The Conservatives have unveiled figures which show that the number of foreign workers in Britain has virtually doubled under the Labour Government - from 2 million in 1997 to 3.8 million today - and the story is the splash in today's Daily Mail and Daily Express.
This figure is based on House of Commons Library research commissioned by shadow work and pensions minister, James Clappison, and means that 13% of those working in Britain were born abroad. Furthermore, two thirds of them come from outside the EU, equivalent to 9% of the total workforce.
Mr Clappison said that the figures were "yet more evidence that Labour have failed to bring migration from outside the EU under control, despite repeated promises to do so".
Shadow immigration minister Damian Green added:
"There cannot be anyone left in this country who believes Gordon Brown's pledge of British jobs for British workers. This shows the continuing failure of the Government's immigration policy. A Conservative Government would introduce an annual limit on work permits for people from outside the EU. That's the only way you can get some control into the system."
However, there was no comment forthcoming from a Conservative spokesman on a new MigrationWatch study also published today, which shows that there are up to four times the number of EU workers employed in the UK as British-born workers employed in the other 26 countries of the EU.
According to its research, 286,000 UK nationals are working elsewhere in the European Union, whilst 1,172,000 of those born elsewhere in the EU are now working in the UK.
I gather that the party opted not to comment on this study on the basis that it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour.
Jonathan Isaby
According to its research, 286,000 UK nationals are working elsewhere in the European Union, whilst 1,172,000 of those born elsewhere in the EU are now working in the UK.
Watch that ratio change as their economies recover faster than ours.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | February 18, 2009 at 08:15
The disparity between UK nationals working in the EU versus EU nationals working in the UK, amounts to 886,000 jobs which have been taken from British workers by EU nationals.
There are 2 million unemployed in Britain.
We don't need to stop free movement, we just need to have a policy which gives equal employment opportunity for British people. This can never exist as long as a foreign employer can itself decide to bring its entire workforce to the UK without considering the employment of British workers, or when a foreign recruitment agent is permitted to operate in the UK and remain at liberty to maintain racist recruit policies which select only foreign workers and intentionally exclude British nationals.
We truly have a foreign Labour Party and the Tories should make a distinction between itself and that party by developing a rational and fair employment policy for the people who elect it, otherwise Cameron may not see office.
I for one would never vote for any political party which is so openly racist against its own people.
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 08:52
This is getting so embarrassing!
Basically, the Tories are trying to play all their old dogwhistle trump cards in the run up to the Euro elections whilst simultaneously keeping quiet about not actually being able to deliver.
Those pesky EU rules just keep getting in the way don't they? Still, just keep schtum, and hope no-one notices.
It's just so dishonest.
Posted by: GB£.com | February 18, 2009 at 09:13
"I gather that the party opted not to comment on this study on the basis that it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour."
So whats the point of voting for the Conservatives when they care neither for the people nor the country? A country should be more than just a dormitory for an itinerant workforce shipped in and out at the whim of employers.
NOTE THE CONSERVATIVES ARE FOR TURKEY TO JOIN THE EU!
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 09:15
'it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour.'
Does the party intend to change any EU rules?
All evidence is to the contrary.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | February 18, 2009 at 09:27
Time to look after our own?
Posted by: Libbie Miller | February 18, 2009 at 09:31
What "Iain" is saying amounts to: "Can't have these frightful Turks joining the EU; they are ............different".
How are they different. Not European? A large part of Turkey is in Europe. Not white, perhaps?
Posted by: Super Blue | February 18, 2009 at 09:33
Does anyone know how many tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) UK citizens work in the EU?
Posted by: JP Floru | February 18, 2009 at 09:34
Yes I do JP Floru, but then I actually bothered to read the article before commenting...
Posted by: GB£.com | February 18, 2009 at 09:36
"All evidence is to the contrary."
This is what makes the British political establishment a liability, for they view the obligations they have signed upto with outside bodies as more important than the interests of their own people. Yet these very obligations they have sold their soul to are destroying the country.
This is why we need a revolution, for nothing will change without one.
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 09:43
The Tories are stirring up resentment. Your whole approach is that of gutter politics. I knew that I'd never be comfortable with the Tories - they are still the "nasty" party.
Posted by: Anon R | February 18, 2009 at 09:43
We have no border anymore and many "EU Nationals" here orginated from non EU counties - given a passport and then rock up in the UK for free Houses, education, health and loads of benifit handouts. A national scandal but the Tories only offer rhetoric as the power has already been transfered to Brussels. Where will it all end; subsumied into the EUSSR or depature through much conflict as no superstate ever gives up "its" territory without violence.
Posted by: Conspiracy | February 18, 2009 at 09:49
I don't mean to sound all 'Daily Mail' but this immigration nonsense is getting out of control.
Of course UK citizens don't work abroad as much as people come to work in the UK - earnings are much higher here relative to other EU countries (even at the minimum wage), which has inevitably caused an influx of Labour from abroad.
Until foreign workers and UK workers play on a level playing field in this country, this situation will continue.
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | February 18, 2009 at 09:49
/"nasty" party./
The nasty party is Labour, for nothing can out do the nastiness of them in their action of parking millions of British people on welfare whilst shipping in an itinerant workforce.
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 09:50
One example illustrates the issue. When London won the 2012 Olympics, there was much talk about boosting employment in East London where unemployment levels are very high, particularly among ethnic minority communities.
Fast forward to London Lite yesterday, which featured a Lithuanian man working on the Olympic site,who was being classified as a "local worker" because he stayed in a B&B in Newham. There don't appear to be any figures available from the Olympic Delivery Authority, but one clue is that tens of thousands of new National Insurance numbers have been issued in Newham recently.
The Lithuanian worker said he had responded to an advertisement on the internet.Fair enough, under EU law he is entitled to apply for a job in the UK. But here's a question: What effort was made by the employer to advertise the vacancy locally in the media, Job Centre Plus etc? Was the job even advertised locally? Was it even advertised in English? As I understand it there is no requirement in law to advertise jobs locally. This seems wrong. Of course EU nationals can apply too, but there ought to be a basic requirement that jobs must be advertised locally.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 18, 2009 at 09:53
The answer is simple, index-link all migrant labour to levels of unemployment, making exceptions for areas where there is a skills shortage.
After all, every foreigner you see working means one of our people is unemployed.
Posted by: Tony Makara | February 18, 2009 at 09:55
Yes, New Labour is very much the nasty party now, as seen by the bullying of their own (Alex Hilton) and they are clearly in a temrinal decline.
However, it would be fair to say that Cameron has tranformed the Tory party into the NugaTory party.
So we have New Labour or NugaTory. God (if he existed) help us!
Posted by: GB£.com | February 18, 2009 at 09:56
We should be limiting workers from the EU.
We CAN if we leave the EU.
Posted by: Robert Eve | February 18, 2009 at 09:56
" Of course EU nationals can apply too "
There shouldn't be an 'of course' about it, for we are never going to get out of the hole we are in unless we invest in our people and skills, and that is never going to happen when an employer can pick off what ever cheap skilled labour he wants from around Europe.
Think of how bad this situation is going to get when Labour, Conservatives, & Libdems get their way and have Turkey join the EU!
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 09:59
Are the Tories complaining about Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders? I don't think pointing the finger at these people will be popular somehow...
Posted by: RichardJ | February 18, 2009 at 10:02
Every time something crops up about the EU there is a deafening silence from the Conservatives. They don`t want to say anything which might offend our European "partners".
Posted by: Edward Huxley | February 18, 2009 at 10:03
GB£.com (9.13 today) seems to have smoked out the old Tory ploy of 'Raise immigration before an election and do precious little when you get in'!
Surely with 2 million unemployed and rising, it is time to effectively shut the door to more immigration into Britain.
Conservative supporters CAN do something about this situation, by writing strong letters to their local Conservative Associations stating that they will not work for, or contribute to, Conservative Party activities unless watertight promises are given on this matter.
The situation is too serious for anything of a lesser nature.
Posted by: Northern Conservative | February 18, 2009 at 10:03
"After all, every foreigner you see working means one of our people is unemployed."
Assuming there's one of our people (a) capable of doing the job and (b) doing it just as well.
Alas I suspect in many cases (plumbing for example) this is not the case.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 18, 2009 at 10:03
What strikes me is the abysmal ignorance of so many of your contributors - EU citizens have to register for work in the UK. They have to wait 12 months before being able to claim any benefits. We are no "soft touch". If the ordinary Tory is willing to believe massive untruths - and no M.P.or leader willing to correct them - heaven help the UK if they ever get into government.
Posted by: Anon R | February 18, 2009 at 10:12
"There don't appear to be any figures available from the Olympic Delivery Authority, but one clue is that tens of thousands of new National Insurance numbers have been issued in Newham recently."
It is a requirement, or at least highly desirable, for any company applying for work for the Olympics to have a "Diversity Plan", thus favouring the employment of workers from overseas.
Neither the Labour party, nor the LibDems nor even the Tories have any intention of implementing a policy of "British Jobs for British Workers" because this would force up the overall rates of pay for the "Working Class". We have been betrayed by the political classes and their City friends.
Oh God! I never imagined that I, a financially secure conventional conservative minded chap form a solid middle class background, would feel like this! I wonder what the “Real Workers” think?
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 18, 2009 at 10:28
This is what MigrationWatch say about their own report
"2 Economic migrants from the EU are not likely to become a long term immigration problem as their numbers are expected to come into balance in a few years time but this note provides the most recent numbers available. "
"4 International migration statistics are based on a small sample and do not give an accurate picture of the number of EU citizens working in Britain."
"Reasons for this imbalance may include limited language skills among British workers, relatively low unemployment rates in Britain in recent years and the fact that wages here are generally higher than in most EU countries."
That is, in their own words, their report is inaccurate, the levels are temporary, and the results are because Britain is succesful.
This is typical Migration Watch bull****. By their own admission, these figures are completely wrong and yet the Mail and other right wingers jump on them for their own xenophobic purposes.
There are far more Brits abroad than there are foreigners here. In 2005, according to IPPR, there were 291,000 Brits working in Ireland alone.
UK Citizens Abroad
Australia 1,300,000
Spain 761,000
United States 678,000
Canada 603,000
Ireland 291,000
New Zealand 215,000
South Africa 212,000
France 200,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm
Posted by: resident leftie | February 18, 2009 at 10:28
It is a shame to read that most comments are on a party political basis. Therefore, I'd like to remove the gesturing which gets us nowhere.
Most jobs that are being lost in the UK is blue collar workers, whilst most jobs being filled by EU workers is blue collar workers. There are exceptions of course, but most are low-skilled or other blue collar jobs.
EU nationals can come to the UK to work with ease, whilst the A2 and A8 Accession countries do need some type of permit. What none of the EU or EEA nationals have to prove is their ability to speak English, and many who come to work in the UK do not speak English.
On a personal level I like the freedom of movement across the EU for work purposes, because on the face of it has merit. However, this ‘open’ approach does not enable UKBA to control the influx of people from the EU region into the UK, and even if the people coming to the UK to find work could not find work we have a social system that would care for them, which I believe is fundamentally wrong.
Other Migrants (non-EEA/EU)
I’d like to point out that people who come to work in the UK from outside of the EU have to meet extremely strict criteria. The first thing to point out is they MUST be able to speak, read and write English to a good level, which is not a requirement of EU/EEA citizens. Therefore, these workers are able to integrate better with the local community and they do not develop a ghetto community, which is happening with certain EU nationals in the UK.
The other migrants can only come to the UK to work if they are coming to do a skilled job, for which their prospective employer must proved there is a need for, otherwise they will not be granted a visa to come to the UK.
The jobs the other migrants do in the UK are skilled or highly skilled and these migrants typically pay a great deal of tax and national insurance contributions into the economy, which is not the case for most EU/EEA nationals who have low skilled or are blue collar jobs. The EU/EEA nationals may be on such low wages that they pay no tax or NI contributions at all, but still have full access to social benefits. The low wage is a different argument.
Did you know that other migrants cannot claim any benefits in the UK at all, they cannot even claim family allowance for their children? The other migrants, as stated above, pay a great deal of tax and NI contributions to the UK government, but they are not allowed family allowance, whereas EU/EEA nationals can claim family allowance, even in the family is not in the UK and if they have not worked a day in their life in the UK – is that fair?
It is very easy for the UK government to control people coming into the UK from outside of the UK if they so desire, but this would have an enormous impact of UKPLC by denying UK employers the high-level skills we need in the UK, even in the downturn. We have not such luxury when it comes to EU/EEA Nationals. The new Points Based System can be used by the UKBA by increasing the points required to come to the UK as a skilled or highly-skilled migrant – simple controls, which is good.
If mainland Europe goes into extreme economic meltdown the UK is, and will be, seen as a soft touch. The UK government/the UK tax payer will pick up the tab. I would not blame the EU/EEA national at all for coming here, because I know I would be willing to do the same thing if I was in such a position, but open borders for work purposes or social benefits purposes is fundamentally impractical for the UK in good times and especially in bad times.
If I was a politician I would have a points based system for all of Europe and not just other migrants. This would enable the UK to have a far greater control of who comes to the UK, and this would include criminals from the EU who are a far greater threat to the UK than the terrorists we read so much about.
Posted by: Gary Bland | February 18, 2009 at 10:33
"EU citizens have to register for work in the UK."
Takes about 5 minutes.
"They have to wait 12 months before being able to claim any benefits."
Not true if there are children involved. They also get NHS and education services immediately and may be eligible for tax credits. Why, anyway, should non UK residents receive any "benefits" whatsoever? If they require benefits they are a drag on our economy and should return home.
Is it the duty of the British government to look after the interests of the British People or to promote the concept of an Ever Closer European Union?
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 18, 2009 at 10:41
"I gather that the party opted not to comment on this study on the basis that it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour."
Good. The fact that people from across the EU can now work in each other's countries is - along with free trade - one of the few good things about it. Rugfish complains of a net loss of 886,000 jobs for British workers, but perhaps he'd like to tell us just which of the British workers across the rest of the EU he's proposing to make unemployed once the 'reforms' he seems to favour have been implemented, and the borders slammed shut. Never mind those EU workers who've come to the UK - who are, you know, people too - to better themselves by bettering our society, or their employers, to which he will, of course, have to cause considerable expense and inconvenience in having to re-source a chunk of their workforce. In any case, all jobs aren't equal; if (and I'm guessing here, but the suggestion is plausible) it turns out that the British workers in the rest of the EU are being paid substantially more on average than their workers here because the jobs they're going into are at more senior levels, would that not change the equation somewhat too? Oh yes, and what about the multinationals - if my firm opens an office in Brussels because it wants to take advantage of free trade to generate exports and growth for the UK economy, should I be barred from doing a rotation there?
He also talks about 'racist' recruitment agencies operating in the UK. Could he please give some details of the supposed operation of these organisations, and cite a few sources, so that the tales can be verified as more than the Daily Mail-level paranoia the comment looks to be? To take one example, my firm employs hundreds of pharmacists across the country, but for various reasons in some areas they're simply impossible to come by. The organisation already uses several methods to tempt British pharmacists to transfer to these areas, but to supplement this it also uses recruitment agencies that go elsewhere in the EU (mainly to eastern Europe) to source people prepared to come over here and fill the vacancies. These firms do exclusively recruit foreign workers, so by Rugfish's definition they're operating in a racist way - but that's only because getting people in this particular profession from abroad is what they specialise in, and the jobs are still advertised to the hilt in the UK through other channels.
Companies don't employ foreign workers for a lark. When Poland joined the EU, do you think the head of UK operations for Starbucks woke up and thought to himself, "great, now I can fire my workforce and fill all my branches with new people with vaguely unfamiliar accents to intrigue, inform and amuse my customers, tee hee!"? It's doubtful. They want the best people at the most competitive rates, and oftentimes low-skilled UK workers simply cannot compete with their EU counterparts on what pay they'll accept or how well they're prepared to work. The way to redress the immigration 'problem' is to find a way to persuade the British unemployed to take these jobs, and do them well - not to blame the people who come in to pick up the slack when they refuse.
Posted by: David Bean | February 18, 2009 at 10:42
The Conservative Party is the blatant deception party on the EU - the pattern has been there from Heath in the Commons in 1971 (and in fact before then - see Booker and North 'The Great Deception').
Posted by: david | February 18, 2009 at 10:48
"There are far more Brits abroad than there are foreigners here"
Resident Leftie, the report quite clearly focusses on "workers" not a sum of all expats (retired, spouses etc etc).
" In 2005, according to IPPR, there were 291,000 Brits working in Ireland alone."
Wrong again. Again you are using an 'expat' number for worker number.
Go and find a superior source for expat British workers in other EU countries then you may be able to justify your pov. I'm perfectly open to a well argued case, not one that compares apples with oranges.
Posted by: GB£.com | February 18, 2009 at 10:52
"If I was a politician I would have a points based system for all of Europe and not just other migrants. This would enable the UK to have a far greater control of who comes to the UK, and this would include criminals from the EU who are a far greater threat to the UK than the terrorists we read so much about".
SPOT ON!
Example, Foreign airport workers in the UK which DON'T have police record checks, and British airport workers who DO.
Which is complete bollox when a politician talks of equal opportunity or security because there are nasty terrorists out there when they make nasty laws against the rest of us.
Why is David Cameron so thick he can't see this? Is he scared of Clarke by any chance? Is it Euro-meddling Clarke in charge these days or does David Cameron have his own backbone?
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 10:52
"Europeans working in Britain outnumber Britons working elsewhere in the EU by more than four to one, a study found yesterday".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1148261/Europes-way-trade-jobs-sees-1m-EU-workers-head-UK.html
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S LOYALTY IS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK BY, FOR AND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. YOUR PARTY REMAINS AN ACCOMPLICE TO TREASON.
Posted by: Peter W Watson | February 18, 2009 at 10:54
"Why is David Cameron so thick he can't see this? "
Regardless of the rehtoric the whole of the British political establishment have sold their soul and us to the EU, and have no intention of doing anything about it.
Cameron apart from saying..'we'll not let it rest there' which is barley better than nothing, what has he actually proposed to restore some of our lost sovereingty from the EU? NOTHING, he has proposed nothing, we have no firm proposals from him. So with Cameron its going to be the same old Heath Major EU crap. He'll empathise with our concerns then sign up to what ever treaty the EU puts in front of him!
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 11:10
Posted by: GB£.com | February 18, 2009 at 10:52
Resident Leftie, the report quite clearly focusses on "workers" not a sum of all expats (retired, spouses etc etc).
You didn't follow the link, did you? Let's just take Spain. According to the figures (taken from Spanish records) there were 231000 employed UK citizens working in Spain in 2005.
By comparison, 54000 Spanish people lived in the UK in 2005.
The survey and methodology of for this report is far, far more accurate than MWs.
Surely this combined with MW's own admission that their figures are inaccurate and temporary should persuade you of their agenda?
You do have a point though. A far greater proportion of UK citizens abroad are pensioners and others dependents who rely on the local economy to support them. So, if MW got their way, there would be a "flood", a flood of pensioners and other UK dependents replacing the hard working and driven foreign workers we have here.
Posted by: resident leftie | February 18, 2009 at 11:10
Ian at 09.43
This is why we need a revolution, for nothing will change without one.
It was with mounting horror that I read this and found I had some sympathy with the view. Neither Tory nor Labour will discuss or act on immigration, Why?
Why do they refuse to identify and prosecute the bank fraudsters and fiscal incompetents that have caused so much misery. They just avoid the subjects, they wont talk about them. Why, did they go to school with them? Have they had party funding from them? Are they members of the same club? Have they been on freeby holidays on their yachts or at their villas in Tuscany?
What on earth is causing all this inertia in government and opposition?
I am really shocked that I can write this at 66, I served in our forces for nearly seven years, I have been a lifelong law abiding Tory voter but I say, if things do not change in this country, and soon there will be a catastrophic backlash which none of us want to see!
In passing, as I have already been fairly horrid, and being myself of Scots extraction, I feel I can ask why Scots make up 75%(ish) of our UK government which only governs Scotland in small part and is fairly generous north of the border but governs England 100% and is in relative terms so niggardly with English folk?
Posted by: Jack Iddon | February 18, 2009 at 11:33
This post is further evidence of the hollow nature of Gordon Brown's infamous remark, "British jobs for British workers".
Increasingly, it seems as if it is more a case of British jobs for foreign workers in this country. Is it too late to stem the tide of immigration? I hope not.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | February 18, 2009 at 11:35
Resident leftie (10.28 today) pours scorn on the immigration figures from MigrationWatch, but he should remember that, over the years, the figures from MigrationWatch have been shown to be far more reliable than those issued by the Government.
There has been so many cases of the Government having to revise their figures (always 'upwards') that they have become laughable.
Posted by: Bradford Lad | February 18, 2009 at 11:37
I entirely agree with the view that a points based system should apply to all migrants. If I wanted to work abroad I would have no problem if such a restriction applied to me. But then the only places I would want to go would subject me to a point based system. I wonder why?
It seems a shame employers do not seem able to fill jobs vacancies without recourse to foreign workers given the high level of economic inactivity amongst the domestic population of working age. I guess the causes are various including our benefits and educational sysytems. With regards low paid jobs, the predicament of such workers is not helped by the invidious taxation policies of this government. I know young relatives in relatively low paid jobs who are subject to ludicrously high levels of income tax and NI. Why should the government take 37% of some body's salary when they earn little over a £1000 pcm? And that's before all the indirect taxes kick in.
Posted by: bill | February 18, 2009 at 11:41
There will always be more people from other EU states wanting to work here than British people wanting to work in other EU states because English is a world language which most people want to be fluent in. The same applies to EU students coming to universities here (at the UK taxpayers' expense).
Of course on top of that are other factors such as relatively high pay, free health care, benefits.
Posted by: David | February 18, 2009 at 11:41
David Bean @ 10.42
"They want the best people at the most competitive rates, and oftentimes low-skilled UK workers simply cannot compete with their EU counterparts on what pay they'll accept or how well they're prepared to work."
Well at least you are quite open that one of the drivers has been to curb pay for the "working classes". Great for enhancing the profits of mega-corporations, marginal benefit to me as a customer (do I really gain if a coffee costs 25p less if served by a Pole?) but bad for the workers looking for jobs and for UK taxpayers who have to pay unemployment benefits because many employers etc are offering below living wages.
I am getting sick and tired of reading "racist" messages about British workers being lazy, not wanting to work for £6 per hour (how dare they?) etc. The point is they are likely to have homes and families and need wages that can sustain a basic way of life. If it hadn't been for mass immigration, wages would have kept up with the cost of living and these "lazy" British workers would have been able to afford to work at would be a living wage.
I accept your point about pharmacists, but that is rather a specialised area. My point is about much more general areas such as construction.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 18, 2009 at 11:44
Is it the duty of the British government to look after the interests of the British People
Absolutely, I agree.
I believe my interests are best served served by free movement through the EU and by access to services, such as healthcare, while I am there. It's my insurance policy against this country going to the dogs.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | February 18, 2009 at 11:46
Iain @ 9.59
I only used the phrase "of course" in order to recognise the current legal position, not because I approve of the current crazy situation.
But I agree (and have long argued) that far more has to be done about training. This is one area where past Conservative government did badly. Individual apprenticeship schemes and things like the construction industry training board (funded by industry contributions) were abolished. Employers took the lazy (and cheap) route of importing workers from abroad, instead of training the next generation of local workers.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 18, 2009 at 11:54
"I believe my interests are best served served by free movement through the EU and by access to services, such as healthcare, while I am there."
The majority do not agree.
Posted by: Tommy | February 18, 2009 at 11:55
Please read David Ricardo's Principles of Political Economics and Taxation. Comparative advantage in trade applies to trade not to movement of labour and capital.
A country that receives immigrant labour without the concomitant arrival of capital has less capital per head and is thus poorer. Most immigrant labour neither brings capital nor does it have the average level of skill of British natives-it is thus a major economic drain. Anecdotally much of the immigration labour also has ,in the longterm
,much greater fiscal burdens in health eduction asnd social services.
Posted by: Anthony Scholefield | February 18, 2009 at 12:02
"It was with mounting horror that I read this and found I had some sympathy with the view"
Me too that I am writing such stuff, and it wouldn't be so bad if I could be dismissed as an exocentric, but I am not, for I keep on hearing this desire for a revolution from many people.
The problem we have is that we are no longer a sovereign nation, the political establishment, in the obligations to which they have signed us up to, can no longer act in our interests. They have become the Louis XV's of the 21st centaury , they rule, but they don't rule for the people.
The reason we had a stable country was because we were a sovereign state, we could elect a Government to set the rules and laws as we saw fit. Unfortunately the politicians having signed away that right, can no longer respond to our interests, as such there is going to be a massive build up of frustration between people demanding action, and a political class frozen into inaction, and that is not a stable constitutional situation.
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 12:03
It is interesting, is it not, that just about every thread turns into a discussion about the EU and/or immigration?
I suggest that these, along with the associated problem of our near bust economy, are the big issues of our time and the answers will shape the future of our country.
How will it all end? I suggest that, to find out more, we should go out into the streets, the highways and byways, the places of work, the building sites, the mothers’ and toddlers groups, the local football clubs, the rotary clubs, the pubs and the homes of the ordinary decent and largely non-political people and ask them what they think.
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 18, 2009 at 12:06
The thing that I think is wrong is that there are many people working doing great jobs in the public services and working really hard from country`s outside of Europe and the party is saying that these people shouldn`t be here.
If you withdrew the work permits of all those working in the NHS from overseas countries some hospitals would grind to a halt.
The party is highlighting this for cheap political point scoring and it stinks.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 18, 2009 at 12:11
"If you withdrew the work permits of all those working in the NHS from overseas countries some hospitals would grind to a halt."
No it wouldn't. Salaries might have to rise to attract the staff, but if the job was a necessary job then people would be found to do the job.
Posted by: Iain | February 18, 2009 at 12:22
JS "If you withdrew the work permits of all those working in the NHS from overseas countries some hospitals would grind to a halt."
I've always wondered about this one, is there a breakdown of each hospital in the countries staffing ethnicity? This sort of statement is bandied around but which hospitals does it affect? How many British nationals are unemployed in those areas? Why can't they be trained on the wards from the bottom up? Perhaps this is one scheme for Tony Makara's work programme trial where men and women from disappearing industries can train on the job.
Posted by: a-tracy | February 18, 2009 at 12:23
Most people don't like the EU, but they have been brainwashed by the big three parties (plus the trades unions, the BBC, etc., etc.) into believing that the EU somehow looks after them or provides cheap flights to Spain and similar nonsense.
Maybe economic collapse, and jobs in all sectors here going to cheaper non-UK EU people in bigger and bigger numbers, will start to open their eyes - but this could be a slow and painful process.
Posted by: David | February 18, 2009 at 12:26
David, as one who does just that I can tell you that at least in my area, South East Cheshire and North Staffordshire the first concerns seem to be immigration, immigration and immigration. Not detracting from your earlier statement regarding time scales, nor suggesting that it is not the official position, I know that it is neither the actual or perceived case in reality. Immigrants, particularly coloured immigrants (and please everyone do not think this is racist, it is not it is just fact) are treated more generously in respect of both financial and housing benefits.
Posted by: Jack Iddon | February 18, 2009 at 12:29
It is interesting, is it not, that just about every thread turns into a discussion about the EU and/or immigration?
No, it is not. What other discussion would you expect to find in a thread titled: "The Tories raise concerns about the number of immigrants working in Britain (but don't mind if they're from elsewhere in the EU)"?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | February 18, 2009 at 12:38
To the two earlier posters, I would also like a revolution if it makes you feel better.
Check out the Pots and Pans revolution in Iceland which brought down the government, the banks and the regulator.
http://rugfish.blogspot.com/2009/02/naomi-klein-says.html#links
What we need is a bandleader !!!
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 12:55
To the two earlier posters, I would also like a revolution if it makes you feel better.
I agree with you absolutely. Please re read, you will see that I make the point that there is likely to be limited time in which to find one!
Posted by: Jack Iddon | February 18, 2009 at 13:02
rugfish, above refers to post of 11.33.
Posted by: Jack Iddon | February 18, 2009 at 13:04
"Someone" needs to smack Gordon Brown round the back of the head with a saucepan and tell HIM to FIND a job in Europe and to take David Cameron with him !!!!
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 13:30
I am one of the 1.3 million UK citizens living and working in Australia, but I also hold Australian citizenship, as do countless thousands of those Brits, and I have lived in Australia for over 30 years and regard it as my home, which it has been for many years. I do not think it is useful simply to quote the number of expatriates in this context.
Posted by: Archie Wedderspoon | February 18, 2009 at 13:39
BBC says: Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said world leaders are working towards a "global deal and grand bargain" to deal with the economic downturn.
Does this mean he's flogging Britain for a knock down price ?
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 13:48
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN
Posted by: Onemarcus | February 18, 2009 at 14:01
Die Zeit journalist: Lisbon Treaty is “unique in history” and does not increase EU democracy
Speaking at a conference at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI) yesterday, Jochen Bittner, Brussels Correspondent for German newspaper Die Zeit, said “the Lisbon Treaty is something unique in history as it intervenes in the sovereignty which has formerly been reserved for national governments”. He said “the proponents’ argument that the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU more democratic and more efficient is to be rejected, not only by German lawyers”.
He said “the argument that the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU more democratic by extending the European Parliament’s powers is not really valid. The EP is not a proper watchdog for its citizens… The level of scrutiny the EP provides cannot be compared with the scrutiny of a national parliament”.
He criticised the EU’s so-called ‘orange card’ system, whereby a group of national parliaments can object to an EU proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity, saying it was “not practical”, partly because the ultimate decision about breaches of subsidiarity lies with the European Court of Justice. He said: “ECJ judges are appointed by European Ministers, which would be impossible on the national level. Also, ECJ jurisdiction is regularly in line with the European Commission… One may have doubts whether this court can be seen as a watchdog of accountability.”
Bittner said he objected to the Treaty’s “provisions on the EU’s infringements of civil liberties” and criticised the “vague” Charter of Fundamental Rights, “Especially regarding the freedom of expression”. Regarding the upcoming judgement of the German constitutional court, he said he did not expect the Treaty to be rejected, but said the Court will request strict national implementation measures. “The judges will step on the brake of European integration, which will be a decisive political signal”, he said
Posted by: rugfish | February 18, 2009 at 14:32
a-tracy raises a good point and we really could do with the figures. I can absolutely confirm that the vast majority of junior psychiatrists, that I come into contact with are foreign graduates. The accepted wisdom is that our best graduates have left the NHS and gone to the US and as a result we have employed the graduates of India and Pakistan to make up for this shortfall. Whilst I have no doubt that these people are very well trained, one issue comes up over and over again in my conversation with patients. They have difficulty understanding what is being said, and are not confidant that they in their turn are being fully understood. Of course this might just be a single trust that is having problems recruiting, without a full set of figures to say anymore would be to speculate.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 18, 2009 at 14:34
Workers' Registration takes far more thab 5 minutes and involves a fee of £90. The issuing of an National Insurance number can take weeks. As most of the migrant workers from the EU are single or without families the benefits for children do not apply.
Posted by: Anon R | February 18, 2009 at 14:46
What a silly reason for overwriting a comment. Is Theresa May beyond critisism for making her nasty party tag and giving the opposition the chance to use it again and again. Look back in this debate one of them even use the nasty party tag on here. But my comment gets overwritten for jokingly suggesting a piece of that persons footwear should be removed the next time they try to make such a comment. Sense of humour bypass or what!
Posted by: Onemarcus | February 18, 2009 at 15:05
"A large part of Turkey is in Europe."
Not it isn't.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 18, 2009 at 16:22
Posted by: Archie Wedderspoon | February 18, 2009 at 13:39
I am one of the 1.3 million UK citizens living and working in Australia, but I also hold Australian citizenship, as do countless thousands of those Brits, and I have lived in Australia for over 30 years and regard it as my home, which it has been for many years. I do not think it is useful simply to quote the number of expatriates in this context.
Thank you - another reason why Migration Watch figures are rubbish - they talk about the country in which you were born, rather than your nationality.
According to the right, you are part of the immigration "problem" of Oz.
Posted by: resident leftie | February 18, 2009 at 17:04
Martin, thanks for your response to my post, but I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning. You say that immigration (from wherever) depresses wages at the bottom of the scale, but how can that be when (at least as far as legitimate companies are concerned) workers whatever their nationality can't be earning less than the minimum wage - which has itself increased significantly since its introduction? Is it therefore your position that there should be:
a) an end, or severe curtailment, to immigration, and
b) a substantial hike in the minimum wage?
If so, I'm not entirely sure what that makes you in political terms, but you wouldn't be someone I could agree with. I'm a Conservative because I believe in freedom: freedom for employers and employees to negotiate wages to their mutual satisfaction such that both party feels they're getting a good deal, and freedom, yes, to live and work where one pleases irrespective of the dictates of man-made institutions like governments. But that's a wider issue, and I don't want the point I was making before - that it's a good thing the Conservatives shouldn't be attacking freedom of movement in the EU - to get lost.
Secondly, I'm not sure but it looked as though you might have accused me of racism for blaming the would-be British workers for their own unemployment when firms prefer to hire people from abroad. This is not racism. It's actually quite simple. Think about it like this. In your local Starbucks, a Polish girl works. It's her first job country (which is plausible since most Poles seem to come to the UK and do so well here that the next time they go back again it's to look for their second house, but that's another story), and she got it by answering an ad, just like everyone else. That ad had been in the store window for weeks before she arrived, yet amazingly, local unemployment rates are not 0%. What? How can this be? Well, maybe you do wonder this, and in your curiosity you ask the manager.
"Oh, it's simple," he says. "It's not that there aren't any British workers who could have taken the job, but around here most of them just don't want it. They're unemployed, and meant to be looking for work, but that's easy - anyone can fake that, and all they do is tell the Job Centre that they want to be pop stars, footballers or company directors anyway, and when unsurprisingly the staff are unable to help, they say, hey, I said I'd look, now let's have the Giro and see you next week. Anyway, I had a couple of interviews with local lads, but I just couldn't hire them. They slouched, they looked unpresentable and their attitudes were sullen. Actually the guy who created the vacancy, I had to let go because he kept nipping out for a fag every half an hour. But then in comes Irma, and just look at her: she's polite, bright, efficient, well-groomed, speaks perfect English and although she has a bit of an accent, it's no stronger than someone from (insert city elsewhere in the UK here) would find the local accent. What was I going to do, turn her away because she's Polish? What am I, a racist?"
Nope, and I don't think I am, either.
Posted by: David Bean | February 18, 2009 at 17:42
Martin, thanks for your response to my post, but I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning. You say that immigration (from wherever) depresses wages at the bottom of the scale, but how can that be when (at least as far as legitimate companies are concerned) workers whatever their nationality can't be earning less than the minimum wage - which has itself increased significantly since its introduction? Is it therefore your position that there should be:
a) an end, or severe curtailment, to immigration, and
b) a substantial hike in the minimum wage?
If so, I'm not entirely sure what that makes you in political terms, but you wouldn't be someone I could agree with. I'm a Conservative because I believe in freedom: freedom for employers and employees to negotiate wages to their mutual satisfaction such that both party feels they're getting a good deal, and freedom, yes, to live and work where one pleases irrespective of the dictates of man-made institutions like governments. But that's a wider issue, and I don't want the point I was making before - that it's a good thing the Conservatives shouldn't be attacking freedom of movement in the EU - to get lost.
Secondly, I'm not sure but it looked as though you might have accused me of racism for blaming the would-be British workers for their own unemployment when firms prefer to hire people from abroad. This is not racism. It's actually quite simple. Think about it like this. In your local Starbucks, a Polish girl works. It's her first job country (which is plausible since most Poles seem to come to the UK and do so well here that the next time they go back again it's to look for their second house, but that's another story), and she got it by answering an ad, just like everyone else. That ad had been in the store window for weeks before she arrived, yet amazingly, local unemployment rates are not 0%. What? How can this be? Well, maybe you do wonder this, and in your curiosity you ask the manager.
"Oh, it's simple," he says. "It's not that there aren't any British workers who could have taken the job, but around here most of them just don't want it. They're unemployed, and meant to be looking for work, but that's easy - anyone can fake that, and all they do is tell the Job Centre that they want to be pop stars, footballers or company directors anyway, and when unsurprisingly the staff are unable to help, they say, hey, I said I'd look, now let's have the Giro and see you next week. Anyway, I had a couple of interviews with local lads, but I just couldn't hire them. They slouched, they looked unpresentable and their attitudes were sullen. Actually the guy who created the vacancy, I had to let go because he kept nipping out for a fag every half an hour. But then in comes Irma, and just look at her: she's polite, bright, efficient, well-groomed, speaks perfect English and although she has a bit of an accent, it's no stronger than someone from (insert city elsewhere in the UK here) would find the local accent. What was I going to do, turn her away because she's Polish? What am I, a racist?"
Nope, and I don't think I am, either.
Posted by: David Bean | February 18, 2009 at 17:48
I have very right wing views on immigration, and frankly yearn for the days where you could sit on the Tube and just see a sea of white faces.
Having said that, I would be far more likely to employ a young Asian or Polish man for a job than a young English man!
When it comes to practicalities, I can force my jingoistic, oh-for-the-days-of-the-Empire leanings aside - give me my Pakistani doctor, postmaster from the Ceylon, and the friendly, polite and helpful Polish or Indian or Who-Knows-What workers at Tesco, who seem to work twice as hard as the white English louts there!
Posted by: Neo-neo-neo-con | February 18, 2009 at 18:25
It isn't just jobs why do people think we are building houses on Green belt agricultural land? Those millions of extra people have to be housed you know as do the millions thathave moved away from the innder cities to get away fromn the ghettos that have been created in many places.
Posted by: Onemarcus | February 18, 2009 at 18:51
a-tracy. Go into some hospitals and you will see with your own eyes and more to the point the people from overseas who are working in our hospitals are hard working caring and we are lucky to have them.
They shouldn`t have there work permits withdrawn we should be grateful they are here.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 18, 2009 at 19:20
What is this rubbish going round that British people are not hard working. We work longer hours than anyone else in Europe.
There are some that are lazy because the State pays them to be lazy and gives them no incentive to not be lazy. So rather than deal with this problem we import millions of pepole from overseas to do jobs and carry on paying billions to the lazy people. It ain't racist to think this is wrong.
Posted by: Onemarcus | February 18, 2009 at 19:32
Goodness me, now I am cross. I thought Gordon Brown was thick, but he is right the Conservatives ARE the do nothing party.
People wonder why some folk are talking about voting BNP, at least they pretend to care about some people, the rest make no bones about not caring about anyone except the great god EU and it's 30,000 rules in ten years, crikey those MEPs must be really busy, probably laughing at British politicians screwing their electorate. The major parties are complicit in franchising Britain to the EU like some burger shop, limp fries and greasy burgers, the same menu no matter where you are. Brown and Cameron are the spotty oiks with no stars on their name badges because they don't give a toss for the customer.
ENJOY YOUR MEAL SIR. The desert is humble pie if you don't buck up your ideas for the next general election.
Posted by: Willaim Ferguson | February 18, 2009 at 19:43
Turkey - Super Blue writes " a large part of Turkey is in Europe ".
The actual figure is 3% - THREE per CENT.
Posted by: william dartmouth | February 18, 2009 at 20:04
David Bean
First let me be clear. I was not accusing you of being a racist and if you or any one took my comment that way, I apologise unreservedly. In fact I believe that accusations of racism are bandied about far too frequently, that's why I used the quotation marks round "racism" - I was trying to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Nevertheless I do think generalisations about lazy British workers are used too often and have become a cliché.
The point I was making was that absent the availability of a large labour influx, the labour market has peaks and troughs and wages either rise or stagnate depending on supply and demand. The relatively recent availability of large flows of new workers has undermined that process by introducing a new element into the equation. It has tended to be a win win situation for employers. Looking at somewhat more skilled workers such as tradesmen in the construction industry and they will tell you that hourly rates have not risen in line with general inflation over the last few years.Their hopes in sharing growing prosperity have been somewhat dashed. Essentially, labour has had its bargaining power removed. You talk about the freedom to contract but at the moment it isn't a balanced negotiation because the employer can always say:"You cut up rough and we'll bring in 1,000 Poles to replace you. So take it or leave it."
So the situation is splendid for employers and it's splendid for enterprising young immigrants but it isn't good news to indigenous unemployed.
To redress the balance I would like to see reductions in the level of immigration including from the EU for work. This is because the levels in the last few years have been so high. Even that centrist David Cameron has recently said it has been too high. Once we've had a a bit of a breather there would be scope for returning to a balanced level.
I'm not necessarily arguing for a hike in the minimum wage. I would hope that the majority of workers in this country can be paid a living wage not the minimum wage which just a safety net for the very poor. What I am saying is that unlike mobile young east Europeans, many British workers could not afford to work at the rates offered. They have higher overheads (houses and families to support) that the footloose young immigrant doesn't have.
How you would label me is of lesser importance. Patriotic, libertarian conservative I suppose. While I admired Margaret Thatcher in many respects, I have also an element of "one nation" and I certainly don't believe we should sacrifice our fellow countrymen to enhance the profits of mega corporations or to satisfy the mania of Eurocrats.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 18, 2009 at 20:39
The simple gut Tory answer is -
1. Withdraw immediately from the EU.
2. Recall all British citizens from other EU countries.
3. deport everyone not born in the UK.
4. Draw up the drawbridge and forbid any further immigration into the UK.
5.Reject all imports from outside the UK.
6.Withdraw from all International and UN treaties.
7.Forbid any exports from the UK.
8. Put out the lights !!!
Posted by: Doubting Tory ! | February 18, 2009 at 23:43
Doubting tory, you are plainly a socialist.
Remember the only relevant considerations regarding immigration are - what do we want and does it benefit us.
We decide who we want, when we want them, on what terms and for how long.
Personally I dont see the terms decided by socialists as binding or socialist follies as a fait d'accompli.
Posted by: Francis | February 19, 2009 at 00:10
The undercutting problem would be solved in Britain were to tighten its Labour laws while at thesame tim engaging with Eastern European partners to enure that EU-wide employment laws were more than just a 'race to the bottom'.
I the Conservatives are serious about tackling his problem they will look not to those coming into the UK who just want a better life, but at the lax lws that allow employers to cut average salaries and working conditions as soon as a new source of cheap labour becomes available.
Posted by: Peter Beckett | February 19, 2009 at 11:29
David Bean
I don't recognise the Job Centre you describe. When did you last go to one? It simply isn't that easy to claim what should rightfully be yours. I certainly have not and would not claim for the benefit based on NI paid. You get very little and the process id IMO demeanig and unproductive. Of course it is s different matter if you have got stuff all and can claim income support (I think it is still called that); then they'll give you loads. As for the minimum wage when did you last live on it? The Brown boom has been backed by a spectacularly lax monetary and regulatory regime aided by a low wage economy for those at the bottom of the pile.
Posted by: bill | February 19, 2009 at 11:59
It is time to stop the talk and promise to sort this everlasting problem out. The hotels full there is not enough jobs to go around. As for all the refugee's and asylum seekers : their countries are massive and there must be safe areas they can go,or the UN could set them up. We should not be a soft touch any longer in this serious economic slowdown. We need to look after our own interests and people for a change. Charity starts at home as they used to say. You should start making strong and realistic promises and maybe you will now gain votes on this issue because everyone is tired of this problem and shouldent feel racist because they want the problem sorted out.
Posted by: Mr tom | February 19, 2009 at 18:34
free movement of workers is fine, it's immigration that has literaly screwed us.
we can't handle as much imigration as other countries simply due to our limited land mass.
we can't feed the population and yet green belt land is being used to build houses!
wind turbines are being built on land that could be used for crops or cattle! (and the turbines are very poor, their are other models that provide far more energy as well as operating in higher and lower winds!)
as long as immigration is controled very strictly we can still support free movement of skilled workers as long as their is the work for them (same goes for uk subjects in european countries)
Posted by: chris southern | February 19, 2009 at 21:13
I see that the BNP have just won a council seat in Sevenoaks of all places. It was a strong labour ward.Itlooks as though labour will collapse outside its Celtic and far north strongholds but what does it do a man to win the whole electoral world but lose his own people.
Posted by: Anthony Scholefield | February 19, 2009 at 23:55
"The simple gut Tory answer is -
1. Withdraw immediately from the EU.
2. Recall all British citizens from other EU countries.
3. deport everyone not born in the UK.
4. Draw up the drawbridge and forbid any further immigration into the UK.
5.Reject all imports from outside the UK.
6.Withdraw from all International and UN treaties.
7.Forbid any exports from the UK.
8. Put out the lights !!!"
Posted by: Doubting Tory
This is all very well as far as it goes, but it would still leave a substantial number of golliwogs roaming around the country.
I mean, I'm not a racist or anything, but maybe stage 9 should be to give Carol Thatcher a shotgun and carte blanche.
Posted by: Wolfenstein | February 20, 2009 at 21:52
Memo to Cameron re The Sydney Morning Herald: "Door maybe shut on skilled migrants".
" Australia's record immigrant intake is expected to be cut as unemployment rises.....
The Government is considering reducing skilled migrant quota in the next budget as it tries to offset the extra 300,000 people expected expected to be jobless in 2010.....
Monash University demographer Bob Birrell says a sharp reduction of skilled migrants, not a reshuffle of who entered first was needed to prevent the Government's $42 billion salve from being overwhelmed by new job seekers.
If the migration program is not cut sharply, the growth in migrant job seekers will exceed the number of jobs the plan proposes to protect". Read it all.
That is the beauty of being a sovereign nation: you can put the interests of those that you are elected to represent first.
Unfortunately our politician have their heads stuck so far up the EU orifice that they cannot hear the bitter comments being made by the electorate that they choose to ignore, but appear to despise by calling them such as fruitcakes, closet racists, xenophobic and protectionist (ignoring the fact that most are not against free trade, but against an uphill playing field with the wind always blowing in our face). How easy is it for a British company to purchase or take over a company in Germany or France?
The protectionists are sitting in Parliament looking after the interests of Brussels, the EU and their own - your interests come last. How dare you demand British jobs for British workers! (Brown was as we know, only kidding, all mouth and (no)trousers; Cameron has also been debagged; the Lib/Dims have never had any trousers - just soiled nappies.
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under | February 21, 2009 at 09:48
The Conservatives have in the past argued that we should renegotiate the EU treaties. They should, when in power, repeal the Free Movement of Labour legislation.
Despite the Treaties, the UK Parliament is still sovereign and so has the power to repeal such legislation. It can tell Brussels to take it or leave it (which would mean the EU losing the UK contribution, and much more). Existing EU workers who are here could apply for work permits, with an annual limit.
This is not only the right thing to do for our workers who are being left on the scrapheap by a Labour Government (which calls them "xenophobic", and even accuses the Unite union of stoking "rumours" when it tells us that 6,000 automotive jobs are at threat within days), but it is also morally and ethically right.
Isn't it about time we had a Government who did the right thing by the working people of the UK?
Posted by: The Wilted Rose | February 21, 2009 at 14:16