Reply to: Can't believe we've missed this one...

[EternalOptimist]

one in, one out

i like it

[Mich the Tester]

but what happens when the floodgates are opened ? water flows downhill and you end up with a level surface

Well, yes, possibly, if borders are opened unilaterally, but that isn't what I support.

[EternalOptimist]

but what happens when the floodgates are opened ? water flows downhill and you end up with a level surface

[Mich the Tester]

But this would not be fair unless skill gaps are correctly identified, the visas are awarded on merit and the candidates are properly vetted.

Well no, but doing that would involve yet more government bureaucracy. Just think of how much money is being spent on border controls, bureaucrats dealing with residence and work permits, naval patrols in the Med and so on and it isn't actually markedly stopping or slowing migration. What a bloody waste of money, aside from the constant barrage of attacks on individual liberty, legislation, ID cards and the like supposedly to prevent illegal immigration that are having no real effect other than to make everybody pretty bloody miserable. I generally support open borders initiatives, even if they are limited to the richer countries, because quite simply they make economic sense, and while I understand that people have genuine social concerns, I also understand that society will be an awful lot tuliptier if we don't first ensure we can pay the bills.

[mos]

He's also suggesting an open border approach at the 'high end', which is a good idea, but I think he's missing the point on circular migration and social mobility.

But this would not be fair unless skill gaps are correctly identified, the visas are awarded on merit and the candidates are properly vetted.

[Mich the Tester]

I want to spend less money on EU beauocracy.

In the seventies we voted for a common market - and thats what we should have. There are too many disparate cultures in Europe.

I agree, and I think most of northern Europe agrees on that. As I've said before, the question isn't really whether that's a good thing; it is, but the question is how to achieve it starting from where we are now.

[BrilloPad]

...and Mrs Merkel said yesterday that the way the freedom of movement of individuals is working needs change, so that governments can be more selective in who they wish to recieve, and she isn't the first government leader in Europe to say this so actually the EU, which Mr Farage seems to hate, is slowly moving in his voters' direction on this one. Basically, as I keep trying to tell people, Britain doesn't need to leave the EU to get what it wants and it's more likely to get it inside the EU.

I want to spend less money on EU beauocracy.

In the seventies we voted for a common market - and thats what we should have. There are too many disparate cultures in Europe.

[Mich the Tester]

This one is surprisingly not pro UKiP ...

Net migration is up, but net migration is a meaningless term » Spectator Blogs

I don't agree with ALL of that, but it's certainly a more intelligent analysis than a lot of the cack I've read about immigration. He's also suggesting an open border approach at the 'high end', which is a good idea, but I think he's missing the point on circular migration and social mobility.

[mos]

Even in the DM, not a dickie bird. What's going on?

Net migration soars over 200,000 despite David Cameron's pledge

I thought this kind of story was the grist to the CUK mill! Maybe DA isn't around today

Anyway, here's the bit I'd like to chuck into the ring:

Because (even though these figures don't include post 1st Jan figures) they've all been trotting out the line that nobody turned up except that poor sod who was greeted by Keith Vaz with a Starbuck's Mocchaccino upon arrival (and subsequently disappeared off the radar).

This one is surprisingly not pro UKiP ...

Net migration is up, but net migration is a meaningless term » Spectator Blogs

[Mich the Tester]

BBC News - UKIP 'biggest threat to establishment', says Farage

Mr Farage will say immigration has "now become the number one issue in British politics", adding: "Eighty per cent of the British people did not want borders to come down with Romania and Bulgaria, but they did.

...and Mrs Merkel said yesterday that the way the freedom of movement of individuals is working needs change, so that governments can be more selective in who they wish to recieve, and she isn't the first government leader in Europe to say this so actually the EU, which Mr Farage seems to hate, is slowly moving in his voters' direction on this one. Basically, as I keep trying to tell people, Britain doesn't need to leave the EU to get what it wants and it's more likely to get it inside the EU.

[Mich the Tester]

Mostly it's down to individuals looking for opportunity and a better life for themselves and their families. This is why, even when you don't have open borders or other policies that can be credited to the political classes, you still get lots of immigrants.

...especially in that area of Europe where the economy is strongest, namely a funny shaped area that includes the south eastern part of Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the western part of Germany.

As for crediting open borders to the political classes, I'd rather see a nuance there; open borders were the default until the post war period (arguably 1961 when the inner German border was built). Closed borders are thanks to the political classes either protecting their own interests or responding to panic about immigration, thereby locking in people who would otherwise be circular migrants, and the EU moves to open the borders within Europe while strengthening them on the outside are very recent.

One reason why all policies to reduce immigration fail is that politicians make populist promises that go against all scientific knowledge on the phenomenon of migration; as is often the case, when you do the research science can throw up counter intuitive surprises. Opening borders might briefly increase temporary migration while reducing permanent migration, but we'll need more data to know for sure, and the rule might not apply everywhere.

What's also apparent is that the population of the world is becoming more urbanised (generally, not necessarily the same everywhere locally). Alpha ++ and Alpha+ cities continue to grow with both 'foreign' and domestic migrants, while all over the world, including parts of Europe like southern Italy or rural Spain, are being depopulated. This is having massive political effects as the urban populations gain more power and wealth at the expense of rural populations and urban underclass groups who feel left behind. OK, I'm painting a rather black and white picture here but I'm afraid I've already done my thesis on this 20 years ago and while I enjoy keeping up with developments in demographic research, I don't plan on writing a dissertation on CUK, and certainly not before I can (semi-)retire.

[BrilloPad]

BBC News - UKIP 'biggest threat to establishment', says Farage

Mr Farage will say immigration has "now become the number one issue in British politics", adding: "Eighty per cent of the British people did not want borders to come down with Romania and Bulgaria, but they did.

Of course, the reason government want more people is so it looks like the economy is growing. But productivity is not. UK is still 30% behing US, Germany and France.

Still - as long as they get re-elected then all is well.

[doodab]

What the driving force for that is I don't know.

Mostly it's down to individuals looking for opportunity and a better life for themselves and their families. This is why, even when you don't have open borders or other policies that can be credited to the political classes, you still get lots of immigrants.

Personally I think with a growing economy and a growing population the sensible thing to do is put money into public services to ensure they can cope and the growth continues rather than whinging about the fact we're actually doing quite well. Even at this rate it will take us 20 years to replace 5 million wantaway Scottish people with folk who actually want to be here.

[Mich the Tester]

Firstly, fewer.

You're probably right on that one.

Mass immigration is a global phenomenon - exactly the same unprecedented influx is being experienced in all western nations.

What the driving force for that is I don't know.
...

Maybe there's no intent behind it at all though. Perhaps the world is just a smaller place these days.

This. Don't go looking for conspiracies when basic geography and economics can explain it.

[Gittins Gal]

Does anybody believe that, if UK left the EU, there would be less immigrants? Just because the EU immigrants would have no automatic right to work, that doesn't mean that the government will not sign treaties with some 3rd world countries (India, China) to allow millions of unqualified and cheap workers.

However poor the Romanians, Bulgarians and possibly Ukrainians might be, their standard of life (in a broad sense) is several orders or magnitude higher than in some parts of Asia.

But the English peasant has been kept on booze and fags for too long to understand.

Firstly, fewer.

You're probably right on that one.

Mass immigration is a global phenomenon - exactly the same unprecedented influx is being experienced in all western nations.

What the driving force for that is I don't know.

On one extreme you have people saying its a ploy by global capitalists to bring us all down to a single common denominator, abolish nationhood and create a global class of serfs to exploit at their will.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the lefties who have always been obsessed with internationalism and the abolition of nation states for their own idealogical reasons.

Maybe there's no intent behind it at all though. Perhaps the world is just a smaller place these days.