colour?
You didn't. Someone else did. Apologies for not making that clear.