Features

How to fix Britain’s immigration crisis (without leaving Europe)

The problem Ukip has highlighted is real. But there are better solutions

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

13 December 2014

9:00 AM

The response to the Ukip surge has reached the panic stage. Just as British business and academia chorused the economic benefits of Union in the final stages of the Scottish referendum campaign, now their refrain is of the economic benefits of immigration. A letter from ten chief executives in the Financial Times pronounced that unimpeded immigration from Eastern Europe is highly valuable. The previous week economists estimated that immigration from Eastern Europe had contributed £20 billion net in taxes.

But Ukip supporters are no longer overawed by businessmen and dons, so what is to be done? Within the accepted rules of English social hierarchy, the tempting implication for the rest of us is condescension. Ukip supporters are from the less advantaged classes, but not sufficiently wretched for the status of disadvantaged. Ill-educated and prejudiced, despite their numbers they are politically marginal because they are spatially dispersed. Hence: ignore them. This would be a terminal error. Instead, we should try honesty.

On the need for foreign workers, too much has gone wrong in British business for chief executives to have retained the respectful attention of an admiring populace. Of course British business finds it cheaper to hire ready-trained and motivated Hungarians than to train and motivate British youth. Similarly, the City finds it cheaper to hire tax-privileged non-doms. Britain’s disastrous record of low labour productivity reflects this hire-cheap-and-don’t-train approach. It is clearly not coincident with the national interest.

As to tax, the £20 billion short-term gain brandished in the headlines is less indicative of the fiscal consequences than the longer-term £114 billion fiscal loss from overall immigration. Even these numbers are misleading. The impact should be estimated from the perspective of the life cycle. Over a lifetime the average person will pay in tax what they get out in public spending. Those whose lifetime income is below average are net beneficiaries: they get more from the state throughout their lives than they pay in taxes. The opposite is true of those above average: they are are net contributors. Immigrants can only be net contributors if they are atypically prosperous, which is unlikely.

More fundamentally, this discussion of jobs and tax diverts attention from the important issues. In truth, the economic effects are trivial: a decade of fast immigration has changed average wages by around half-a-percent. The important effects are long-term and social. They work predominantly through the size and diversity of the population.

The issue of population size is, I think, relatively straightforward. England is the most crowded country in Europe, our transport infrastructure and our housing stock are under severe stress, and environmental concerns are gaining popular traction. So there is a strong case for stabilising the population. What this implies for immigration depends upon what we do on child benefits. Since 1997 there has been a huge increase in child benefits, which has predictably increased the birthrate to above replacement levels. Were this to persist, the target for net migration would need to be negative.

Child benefits not only provide incentives, they set norms. Benefits, though modest from the perspective of those accustomed to English levels of income, can seem munificent to people from much poorer societies, and may delay the adjustment to current norms of family size. So there is a case for revising child benefit, perhaps capping it at two children while protecting provision for existing larger families.


Diversity is a more complicated issue. Social science can tell us that some diversity is better than none, and that there can be too much diversity as well as too little. It widens variety of choice and can be a stimulus to new thinking. But at some point adverse effects set in: diversity undermines cooperation and generosity. Immigration reduces the willingness to pay for benefits, and particularly undermines the acceptability of targeting them — currently the favoured approach to shrinking the welfare bill. We should therefore aim for a happy medium on immigration. The question, of course, is where this happy medium lies.

Different groups in society will reasonably have quite different views on where the happy medium lies. The affluent young benefit from diversity — they employ Polish plumbers and Swedish nannies — and so will want more of it. Whereas those on benefits or low pay, such as many Ukip supporters, will rationally fear diversity because it undermines generosity. But overall, it’s clear that a majority in England is uncomfortable even with existing levels of diversity: and England is where immigrants choose to settle.

A common narrative among the bien-pensant is that discomfort is reduced by exposure: host populations are supposedly more accepting in high-immigrant localities. This is an example of picking studies to suit values. The weight of the research evidence unfortunately suggests the opposite: further rapid immigration is unlikely to abate concerns.

So we should probably aim to stabilise immigration and the diversity it brings at around the present level. The speed of integration depends on policies. The official espousal of multiculturalism (meaning we encourage a diverse range of cultures) has implied slower integration, and so a lower immigration target for any chosen level of diversity. Other countries promote integration: Canada and Switzerland avoid concentrations of immigrants; the Netherlands and Norway have compulsory language programs. It would help if ‘English’ ceased to be an ethnic identifier and became the accepted identity of everyone reared in England, just as the SNP promotes an inclusive definition of ‘Scottish’. As the referendum revealed, ‘British’ is too weak an identity to induce much allegiance.

What are the implications of such immigration targets for Britain in Europe? Chancellor Merkel has said that rather than abandon the principle of free movement of workers, she would accept British exit. John Major has responded that insistence on free movement would raise the risk of Britain leaving to 50 per cent. These are the opening shots in a great game of chicken.

In understanding how this game might play out, we should first consider what drives the ‘European Project’. At root it is old men’s fears and dreams. Of course, this does not resonate in Britain: we won the war. The old men’s fears are ridiculous, but no less potent. This is why European integration has been festooned with symbolic dreams of statehood: a common currency, free movement of labour, a parliament, a president. All of these symbols are often detrimental to the real business of Europe, which is cooperation for mutual benefit.

The common currency, for example, is inadvertently dismantling the economies of southern Europe. Free movement of workers is inadvertently dismantling Romania’s rural health system as its doctors flock to Paris. A European parliament is inadvertently a gift to populist nationalism. As to the president, of that which we cannot speak politely, we must perforce be silent. Fortunately, Britain has avoided the worst effects: we are in neither the eurozone nor Schengen. What can reasonably be predicted is that, as the old men die and the consequences become yet more inconvenient, the symbols of statehood will gradually be sidelined by the mundane but important process of negotiating mutual benefit. Time is on our side.

The meat of the EU is its increasingly integrated market for goods and services. In the event of exit we could negotiate some reciprocal access, but we would face persistent commercial hostility from Brussels without an effective means of neutralising it. I would rather stay in and wield a veto. We won’t be at the heart of Europe, but we will have purchase on a different part of its anatomy.

But would this condemn Britain to uncontrolled immigration because of the sacrosanct nature of free movement? I don’t think so. Immigration from Old Europe is not really an issue: over the longer term inflows and outflows should just about balance. New Europe does not threaten us with the prospect of ever-rising diversity because, even were rapid inflows to persist, its peoples are fairly easily integrated. In the longer term their economies will catch up and immigration will slow, just as Turkish immigration to Germany is no longer significant.

Meanwhile, there is plenty that we can do on immigration within EU rules. We can redesign our welfare system so as to align better with the rest of old Europe where benefits are based on past contributions rather than current need: why are immigrants queuing at Calais? With a little bureaucratic ingenuity there is considerable scope for impeding European benefits seekers. Nick Clegg, the Commission-insider, has suggested that we should pay benefits to EU immigrants at the rate paid in their home country. Or Brussels could set a floor rate of pan-EU benefits. Necessarily this would be at roughly the level of those prevailing in the lowest-benefit country, but it could be used for payments to all EU immigrants.

Alongside the redesign of benefits, we need better enforcement of our employment and residence laws. Old Europe has identity cards and registers of residence: with neither we have become a haven for anonymity. Similarly, we might also pilot temporary controls. A brake is warranted during periods of severe macroeconomic misalignment, such as wide differences in unemployment rates. From time to time, any member might find such a provision valuable.

It is dangerous and wrong to dismiss concern about immigration. Inchoately, many people sense that ever-rising population would threaten our environment, while ever-rising diversity would threaten our cohesion. Trotting out exaggerated claims of the economic benefits of immigration talks past these concerns. In doing so, it plays into the corrosive populist idea that political elites are disconnected from reality. Only if proper concerns are accepted can bogus ones be credibly dismissed.

We do need better controls on immigration, though not for the reasons advanced by Ukip. Immigration is not economically ruinous, but a threat to trade would be: Brexit would be economic folly. Fortunately, it is unnecessary. We can control immigration without leaving the EU if we have the nerve to try.

Sir Paul Collier is a professor at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. He is the author of Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • MathMan

    What about non-EU immigration, ‘asylum seekers’ ect? There’s no upside to them only economic dependence in perpetuity.

    • The Master

      And disintegration of our culture

      • Bonkim

        Culture is evolving continuously – English/British culture today is miles apart from that of the 1940s and 50s, even 80s and 90s..

        • OldFlashy

          I think that’s what worries people.

          • Bonkim

            Doubt if the British people are clamouring for a return of Victorian or Edwardian morality and class system or 1950s and 60s culture. There is more cultural and lifestyle diversity amongst native Britons than that imported in recent decades – only you have accepted that diversity as native compared to the recent imports that appear more glaring.

            As a society British moral and ethical standards have declined since WW2, Moral and cultural standards were set by the upper classes pre-1940s – moral standards and lifestyles now accepted as normal British ways and politically correct in the name of equality are as alien to traditional Britain as say Islamic lifestyles imported in recent decades. Social media and easy credit have hooked the vast majority – a hedonistic consumption culture has enslaved society at all levels.

            Much of today’s British culture has been created by commercial interests and the media – very little influence of the glorious history, literary and technical prowess, or the Protestant work ethic and frugality that were the hallmarks of what British culture and social norms meant in the past remain. The British family today is in dire trouble, a population dependent on state hand outs, education poor, and the vast majority not up to world standards.

          • Jack

            Here I agree with you a lot more, still not about social media and easy credit being the root of evil mind. This, after all, is social media.

          • VSP

            Very much agree with you Bonkim. The added fact is our political economy that is lost to purpose and trapped in a covert financial blackmail that must avoid democratic accountability. They cannot escape the reality that debt is an obligation , to do as the lender asks. This has forced many ordinary people into loans and obligations they cannot afford also by the same commercial power.
            Without doubt, it throws the question of progress into dispute and asks what sort of progress do we need… Trace that back and you arrive at Thatcher ;Regan alliances to free up the commercial market, to dissolve the Monopolies Commission, thus spelling the speculative demise of our industrial skills and opportunities. Governments since have increased debt, sold more family silver, and their commercial interests have allowed vast commercial monopolies to dictate policies.
            The article heading this debate demonstrates how this minority seek to side line manipulate and circumnavigate democracy yet again.

          • Bonkim

            An economy and measure of GDP dependent on consumption and increased population and jobs in the service sector will not last long. Britain is 75% dependent on imports – in comparison Japan despite its very slow growth is doing well because of cultural homogeneity and negative population growth.

        • The Master

          And I think evolution is a good thing. However, “evolve” usually implies a degree of pace in the change. I remember my first curry 40 or so years ago – a welcome cultural addition to the somewhat bland post-war culinary legacy in the UK. We currently are experiencing a somewhat higher rate of change than many are comfortable with. More revolutionary than evolutionary.

          • Bonkim

            Regrettably fast communications, hedonistic consumption, addiction to social websites, and lack of morality in personal life are undermining the achievements of the past. Not many British children know even half the achievements of their forefathers and and competition and excellence are dirty words in British schools. Hooking on to the social media or your tablet will not make Britain competitive.

            The rest of the world is racing away. I suppose it is all attributable to the life-cycle theory that governs all nature.

          • Jack

            I don’t think that is a problem of today at all. If you’d asked a 10 year old in 1930 to explain to you who Disraeli was, I don’t think you’d have much luck. Example chosen off the top of my head, but you get my point. Hedonistic consumption? Compared to Elizabethan England? People are just better off; hardly morally corrupt compared to the past. The emerging economies are not ‘racing away’ because they don’t have tablets. They are growing quickly, soon to reach our lofty heights.

          • Aberrant_Apostrophe

            If you’d asked a 10 year old in 1930 to explain to you who Disraeli was, I don’t think you’d have much luck.

            On the contrary. I reckon that child would have known who Disraeli was and what his achievements were. In contrast, if you ask the average British 10 year old nowadays who the current Prime Minister is, there’s a good chance they would have a clue, although they could probably tell you who the winner of X Factor was.

          • Jack

            Well, glad to hear what you ‘reckon’. Absolute bollocks mind. To think that the average child’s education in the early 20th century was better than now is laughable.

          • Aberrant_Apostrophe

            Don’t tell me – you’re a teacher, right? FYI, I never claimed that 20th C children were better educated, just that they learned about their own country’s culture and history, rather than the PC multi-cultural cr*p they are spoon fed these days. At least they could do mental arithmetic and spell, unlike many modern kids.

          • Jack

            That’s just rubbish though. No I’m not. Yes, we should teach arithmetic by rote again. Yes, you shoudl spell things correctly; the fact that we do f*cking number bonds and ignore the importance of spelling is disgusting. Kids being bothered about the history of the country is a different thing altogether though. I love British history; I didn’t when I was a kid, I liked football and chocolate.

          • evad666

            One comment I have heard is children are no longer educated but instead taught to pass exams.

          • Kennie

            Quite correct. There is too much schooling and not enough education.
            Blair shouted “educashun, educashun, educashun”. What he meant was ‘ keep them at school/uni longer, it will make the employment figures look better’

          • Barzini

            I don’t know about the early 20th century – but standards have definitely slipped since somewhere round about the 60s/70s…….

            Just look at the past papers for A-levels – the difference between 30 years ago and now is quite simply shocking……there’s almost no comparison…..the exams we set now are easier by several orders of magnitude

          • Jack

            I think you’re right. I don’t think that we’ve lost pride in our achievements though. I think kids aren’t bothered about stuff like that because they’re kids. A-level is a different thing altogether though, and there I completely agree.

          • Samson

            To be fair, the politicians of that age were figures of great respect, bestowed with real power and world influence and the dignity, or at least the impression of dignity, that comes with such a position. I don’t know who won X Factor, but they’re no lower in status that the spoon-faced twit who pretends to run our country. And it wasn’t kids that voted him in.

          • Damaris Tighe

            On tv I’ve seen adults who have never even heard of Ed Miliband.

          • Baz

            Who?

          • Damaris Tighe

            Random people on the street interviewed by Sky.

          • RussKent

            If you’d asked a 10 year old in 1930 to explain to you who Disraeli was, I don’t think you’d have much luck

            On the contrary. I reckon that child would have known who Disraeli was

            We’ll never know. And what is wrong with knowing who won Xfactor.

            Too many old farts on this discussion board, out of touch with anyone under 30

          • Bonkim

            Most particularly women were illiterate until the prevalence of compulsory schooling. Standards of morality, and culture were set by the moneyed classes and their numbers were few. The lower orders just got on earning their daily bread and did not have much time learning about Disraeli, and others although you will be surprised how much they knew from word of mouth and folk lore. Today’s generation don’t think history is important and are living in their electronic and consumer dreams which are short term and will collapse. Yes the underdeveloped world is also chasing the dreams of an affluent consumer culture and will come to grief soon as world populations multiply and resources deplete fast and the earth poisoned beyond repair. The present situation is plainly unsustainable.

          • Grace Ironwood

            I think the actual literacy rate in cities was very high since around Charles’ time. Remember, Protestantism required people to be able to read The Book themselves, people having been burned at the stake for this freedom.

            People sat around whilst the literate read them the news and the gossip in the great periodicals of the time. (Good old Spectator !) London Gazette started in the 1660’s.
            In the 19th C there were many working men’s institutes that provided education to the lower orders that were motivated to learn and “improve themselves”.

          • Bonkim

            Yes something in what you say, industrial revolution and growth of urban population encouraged literacy and the penny dreadfuls helped in the process.

          • redrum

            Totally agree, which is why it is time for our children to leave for a country which has a brighter future and which isn’t the sh*thole that this one has become in my lifetime (and I’m not 50 year).

          • fundamentallyflawed

            I wouldn’t use “hedonistic consumption” but there is a creeping sense of “deserved” or “right” to things. From central heating systems to tvs to mobile phones. Luxuries in many peoples eyes are necessities (which are then claimed to increase relative inequality within countries regardless of income).

          • Jack

            Yes that I do totally agree with, and while it does increase over time it seems, it is a feature of human nature that is not particular to our time. The demand for social housing and unemployment benefits in the first half of the twentieth century was born out of a demand that was unprecedented at the time. We have gradually become more spoiled over time; I’m sure children born under the house of Lancaster thought they had a RIGHT to certain things, which would have seemed absolutely luxurious to pre-society foragers.

            I know I have taken the example here rather far, but you get my point. People do think that they’re owed a comfortable life, as if the Earth was made that way, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is not evil special to our time.

          • Guest

            Plus none of this new EU lot have got any nice food, music, or fab sense of humour and friendliness that Indians and West Indians have.

          • cyrusthevirus

            What?? You think that -idiot!!

        • BillyCobbett

          I could go back to the 80s/90s…no problem. Probably fit into the 40s/50s with a bit of effort(certainly easier than living in modern day Pakistan/Somalia for instance)

          • Bonkim

            Modern day Pakistan and Somalia are even more bigoted than they were in the 1940s or even the 80s/90s. Furthermore the vast majority were illiterate and communications with the outside world non-existent. Today’s fast communications, and the internet has made the world much smaller, and the illiterates are now more aware of their rights and power – you have to accept that people will use their new found freedoms and knowledge in the way they think fit – not to please you or others in the West. So yes you will not fit in there. So best to keep out.

        • AverageGuyInTheStreet

          It’s plain to see that compared to the 40s and 50s our society has degenerated, not evolved. And it’s obvious why.

        • livnletliv

          Yes, just as other peoples culture has evolved continuously, so your point is?

          • Bonkim

            Best to keep out of these hell-holes.

        • DaHitman

          Because of immigration!

        • MaSek12

          Yes, it is getting worse. Drugs, coma-boozing,benefit breeding, etc. Due to a lack of solid leadership and a feeling of despair as the government betrays us every single day.

        • Kennie

          Culture in the UK now consists merely of ever-worsening patterns of behaviour as it sinks further into ‘celebrity’ worship.

      • Samson

        Xbox and Playstation and cheap supermarket booze have done more to erase British culture than any group of immigrants

        • livnletliv

          Doubt it, the booze is even cheaper in their countries.

        • evad666

          In the 70’s and 80’s the UK sparked the Home Computing revolution and now we get code written anywhere but in the UK.

    • James Mayer

      Let’s send them back. Boo-hoo…

      • David the One

        Totally agree. Let’s send back everyone who has arrived since the Romans invaded. Let’s have our true Pryttyn back with its’ Celtic population.
        Agree with that, you get my vote…….

        • James Mayer

          This country is too far gone for people to sit around being sarcastic. Either get serious about the problems we face of don’t bother engaging.

        • mohdanga

          Invading Romans of 2,000 years ago is equivalent to wilful destruction of the indigenous population by mass immigration of a nation state that has been recognized as such for the past 500+ years?

        • Chris Morriss

          And I never realised that the Celts spelt its with a trailing apostrophe!

    • Aberrant_Apostrophe

      No mention of that. Methinks the professor spends too much time up his ivory tower to mix with ordinary people.

      • Damaris Tighe

        He does deal with the issue fairly well in his book, ‘Exodus’. I don’t understand why he hasn’t mentioned the important cultural & social issues here.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          Editors, aka censors?

        • Bonkim

          culture and society are defined by those on the upper levels of society – not the Plebs.

          • Chris Morriss

            Really? is that still the case?

          • Bonkim

            Absolutely – today it is the new-rich – Beckham and the like not the landed Gentry or political leaders..

        • Gwangi

          Yes, I wonder how the people’s of Africa or Asia would deal with millions of poor whites arriving in their countries, claiming benefits, taking housing, lowering wages, arrogantly refusing to integrate, and lording it over the natives. China, India, Africa – these places would NEVER accept a white person as a native, even if born there! Damn racists.

          btw only a pompous academic could use a word like: ‘Inchoately’. Just waiting for ‘Hegemony’ now…

          Why can’t Britain 1) have work permits if we need to import labour – we can then export it again when needed; 2) expel illegal immigrants; 3) demand immigrants integrate and accept our values and culture – or leave; 4) have serious assessments of the negative impact if immigration (which cases overcrowding high rents and house prices, congested roads, an NHS unable to cope, schools struggling as so much cash goes to EAL pupils.

          The natives are sick of what it and have been for years.

          Either the government does something or there will be blood. Riots yet again…

      • William_Brown

        …and why would he? “Uneducated and prejudiced” scum that we are.

        • Bonkim

          Well said – no one wants to copy uneducated scum.

          • Brimstone52

            Except that they do. Accents and styles travel up the societal ladder, much less downwards. Listen to the Queen’s accent from the 1950s and now. There’s a significant softening of the RP.

          • Bonkim

            By and large people copy those that they consider superior financially or culturally. Of course today’s culture is engineered by commercial interests and the media – and copying lower orders is more of a fad in an affluent society.

          • Chris Morriss

            Yeh, like it’s cool innit?

          • Chris Morriss

            But the queen has always had a dreadful speaking voice. If you want to hear what a proper educated upper class female voice was like, listen to any recordings of the late dowager Duchess of Devonshire. Upper class and articulate, without any of the Queen’s strangulated vowels.

          • Brimstone52

            It was the change in her accent I was referring to, not the overall quality of it.

      • Jack

        An education is not an ivory tower. Pol Pot over here.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          Eh?

          • Jack

            “Methinks the professor spends too much time up his ivory tower to mix with ordinary people.” – Bitter at someone’s education?

          • Aberrant_Apostrophe

            You clearly don’t understand the reference to ‘ivory tower’, which refers to someones disconnect with the real world:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower

            As for being bitter at his education, why should I? I hold a 1st class Honours degree and a PhD, and work at a top Russell group university. Now go make snide remarks at someone else.

          • Jack

            I fully understand the meaning, thank you. Immigration policy is academic is it? I think it has quite an effect on ‘ordinary’ people, and these ‘ordinary’ people are certainly interested in it. His views are hardly esoteric; the need to cut back immigration, reforming the welfare system, remaining within the EU. These are very much commonly held views.

            I could therefore only reason that your reference to Ivory Tower meant you thought the fact of his education is what renders his views academic, esoteric and haughty. I can only reason that you claim he is in an ivory tower because you don’t agree with him; plenty of ordinary people do agree with him.

            I’d agree with you if he’d have written this article in Latin, or if he’d have reconstructed the immigration debate as a feminist narrative. But he didn’t.

            I don’t know why you should be bitter, hence the question mark.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark – Oh what fun that is! How ‘snide’ of me to post a wiki link for you, when you know what a question mark is! But in all seriousness, you don’t need to justify yourself to me. You hang that well-educated head high.

            P.s. please don’t just read the final paragraph and shout ad hominem; my first paragraphs are quite clear, so don’t just stick your head in a misused logical fallacy to avoid having to justify yourself.

          • VSP

            To express how clever or qualified you are has no bearing upon your ability to be wise. Indeed your choice of employment may indicate something opposite.

      • Bonkim

        The educated are arrogant as are the rich. Natural human condition in a competitive society.

    • livnletliv

      There is no upside to any of the EU immigrants, unless you are one of the creeps looking down from the top of the selfish eu ponzi scheme, or some parasite wanting to drag yourself up by dragging others down.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      Genuine asylum seekers deserve our sympathy and support. Economic migrants who happen to be from poorer nations should be deported – the current processes take far too long.

  • Brimstone52

    At the end of a faintly intelligent piece, the professor trots out the old, disproved cliché that we need to stay in the EU for trade. We don’t there is a big wide world out there.

    If tiny Iceland can make its way in the world then I’m confident that the UK with it’s wider international connections will prosper.

    The EU is dying because those in charge have a limited, protectionist attitude. That is something the UK has never shared.

    • Some people just don’t get that the EU is a trade block and when we leave the fact that it is a trade block makes things just as easy to trade with the EU countries.

      • OldFlashy

        Everybody get’s that it’s a trade block. They just don’t like the sacrifices that have to be made to be a part of it.

        • milford

          It’s a lot more than a trade block these days. Haven’t you noticed? We have to ask Angela Merkel if we can decrease immigration and she says ‘No!’ I’d say it looks like it’s more than a matter of trade.

        • livnletliv

          The sacrafices made only by the working class for the benefit of only the self serving ignorant evil bratts, such as the one who wrote this pathetic drivel.

      • Brimstone52

        It’s not only a trade block. It’s also a political union.

        It was sold to the people as a trade block because the politicians knew damn well that the people would never accept a political unions and the loss of sovereignty and all else that goes with it.

      • milford

        It was just a trade block. Now it’s a political union. It has it’s own anthem, army, parliament, flag. Wake up.

      • Aberrant_Apostrophe

        Bloc.

    • Frank

      “faintly intelligent”? You are too kind.
      What I love is the way this expert on immigration skates over the impact of Non-EU immigration. He is also misleading (probably deliberately), I would strongly suspect that if Turkish immigration to Germany has slowed it is because the Germans have strongly discouraged it.
      Be interesting to know why he got knighted and by whom.

      • Damaris Tighe

        His book ‘Exodus’ is much stronger stuff. It covers – very critically – m/c & non-EU immigration. I was disappointed not to see this reflected in his article.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          As I wrote elsewhere, either the author has been very selective or the Speccie editor has wielded their blue pencil.

      • Brimstone52

        Not so much kind, as not fully awake. 🙂

        I think the concentration on EU migration is a distraction technique, to keep us oiks attention away from less palatable things.

        • David the One

          Like what? Can you please be more specific?

          • Brimstone52

            No.

          • Jack

            Brilliant. If you think his answers to EU immigration keep your eyes away from the real problem of non-EU immigration, why do you want to leave the EU on those grounds? Does the EU set non-EU immigration levels?

          • rightrightright

            Dutch Somalis have exited The Netherlands and moved to England. The African illegals crossing The Med to force their way into the EU in clapped out boats get rescued and then move north. The Afghans, North Africans and Iranians who creep into Greece and Bulgaria from Turkey move north west.

            The EU certainly facilitates non-EU immigration.

          • Jack

            But they don’t have EU passports. The fact that movement across the continent is easy would not be changed by leaving the EU.

          • Brimstone52

            Some of them have, as do other non-Dutch born people. Many non-UK born people hold UK passports, they also can travel freely across the EU.

            “Kenyan police have arrested four Dutch passport-holders at the
            border with Somalia. Three of the four were born in Morocco. The fourth
            was born in Somali. All are suspected of aiding Somalia’s al-Shabaab
            rebels.”

            http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/kenyan-police-arrest-dutch-passport-holders

          • milford

            They get given EU passports by the EU countries they land in because those EU countries know that their target destination is the UK house and benefits. You can’t blame them when their homelands are being carpet bombed, usually by the U.S.

          • livnletliv

            Why are you acting so thick, or are you permanently like that?

          • ButcombeMan

            The Albanians seem to have no difficulty getting Greek or Bulgarian Passports. London has plenty

          • milford

            Not to mention those who land on the coast of Italy, receive an EU passport from the Italians and then use it to move here.

          • Brimstone52

            I said he was using a “distraction technique”. I did not say it was successful.

            I didn’t say that.

            In light of my previous your last question is irrelevant.

          • Jack

            OK, I’ll re-phrase: “If you think his answers to EU immigration are a distraction technique to keep attention away from the
            real problem of non-EU immigration, why do you want to leave the EU on those grounds?”

            It isn’t irrelevant at all. What you’re talking about is forcing Holland to be more careful about who they give passports to. Is that a consequence of the UK leaving the EU? Are we to leave the EU to turn away the Dutch?

          • Brimstone52

            I made no such comment until you raised it. I have no intention of entering into a strawman discussion.

          • Jack

            Wonderful, another UKIPer who was only half paying attention in class when they covered logical fallacies. Shall we take it point by point and you can tell me when the straw man appears?

            Do you want to leave the EU?

          • livnletliv

            We are to leave the eu, which we never even legally joined, because the eu obviously can not be trusted and not worth any debate with, because they are nothing but parasites. End of.

    • Jack

      He doesn’t say that we need to stay in the EU to trade at all, just that to leave would be economic folly.
      If I told you to ignore calls from your biggest client, you might well
      reply that you won’t go out of business even if you do; you have loads of other smaller clients. Doesn’t make it a
      good move.

      Iceland is 124th in the list of countries ranked by nominal GDP, just behind Senegal and Cambodia. Iceland has a completely different set of priorities and requirements to the UK. The only thing keeping it out of the EU is its fishing industry, which is a pillar of its economy.

      • Brimstone52

        The EU is declining as a percentage of world trade. The majority of our trade is with non-EU countries. We would continue to trade with EU countries. The EU is not our biggest client, it has none, it trades with no one.

        Why do we need to be part of the only political bloc on the planet to trade with countries within it?

        Iceland’s relative position is unimportant. I suggest another factor in keeping Iceland independent was the way they dealt with their bankers and the way the EU, (in cahoots with the USA and the UK) dealt with theirs.

        • Jack

          “Why do we need to be part of the only political bloc on the planet to trade with it?” Because they will make it difficult for us to trade with them otherwise. What is the point of a free-trade block if you don’t use protectionist measures elsewhere? Do you know how hard it is to ship things to non-EU countries compared to when shipping to those within the EU?

          “The EU is not our biggest client, it has none, it trades with no one.” – That’s funny because the set of trading standards that are applied to exported/imported goods and services to expediate trade aren’t called French/German/Spanish/Italian…. standards, but EU standards. To atomise the entity like that is absurdly irrelevant. You can think of EU as shorthand for “the harmonised fiscal and business policy of France Germany et al” if you like, but I’ll continue to write EU.

          So the reason Iceland never applied to join the EU before 2009 was the treatment of their bankers?

          • Brimstone52

            “Because they will make it difficult for us to trade with them otherwise.”

            Why?

          • Jack

            Why wouldn’t they? Why would you give someone easy access to your market when you don’t have easy access to theirs? Would you give them easy access to our market in exchange for easy access to theirs? Great.

            Would you then try and make trade easy by harmonising standards for products and services? Great.

            How about the need to conduct a lot of business with your close neighbours easily? Facilitate movement? Great. Welcome to the bare-bones EU that I am proud of.

          • global city

            A Europhile idiot?

            What about the politics, Jack?

          • Jack

            What of the politics? Statesmen only have as much power as their historical context grants them, which isn’t much at all I admit, but statesmanship is still a tool that can be used to get what you want. If you want the UK Parliament to stop ratifying EU legislation then that’s fine. If you want what is for the good of the country, realise that Europe is not some great Leviathan; we have a lot of agency, legally and politically. Leaving it is unnecessary.

          • ButcombeMan

            Jack sounds like a wet behind the ears schoolkid.

          • global city

            Aye, full of the joys of John Lennon and the New Seekers

          • Brimstone52

            If the EU was only about trade, you would have a point.

          • Jack

            But politics and trade necessarily encroach on one another. It isn’t like the EU dictates policy to Parliament, because Parliament is always sovereign; Parliament cannot even bind the next, such is its power. If you therefore simply want to ratify less EU laws, then campaign to do so. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            The good and useful laws introduced by the EU are plentiful, and the harmonisation of trading standards has been a boon for British business; or do you choose to ignore the cohorts of businessmen who claim exactly that?

          • Brimstone52

            “It isn’t like the EU dictates policy to Parliament”

            There, in all it’s starkness, is bared your ignorance of the relationship between the EU and national parliaments.

            EU law has primacy over national law.

            From the German Law Journal:-
            “The primacy of Community law over national law of the EC/EU Member States was
            recognized as one of the constitutive principles of the Community legal order as early as before the signing of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on 29 October 2004. The primacy principle together with the principles of direct effect and of uniform
            applicability are believed to constitute not only the foundation of effectiveness of the Community legal order but also play the role of the pillars of the unofficial European Constitution. The primacy principle is even seen as the embodiment of actual transfer of constitutional power to Europe.”

            http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol06No11/PDF_Vol_06_No_11_1479-1496_Special%20Issue_Kwiecien.pdf

          • Jack

            This takes so long with you people for some reason. Let me state first that Parliament IS always sovereign; we can completely ignore EU rulings if we choose to; how else do you propose to leave the EU? It is a salient point because there’s a lot of panic around “Oh no, Europe is lording it over us!” – we let it.

            The EU creates law, and the UK has to apply it because it has automatically been ratified into UK law. Of course, the interpretation of that law is completely subject to judges and jurors, and subsequent changing over time. More importantly, it can always be discarded. It isn’t like Europe has a knife to our throats; we can always choose to overrule it, or to campaign for a position whereby we are less bound by their Europe’s governance.

            You do realise that the difference between our laws and the Netherlands’ laws are pretty stark. How can that be so? The EU gives guiding ruling principles which are interpreted accordingly, and some of which are debated and overturned, just like ‘our’ laws if you will.

          • Brimstone52

            Yes, we can ignore EU directives. The Commission then takes us to the European Court of Justice where we lose. The EU law is then enacted in the UK.

            Why can’t we cut out all the nonsense and simply make our own laws without interference from unelected unaccountable bureaucrats?

          • Jack

            We can and do regularly. Can you give me some examples of a European law that we are forced to adhere to, to the letter, and why it is so ruinous a law? Also, all this stuff about unaccountable is dishonest. If the EU passed a law to ban beer, would we be forced to ratify it? No, we’d probably leave the EU. We always have ultimate sovereignty up our sleeve, so hardly a dictatorship.

          • VSP

            Jacks bad hair day deceits roll past us all again. Its a dictatorship Jack. Just that only you do not know it.

          • ButcombeMan

            We should leave the EU under an Article 50 declaration and use the two years to negotiate arrangements which suit our nature rather better.

          • milford

            Facilitate the free movement of gypsies, tramps and thieves to the richer EU countries from the poor post-communist countries. Lovely. Most Brits never wanted to be in ANY type of arrangement with the former communist block countries and weren’t consulted regarding them joining.
            ‘Harmonising standards for products and services’. – Homogenising the whole of Europe so that everywhere you go it’s the same money, same shops, same goods, same roads. No individuality. IKEA & LIDL everywhere. Lovely.

          • livnletliv

            And why wouldn’t we make it just as difficult for them.

          • ButcombeMan

            Why would we deny the EU easy access to our market?. The UK is traditionally a free trading nation.

            It would be very stupid for an independent UK to do what you say.

          • VSP

            Poor ole Jack, must be a bad hair day for you if you have any left.. No one likes being deceived Jack. You argument is self defeated. Tell that to the fishermen who were the first victims of the EU, then to Steel workers and engineering followed by all industrial nous and research. Tell that to our utility workers who are all foreign owned, an endless other important features you declare you are proud to be a facilitator of because you simply do not care for your British identity or family or their demise.. The corporate dominated USA forged the EU concept for its own repayment of post war rebuilding, just as Japan. Their corporation’s advisors dictate all including the destitute human rights courts. They have allowed hegemony of Germany because Germany could keep its wealth producing industry because corporate USA was impressed by Nazi technology and big military products and had its own military presence.
            A game we were hated for even before entry to an EEC. The USA really bashed our Commonwealth ties calling it Imperialism. Yet look who is the worlds biggest imperialist now. So Jack we are a bit sick of being sold down the river by deceitful self centred idiots who leave us moribund with no self determination. Go to the EU if you love it but for so many of us it remains an anti democratic and conniving pile of corporate and USA junk..

          • Jack

            Bravo on the hair day gag, I’m reeling. Not sure I’ll recover from your US sitcom humour. The fisherman were overfishing our stocks, leading to the Cod Wars. The EU put a nice neat stop to the problem. Bad news for fisherman, good news for the future of the ocean. The utility companies are foreign owned because of the EU? Did it have nothing to do with Thatcher, who saw it as a fundamental way of reversing the failed socialist experiment in the UK? How is the EU responsible for the privatisation of utilities, seeiong as nationalisation is not barred by EU law? Explain this before I deal with any more of your ‘points’.

          • VSP

            It would appear Jack that I have read your post but you have not read mine, except this one. Glad you have a sense of humour, you are going to need it. I was around when all this happened; cod wars and the then EEC jiggery pokery. Do you know what happened next on the high seas you say they saved. Hmm.. selective memory you have. I am far away from being socialist but declare there was no socialist experiment except in your questionable perception. The ding dong swing from Labour to Tory gathered it reprobates . Scargil types in trade unions caused an extremism that was matched by a Thatcher Friedman extremism. We have had extremism ever since because she and Regan deregulated markets and so corporate USA sent in its corporate speculators to destroy all industrial bases and replace them with a pathetic service sector. On yer bike Tebbit and no contractual work of no decent salaries to maintain a family life. Then all else flogged off that were valued as national assets. . Extremist because there was another way, that loony Thatcher and Scargil types simply had not the brain to see ? We are not extreme by temperament.
            . After all the EU was created by corporate USA they and very obliging to let Germany fill the gap and apply silly USA misfit regulation including the

          • Jack

            So, I suppose I’ll ask again, after a lovely little wander down hysteria lane. How is the EU responsible for the privatisation of utilities, seeing as nationalisation is not barred by EU law?

          • VSP

            Put your thinking cap on before opening your mouth Jack. You obviously carry the burden of your bias that not many in ordinary life agree with. I already explained to you that corporate entities not only dictate USA policy but were the stimulus and remain a dominant force for the EU concept. The EU however enjoys a Champaign socialism that is offensive, therefore it can hardly ban nationalisation. So you are left to theoretically work out why they do not advocate nationalisation. The answer comes back that corporate entities want no such closure for their interests, and indeed need to get their hands upon such profitable assets. Now we could talk about stock markets or national assets and ask who owns what and for what purpose. We could ask what is best for the nation or USA corporate interests, but it is a big subject for this forum. We see examples of horrors or reasonable efforts so it comes down to a belief. I explained that we are generally not so extremist and so we need to make our own democratic choice. For sure by stealth and proxy demands for so called US advisors the EU is a mess and a socialism dominated by corporate instruction to thus frustrate democratic choices. The last lot that did that were the Mussolini and Hitler and Franco mobs. No matter what you claim about easy access markets that socialism is not keen on, it is the corporate element who demand this for the same reason they demand to exploit people, nations and tax revenues under their mantra of free movement, mass migration of cheap labour and a free market that they have destroyed and no longer exists if you really look.
            We are better to get away from this quaint European dilemma and seek change from outside. You know why, do you not? .

          • Jack

            Just quote me the statute, agreement, detente, whatever, that says EU countries must privatise all national industries. I’m not really interested in your little rants about how the illuminati control everything and how the lizard men run the banks. All I want is a quote.

          • VSP

            A quote for Jack, only a jackass does not know how it works.
            Boy you are having another bad hair day, I’ve had enough of you, try parting on the other side . Otherwise find out for yourself by more astute observation all round and use some critical evaluation you obviously do not bother with either. Then investigate the small township that surrounds the EU parliamentary offices Then do some combing.
            How would I know if you have any hair on your head, but I am somewhat intrigued by what appears to be missing there.

          • Jack

            So no quote then?

          • ButcombeMan

            It is not in the EUs interests to even try to make it difficult for an independent UK to trade with the EU. The EU is in decline itself, it needs us much more than we need it.

            You show the typical lack of confidence of the left winger and appeaser.

            A country without control over its borders and trade policy is not a country.

            i want my country back

      • jack i think you’re wasting your time here – the comments section on the spectator is the last refuge of the bored, angry, faragistas.

        • jjjj

          Please continue with your insults. We know better: every day at the GP, on public transport and everywhere else where systems are breaking down because there is overpopulation down to unrestricted immigration. Thanks of course to Big Business and its ‘Uman Rights lobby. And just today we read the report into the shambles at the Home Office where stabbers and other criminals just waltz in here.
          Vote UKIP.

        • livnletliv

          Thanks for your typical leftwit cheap irony. Jacks desperate drivel is a waste of time.

        • VSP

          Better than your Friedman brigade and with a more caring and ethical stance. Seems that democracy upsets you, well you can always try China or N. Vietnam.

      • livnletliv

        And being any part of the eu is total folly for the other 80% of us. What makes this 20% think the 80% should be used for their benefit.

      • ButcombeMan

        Leaving the political aspects of the EU would have little real effect on our trade

  • The E.U. is NOT “Europe” – this is a deliberate confusion of a political organisation, a hostile political entity that is fanatically determined to destroy the independence of this country and all other countries in Europe, and the cultural and geographical civilisation that is Europe. A continent whose historical achievements have been based on political “disunity” – on the fact that the laws of various nations were radically different, continent wide “unity” would mean tyranny. Which is why the policy of this country has been to oppose such “unity” – hence the policy of the first Elizabeth against Philip II of Spain, and the policy of this nation against the “Sun King” (Louis XIV) of France, also the various French Revolutionary regimes (leading to Napoleon), Imperial Germany in the First World War, National Socialist Germany in the Second World War, and the Communist would-be unifiers of Europe after the Second World War. Keeping Europe “disunited” has been the central principle of the policy of this country for five hundred years – and rightly so. As for the oft quoted-out-of-context remarks of Winston Churchill – he made it clear that the United Kingdom should NOT join any political state created in Western Europe created to oppose the Eastern Block.
    On the idea that we can stay in the E.U. and secure our borders – this is false. As in so many other matters, the first step we have to take (have to take) is to leave the E.U. – only then will the people of this country have the freedom to defend their interests. By the way I am not a UKIP member or a UKIP voter – I am just interested in telling the truth, not in flattering power – political power, or religious power. Both Prime Minister Cameron and Pope Francis may be very nice people (I do not deny it), but our loyalty must be to the truth – wherever it leads. And in this matter, and many other matters, the truth is that we must leave the European Union.

    • jjjj

      In other words, our policy was preserving the Balance of Power. AJP Taylor, I believe.

  • The idea that Germany and so on (whose companies sell far more to British customers than British companies sell to German customers) would support trade sanctions against the United Kingdom if we left the European Union is nonsense. Paul Collier is producing rubbish (desperate rubbish) to try and produce a case for staying in the E.U. – when no honest case for staying in this political entity exists. I repeat that I am neither a UKIP member or a UKIP voter – but the Conservative and Unionist Party must not rely on the sort of stuff that Paul Collier is coming out with, we will cease to exist as a political party if we keep trying to come up with reasons to stay in the European Union.

  • Flintshire Ian

    A sensible and well argued view that this Eurosceptic could vote for.

  • Richard North

    I agree with Paul Marks. This is mostly a well thought out piece whose only failing is an optimism about the EU’s capacity to reform itself which is not supported by the past evidence. Then he baldly states that Brexit would be economic folly! Why pray? Would e.g. BMW (which certainly DOES have considerable influence over Merkel and hence the EU) want the EU to impose swingeing tariffs on British goods, with the result of destroying the market in the UK for its own cars – we are 10% of the total world market for BMWs. I think not.

    • livnletliv

      Well thought out ?

  • rossco1111

    A true article in some respects – UKIP supporters tend to be working/lower-middle-class scum.
    It’s going to be our job at UAF and Hope not Hate, to deny these Fascist dregs of society any kind of voice at the general election.
    SMASH UKIP!

    • Mike

      Keep believing that and UKIP will keep rising whilst FlibFlabFcon will be consigned to the trash bin !

    • AJ

      Here’s how to fix our immigr@tion problem, first we have to close down attitudes like yours and grasp the nettle and have an open debate about this, that many are afraid to have because people like you try to close it down with accusations of r@cism and N@zi and so on, that’s frankly juvenile and not very helpful.

      Next we have to realise that its not European immigration that is the cause of concern, its M#slim immigration that is the problem, its just that people are afraid to debate it in the open, despite what they may think privately.

      You have to realise Rossco that we are under threat, under threat by a violent totalitarian ideology that we call Isl@m. Its backed up by our political elite that will not hear any criticism of Isl@m. Isl@m will not tolerate anyone and everyone who disagrees with it, women are nothing but slaves, second class citizens at best, homosexuals are treated to the death penalty, as are adulterers, apostates, Jews and Christians, the cruelty to animals doesn’t even bare thinking about, lets face it, Isl@m is a death cult.

      People across the UK are waking up to Isl@m and are trying to preserve our own culture, our own identity and fight for our safety and our freedom, I’m afraid its time to start thinking the unthinkable, in so much as we need to start pulling down mosques, stop immigration from M#slim countries and start to send back M#slim criminals, even to the point of deportation of M#slims who won’t or can’t find work, can’t or won’t speak our language.

      Lets be honest here, if we don’t start taking these measures soon, there will be a hard fought battle in the near future on our streets and sixth former attitudes like yours need to be better informed and changed.

      • redsquirrel

        nonono. it’s racist. The best way to deal with this is to allow unrestricted surveillance by gchq, insist on ID cards and let the cia & mi5 torture whoever they like. That way we aren’t being seen as fascist.

    • OldFlashy

      I find it highly amusing that you lot have the F word in your name but seem to not have a clue what it means. The irony of seeing you all campaigning and trying to shut down the free speech of a political party is beyond parody. Keep it up.

    • Brogan75

      UAF, whata a joke. I never see you protesting against Al Qaeda supporter marching in London, and their beliefs go against every single civil right you PRETEND to defend. You are hypocritical brainwashed communist scum, defeated by history many years ago; luckily you are going to be extinct soon.

    • Blindsideflanker

      The anti fascists attacking fascists is like watching the internal dispute within a religion, which most people see as pointless, for they are one of the same. In the case of the fascists and anti fascists, they are both fighting over the same territory of intolerance and totalitarianism .

    • Grace Ironwood

      Well done Rossco !

      You and your fellow baboons deserve to be more widely known.
      I’m delighted to hear you’ll be on the streets violently silencing political dissent, as you say.

      We seem to hear of rape allegations emanating from within your group.

      The more the people see of you the more truth will out.

      So carry on Rossco!

      • jjjj

        I think it’s Britain’s Rousseau, Russell Brand.

        • Grace Ironwood

          🙂

        • Grace Ironwood

          :). Don’t think Rousseau would be at the specie.
          He spends his time in an echo chamber with a mirror . Whoops, and of course a bed.

        • Grace Ironwood

          🙂
          Nah. Rousseau spends his time in an echo chamber with a mirror and a king sized bed.

    • jjjj

      Nice trolling. You’ve just polarised the debate and of course when that happens more support UKIP. So you really are an epic fail.

  • John Carins

    More nonsense on how to manage our EU issues and our national decline. Let’s have some ambition and drive our own agenda rather than being subject to the EUs. For unity on these Isles we need to resurrect the British identity.

    • David the One

      There is no British identity. We have clear identities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. England is, fortunately, a hotch-pot of regional identities, but the English have no clear identity of their own. Why? The south-east, particularly London, has utter contempt for the rest of the country.
      Why do companies base their call centres in Scotland? Because we trust a Scottish accent over an English one, particularly when the other accent is London or Essex.

      • livnletliv

        My call centre, and plenty others are in Manchester, why do you make such pathetically stupid statements. Are you actually now telling us we have no identity? Since when was this? Please let your GP know.

      • British Patriot

        Nonsense. The London identity (which I agree has contempt) is not the same as the British identity. I am British first and live hundreds of miles away from London.

    • Chris Morriss

      OK, but I’d prefer to see a resurrection of our English identity first.

  • Ben Kelly

    Identity cards? Seriously? There’s a reason we don’t have them. They are illiberal. They fundamentally alter the relationship between the citizen and the state, before you know it we’re showing our papers on the street on demand. Breathing licences for serfs.Haven for anonymity? Heaven forbid the government wouldn’t be able to track our every step.

    In order to stay in the EU we should change our benefit system, carry ID cards,and don’t forget surrender the independence of our precious, unique criminal justice system, surrender liberties we have had for centuries, be governed by people we can’t elect out, all on some hazy idea that the old EU visionaries and ideologues will die off to be replaced by more modest, less power hungry, non-utopianists. Even though the vision of a unified Europe came about just after WWI and is going stronger than ever? Flimsy, extremely flimsy.

    • OldFlashy

      Bang on the money.

    • Blindsideflanker

      The price of dismantling our national borders is to move them to the door step of our houses, where we will need identification papers to step outside.

      I would rather have a free country and have strong national boundaries, than have weak national boundaries and intrusive internal state security.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Well said.

    • livnletliv

      Don’t forget, these pro eu suckers are the same criminally insane disgusting pie face perv gang being finally “investigated” for the torture, abuse and murders of kids, they are the scum of the scum, the sickest of the sickest who attract other pro eu scum of the scum, they cling onto their perverted corrupt eu train for their sad desperate lifes.

  • Damaris Tighe

    Even if every economic argument for immigration were correct (& I’m sure they’re not), mass immigration would be wrong.

    Paul Collier’s book ‘Exodus’ makes a vital point that he doesn’t mention here – that research shows that “A high level of immigration was associated with a lower level of trust of each other purely among the indigenous people in the community … what we are left with is the robust result that immigration reduces the social capital of the indigenous population” (p 74-75). Note: social capital, not economic capital, is important.

    In other words, mass immigration destroys the community cohesion (so bleated about by the political class) of the native population. Mass immigration undermines the host community which loses its mutual ties & sense of self. (This explains the flaccid response to Lee Rigby’s beheading & Rotherham.)

    Or to put it even more plainly, mass immigration undermines the traditional, historical host national community, which in Britain didn’t require id cards. Being part of a nation is reduced to a soulless paper formality. No amount of economic tinkering can deal with this.

    • Max07

      Spot on, Damaris. I am a little tired of the immigration question being reduced to economics alone. Statements such as ‘East Europeans contribute 20 billion net in taxes’, whether or not they are accurate, are of little interest to an electorate that does not want rapid and large scale social change.

    • VSP

      Well said,. It is another interesting observation that any notional multiculture would require a third party to sort out differences and rule not by any democratic consensus but by imposed regulation
      They could deceitfully impose what they wish claiming it for one group or another. Seems to me that this also rings true, under the guise of an impossible equalities..

      • Damaris Tighe

        ‘any notional multiculture would require a third party to sort out differences’ – which is a good description of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, likened in another Spectator article to …guess what …the EU.

        • VSP

          Glad that you found that link, thanks. I missed it. Wagner dodged bullets in that period, then his son in law , a Brit who became German named Houston Chamberlain influenced the German Keiser and then little Adolph in his early days. Circles in circles I think Damius.

  • commenteer

    I do so dislike this patronising attitude to Ukip voters. The logical course for an intelligent person looking at the present immigration wave is to vote Ukip, thus forcing the mainstream parties to adopt a harder attitude to immigration. Professor Sir Paul Collier should get out a bit more.

    • jjjj

      Let them patronise. We will show them in the ballot box.

  • Blindsideflanker

    It is all too late for brakes and fiddling with benefits, that opportunity has long since been swamped under the weight of numbers. That it is all too little and too late highlights the bureaucratic inertia of Brussels, and why it is bad nor the nations, the people and for business. Because we are locked into straight jacket treaties, where evolution of policies can’t take place, situations are allowed to deteriorate until the mobs are smashing down the doors, then any adaptation can’t happen, its a destabilising revolution time.

    The reason European countries went for this system might be understandable, but less forgiveable is the British political classes’ attraction to it. They knew one of the strengths of our democracy was its constitutional flexibility and adaptability yet they went and locked us into the policy straight jacket of the EU . Unforgivable!

    As to immigration, we know the political classes have no intention of doing anything about it. Soubry let the cat out of the bag when she boasted that following her pro immigration outburst on QT, she received glowing texts from Cameron and Miliband. In addition this week we have had Cameron reiterate his support for Turkey to join the EU. The idiot thinks that if he goes abroad and says such things we won’t notice.

    • Chris Morriss

      Soubry: Theresa May lite.
      I had to move house to escape being in her constituency!

  • OldFlashy

    A reasonable effort but still doesn’t cut it for me. The thought of identity cards is chilling enough. Continuing to rely on whether or not the rest of Europe will allow us to go ahead with our political and economical decisions would remain. We have been contributors to the development of Europe from way before the inception of the EU, if it doesn’t suit us then we should be well positioned to leave and maintain a great trading deal with all countries, if they want to play silly beggars then let them. I can’t see BMW, Mercedes and Audi fancy watching on as Merkel forces Brits to start buying Japanese motors. French wine, designer Italian homeware and Spanish tiles are all bought by the container load and after losing our contribution to the pot it would be madness to also throw away the trade (saying that, they probably are mad enough). I can’t think of too much they even take from us seeing as they’ve got access to our world class fishing waters anyway. No, good effort but we’re better off on our own.

    • somewhereinthesouth

      Yes and now the figures back up the argument that it is the rest of the EU who gains most form trade with theUK . Someone has recently worked out that [after allowing for the re-export factor via Holland ] only 36% of UK exports go to the EU . Year by year the EU market will become less and less important since unless they ditch the Euro growth will be sclerotic whilst the rest of the world continues to expand far more rapidly . So, even if we had veto [ which we don’t because of QMV] and remain inside the EU as the author suggests it would be of little consequence as most future trade growth will be OUTSIDE Europe and the single market. When we joined the EU Britain was a near basket case and the then EEC had enjoyed rapid growth for two decades. After we joined however, EU growth fell and its has now its stopped altogether thanks to the Euro. Meanwhile the UK has transformed its self [ no thanks to the EU] into a relatively successful large economy with better growth prospects .Not much of an argument for staying in. Then there’s the little problem of immigration [ from all sources ]

  • obiwan

    “…Ukip supporters are from the less advantaged classes, but not sufficiently wretched for the status of disadvantaged. Ill-educated and prejudiced, despite their numbers…

    …and that’s where I stopped reading. Could the writer of this piece have been any more patronising, condescending and downright insulting?

    • beenzrgud

      Same here. This guy appears totally detached from reality if he thinks it is only those that fit his description that will be voting UKIP.

      • Chris Morriss

        I will be voting UKIP, although I don’t really think they’re up to the job, simply because I want to say to our indistinguishable bunch of ‘leaders’: So far and no further!

    • Aberrant_Apostrophe

      …and wrong.

    • Zanderz

      I carried on reading and he has a fair understanding of the issues, however, I wonder who he associates with if he thinks UKIPers are all “stupid poor people” (to paraphrase).

      • Damaris Tighe

        I actually read this as ironic – he refers to the ‘condescension’ towards Ukipers a few lines before.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          I might agree – if he had surrounded the following sentences in quotation marks or prefixed them with ‘allegedly’ or some such word to emphasis that they weren’t his beliefs.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Yes, it’s certainly ambiguous.

          • livnletliv

            Best just to ignore these nutters, they get very violent and often attack their nurse.

        • Zanderz

          I thought so too initially, as it’s such a crass representation, but he repeats it later on – “many UKIPers are on low wages and hence fear immigration”.

          Given the tenor of his piece I would read it as his genuine opinion of UKIPers.

          Which is bizarre as he basically notes the same issues that drive many to vote for UKIP.

          • livnletliv

            Bless, they must have allowed him out for half an hour.

        • livnletliv

          Wonder who he thinks the millions of poor people now voting UKIP voted previously, may be his loony leftwit brain cell would explode if he attempted to think.

    • redsquirrel

      yep i thought that. I kept going thinking it was so heavy handed it must be a device to appease the haters. Over generous on my part maybe.

    • livnletliv

      It is the typical ironic drivel from some sad leftwit reject. The leftwit brain gets stuck round about age 5, may be this could be why they support the labour pie party.

  • beenzrgud

    On the subject of immigration anyone with a brain can see that the usual suspects either can’t or won’t take control. The number of non EU immigrants is testament to this fact. Hence UKIP is the obvious choice for anyone concerned with this issue.

  • Bonzo

    Used to think it was just me who struggled to see concrete examples of the much vaunted benefits of diversity. Seems Paul Collier does as well: “The affluent young benefit from diversity — they employ Polish plumbers and Swedish nannies — and so will want more of it.” Is he saying they employ Polish and Swedish nannies because of their nationality or because they are cheaper? Not sure cheaper labour is a result of diversity.

    • Aberrant_Apostrophe

      No doubt they would argue that Polish plumbers and Swedish nannies also work harder than their indigenous competitors.

      • Chris Morriss

        And just possibly the Swedish nannies might have other desirable attributes…

  • Aberrant_Apostrophe

    ‘(without leaving Europe)’.

    Four points:

    1. It’s physically impossible to leave a geographical region, without instigating a major civil engineering programme, which would have defeated even the great Brunel.

    2. Why does the author (or the sub-editor, more likely) conflate ‘Europe’ with the ‘EU’, which is what he is actually talking about?

    3. Why put the phrase in brackets in the first place, since that is the focus of the article – apart from getting a dig in at UKIP?

    4. Why totally ignore non-EU immigration, which presents a far greater problem. Has the author had a Miliband Moment, or has that section been edited out?

    • Non EU immigration is not the issue as non EU immigrants have no access to public funds and get sent home when they are no longer productive or wanted.

      If EU immigrants had no access to public funds then its safe to say hardly anyone would care about them given there would be hardly any of them.

  • AJAX

    Withdraw from the EU to stop England becoming a province of a foreign ruled state rather than a self-governing nation, & close the immigration barriers at the ports to mass migration from the 2nd & 3rd World to stop an ethnic civil war. SUPPORT & VOTE UKIP to do it.

    Took me 50 words to clearly state what this Oxford U. don couldn’t in several hundred.

  • wudyermucuss

    How to fix Britain’s immigration crisis :
    Halt immigration.

  • Mr_Ominous

    Non-EU immigration is what is causing the most problems and government is supposed to be able to control that yet they carry on allowing hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants to enter England every year.

  • John Andrews

    Good analysis. Useful solutions which should be implemented immediately. But you also have to accept the principle the UK can, must and will have control of its own borders.

  • Peter Gardner

    ‘I would rather stay in and wield a veto. ‘
    What veto? QMV all round from 1 November 2014.

  • Peter Gardner

    ‘ the corrosive populist idea that political elites are disconnected from reality.’

    The reality is that the political elites are disconnected from the voters. They even have to hire foreign consultants to help them understand the voters, for heavens’ sake!

    Sir Paul Collier would be better advised to consider why the political elite believe Britain is governed better by a foreign collective than by sovereign parliamentary democracy. Perhaps he believes it too.

  • Peter Stroud

    I have employed English, self employed plumbers and electricians, and find that they work incredibly hard. They have to, just to remain in business. Eastern Europeans might be cheaper to employ, because they are prepared to live more frugally. It must be remembered that to the majority, the UK is a temporary home country.

  • William_Brown

    “…uneducated and prejudiced”
    How to win friends and influence people. Another shining example of ‘they just don’t get it’.

    • Max07

      It seems to me that we admit rather too many incomers who could be described as ‘uneducated and prejudiced’. But of course terms like this can only be applied to the native population.

  • HJ777

    The common currency, for example, is inadvertently dismantling the economies of southern Europe.

    The single currency, not the common currency. A common currency would not have had this effect, a single one has.

    Indeed, a common currency was proposed by quite a few people before the single currency was introduced. If national currencies could be revalued against a common currency, instead of having been abolished in favour of a single currency, the Euro’s problems could have been avoided.

    • Blindsideflanker

      I believe Mrs T suggested a reserve currency. But the EU wouldn’t have it, I believe the Italian PM glorified at rubbishing her proposals.

      I bet they regret their arrogance now.

      • HJ777

        I’m not sure that the politicians do regret it. After all, they’ve done fine for themselves, haven’t they?

        But the people of Europe almost certainly do.

  • Bonkim

    Good Analysis – Britain is 75% dependent on outside resources and many immigrant groups have high birth rates. We should look at reducing population, stop immigration from outside Europe except for high skill applicants. It is not just immigration – population growth must be stopped at any cost.

  • Wildflowers

    Interesting stuff if you check up on his profile and funding. I would be very suprised if his vote would go right of centre 😉

    For starters:

    Home page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/

    Senior Advisor to Tony Blair’s Commision on Africa

    Director of the Development Research group at the World Bank for five years

    Published on Denialism, particularly climate change denial

    Advisory board of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP).

    Close links with “developing” countries:

    “The document also highlights particular research opportunities in IGC’s
    partner countries (currently Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India –
    Central and Bihar, Liberia, Myanmar, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda,
    Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia). Other
    countries of IGC interest include Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi and
    Afghanistan.

    http://www.theigc.org/research-themes/funding/igc-call-for-proposals/

    International migration and migrants “rights”:

    http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/videos/view/345

  • Blindsideflanker

    Today we hear that the British state has given British citizenship to a murderer.

    Does anybody believe the establishment has any desire to control immigration?

    • Blindsideflanker

      It gets worse, not only can’t they be bothered to check to see if they have a criminal record, they haven’t bothered to check the people sponsoring them, they have given citizenship to people who have broken the law while here, basically it would seem its free for all .

      We hear the politicians say they are taking immigration seriously , but there is no tangible evidence they do, and I come back to a point I have made on a few occasions. I don’t believe the establishment can be so incompetent, I do not believe these Oxford educated people can be so serially incompetent. I can only presume it is a manufactured incompetence to keep mass immigration going while pretending to be a useless bunch of no goods.

      • Aberrant_Apostrophe

        If it’s the same Bbc article as I read, then the Home Office are only considering revoking citizenship in cases ‘where serious organised crime is involved’. Plain lying about their backgrounds when filling in the application forms is OK apparently, which is understandable as they are only adopting the rigorous standards set by MPs.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Mass immigration is a bad thing. But you raise what I think is a separate issue – the authorities’ willingness to grant citizenship to individual criminals. This is partly to do with human rights legislation & partly due, I think, to the collapse of any sense that joining a national community by becoming a citizen is a very serious step, & not to be taken lightly. Maybe that’s because the idea of Britain has become so meaningless to the establishment that joining it involves less seriousness & fewer checks than becoming a Scout Leader.

  • Lorenzo

    Swapping your sovereignty for some trade advantages sounds to me like a bad deal. But I am a stranger from a faraway land and perhaps miss the nuances of the matter.

  • Mike

    FlibFlabFcon have had decades to adjust welfare benefits in the UK to not only sort out our own feckless beneficiaries but deter the millions trying to get into the UK but so far have done nothing. They are so tied into the benefits for votes culture that all three of them fall over themselves to hand out generous payments to all and sundry that they’ve lost sight of the ramifications.

    This article basically boils down to the fact we are too generous with benefits, something I’ve said for 15 years or more along with many others. That approach is ingrained into the Labour psyche, the LibDumbs flip flop to what this months pòlitical flavour is and the Tories have tried to out do Labour on handouts to stop losing votes.

    It wont change and as we cant treat immigrants differently whilst in the EU the only choice is to leave and get all the benefits of being in control of our own destiny.

    • GraveDave

      FlibFlabFcon

      Thanks for the laugh. Btw, it still works on the DT.

      • Mike

        Interesting, its now working again (liblabcon) but it wasn’t my imagination as others saw the problem as well. Guess they decided they were assh**** in blocking it and decided to unblock it.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          Hmm, I wonder if they saw my post about possible alternatives, such as ‘The Unholy Trinity’, and rapidly back-tracked?

          • Mike

            It wouldn’t surprise me as LibLabCon is pretty benign but if we all started referring to them as The Unholy Trinity or even worse descriptions their interference would be self defeating. Perhaps what they objected to is the increasing perception that these parties are all one and the same pretty much and there’s no real difference between them.

            However, any attempt by these control freaks to stop justified comment and rebuttals will fail as people will just create new monikers and use internet IP spoofing to disguise who they are.

  • HJ777

    The meat of the EU is its increasingly integrated market for goods and services. In the event of exit we could negotiate some reciprocal access

    This is simply a daft and ignorant comment.

    The UK is an individual signatory of the EEA agreement which guarantees free trade within Europe. It is an entirely separate issue to EU membership and, as far as I know, no-one is advocating withdrawal from the EEA.

    • Kevin T

      Doesn’t the EEA also guarantee free movement of people though? If we wanted to limit immigration, we’d have to withdraw from both and sign our own trade deal.

      • HJ777

        That is correct.

        However I was merely commenting on the assertion that the UK would need to negotiate reciprocal access to European markets were it to leave the EU. It would not, since the EEA agreement would remain in place – it is not dependent on EU membership.

        It is also the case that although free movement would be required, various other policies could be changed (which couldn’t easily be within the EU), some of which may have an effect on immigration.

        I am not making any pro- or anti-EU point here – I am just trying to be accurate about the facts.

  • greggf

    In a nutshell this professor is saying Britain must fashion itself more like the Continentals do: control immigration by administrative measures, change education to better train our youth, tackle low productivity and its causes, introduce ID cards, take positive steps to “promote” integration etc, etc….
    However, perhaps, in his ivory tower, he misses UKIP’s appeal which is that we are not like the continentals but more like an independent, maritime and mercantile nation. And that changing our attitude to welfare, education, industry and intervening more socially is perhaps beyond us…..

    • Blindsideflanker

      As I said below , today we hear of an immigrant being let in who is a murderer , and admitted as such. If our incompetent establishment can’t even be bothered to read what someone applying for citizenship has written down, what chance in h3ll will they be able to restrict immigration through more sophisticated administrative procedures?

  • Thorsted

    3.rd world immigration is the problem for all European states. A withdrawal from the “Human Rights” and asylum conventions is needed. They are as the 70.years old UN is outdated by “failed states” and population explosion in the 3.rd world. It has become an continuation of colonialism and the “white mans burden” by “international” law- many of these convention are western unilateral because they are only ratified by the west or it has no effect because the state is “failed”. Time to let go of this imaginary imperie of law and think in national self-interest. There is no order for the 3.rd world in “Human rights” or other things. Their problems are more complex and properly insolvable -so let it go.

    • AJAX

      Agreed, we should withdraw from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, it’s merely acting as an agent for mass migration from the 3rd World into the 1st.

  • Richard Eldritch

    Oh F Off. We don’t want to be strangers in our own Home. That’s all there is to it ya pin head.

    • Jack

      I don’t recognise you as anyone I want to associate with; are you a recent immigrant? White British people make up over 80% of the population.

      • Chris Morriss

        Good God! has it dropped as low as 80% now?

  • David the One

    A very well balanced piece. Regardless of what UKIP want, and that is basically a society that WILL result in attacks on immigrants, being in a strong EU gives Britain protection against aggressive moves by America. Brimstone won’t know, or possibly won’t care, but it was the EU that kept our British data protection act strong, against the lobbying of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and others. Google has a 90% strangle hold on searches, and only the EU can protect us from the rape that would follow an exit, by Britain, by the Americans, aided by Japan, Middle East and China. All you free-traders should look at both Japan and America to see the tariffs they use to keep competition out of their countries. The current British government has given £6 billion to Hitachi for the new Intercity Express Programme. 9,000 jobs in Japan, 734 in Britain. The trains will be lower specification than can currently be purchased from companies in Europe. All the aluminium will be produced in Japan, all the trains will be built there, disassembled, transported, and then reassembled in Britain. A very poor show. Research how many foreign companies are involved in Japanese railways. Nil is the answer.
    UKIP is a traitor to Britain because it doesn’t care about consequences of exit, just as long as they get some part of the gravy train, and can get a few jobs as gauleiters.

    • Jack

      Excellent. I find it quite baffling where this hatred of Europe comes from; the need to be vehemently and uncompromisingly ‘for’ or ‘against’ something maybe, that classic symptom of powerlessness. From where I’m sitting, my life is immeasurably better than it is likely to have been had I been born in the ’40’s. That UKIP wants to drag us back there is hilarious. People need to wake up and realise how good they have it, and how that came to be.

    • Trofim

      “UKIP want, and that is basically a society that WILL result in attacks on immigrants” – UKIP wants a society where immigrants are attacked. You have actual evidence of that? Can an organisation “want”?

    • KenelmDigby

      I’m sorry, but how has the EU – by whose rules we are bound – managed to give us a better deal on that Hitachi contract?
      What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

  • Seat of Mars

    “It would help if ‘English’ ceased to be an ethnic identifier and became the accepted identity of everyone reared in England, just as the SNP promotes an inclusive definition of ‘Scottish’. ”

    Actually this is something we should guard against at all costs. Unlike the sullied and devalued “British”, happily for us “English” is still an ethnic identifier. And one can use it with everyone understanding what you mean by it and not yet being called a “racist” for doing so.

    It is comforting to know, for instance, that Jihadi John will never, ever be able to call himself English. And we should keep it so.

    • Damaris Tighe

      I agree with you post except that ‘British’, devalued as it is, is still a way of self-identification for citizens who may not see themselves as ethnically English – eg, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, & descendents of the older small immigrant communities.

    • Jack

      Why is ‘British’ sullied and de-valued?

      • Seat of Mars

        Because British citizenship is handed out like a penny sweet. If Jihadi’s sawing people’s heads off in Syria can be called “British” with a straight-face, then there is no value in the term whatsoever.

        • Jack

          Well I don’t think they are called British, are they? Perhaps nominally, but not really; they have denounced their allegiance, and nobody would call them British beyond identifying their birth certificate stamps. What are you saying, that they should never have been called British, before they committed these acts? Based on what, if that is what you are saying? Please clarify otherwise.

  • ManOfKent

    But Ukip supporters are no longer overawed by businessmen and dons, so
    what is to be done? Within the accepted rules of English social
    hierarchy, the tempting implication for the rest of us is condescension.
    Ukip supporters are from the less advantaged classes, but not
    sufficiently wretched for the status of disadvantaged. Ill-educated and
    prejudiced, despite their numbers they are politically marginal because
    they are spatially dispersed

    What a pile of sneering, condescending arrogant dishonest bollocks. Clearly Mr Collier has his head so far up his precious urban liberal nether orifice it has fused with his descending colon and can now only produce excrement. That most of the article is near incoherent waffling nonsense demonstrates that

    There are two things that are needed to be done.

    First given the EU will not budge on free movement of Labour withdraw from the EU.

    Second introduce an Australian style quota system which will allow the UK government to set the number of immigrants it requires each year and do so in a non discriminative unprejudiced manner.

    That is UKIP policy. UKIP policy quite satisfactorily provides the necessary controls on our immigration

    That they propose to set the initial quota at net 50,000 immigrants per annum still means that the likely number of immigrants will be in the region of 300,000 per year but will represent something like a 40% cut in immigration overall.

    Furthermore Collier exacerbates the dishonesty of this article with his assertions about vetoes. Such notions are absurd. 90% of the remaining vetoes commenced their phasing out on the 1st November this year and will be gone by March 2017. It is a key part of abandoning national identity and producing the integration necessary for ever closer union.

    All the decisions he is claiming we could veto will be decided by Qualified Majority Voting and as we have seen the UK cannot even muster a blocking minority. We are as isolated within the EU when it comes to such matters as we would be outside IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

    Clearly Collier’s article is motivated by some irrational, prejudiced fear of UKIP borne most likely out of believing the sneering, smearing bigotry of his own class against ordinary people. Frankly the problem isn’t the people, the problem is in part a delusional out of touch academic class whose views are increasingly ‘academic’.

    One thing is for sure they should end any public funded benefits, loans etc for students who study ‘Government’,, ‘Politics’, ‘Economics’ and philosophy because it is clear these are degrees in stupidity…….

    • Jack

      “Clearly Collier’s article is motivated by some irrational, prejudiced
      fear of UKIP borne most likely out of believing the sneering, smearing
      bigotry of his own class against ordinary people” – Populist tripe. It isn’t ‘clearly’ that at all. It’s a well thought out article. He’s obviously speaking rhetorically, hence the next sentence: “Hence: ignore them. This would be a terminal error. Instead, we should try honesty.”

      His article isn’t dishonest; why is suggesting a focus on welfare reform rather than cutting off immigration dishonest? He (rightly) says that there is plenty we can do within the EU rules.

      • ManOfKent

        Its absolute bollocks. The issue is controlling immigration directly. Messing around at the fringes of welfare has been dismissed as ineffectual time and again and will for equality reasons have to punish UK citizens too.

        Immigrants come here to work because its pays better than their own country.That the benefits are generous is a bonus but it is secondary. Taking away benefits will not stop them coming in their droves because they are still far better off if they can get a job here than in their own country. Even if they are on benefits and you stop those benefits you cannot send them home when the have a legal right to seek work here. All you can do is stop their benefits.

        What is more likely is that by denying them benefits they will end up setting up Sangat style camps and joining the black economy to survive until they can get legitimate work. They will become legal vagrants effectively.

        Collier is talking complete drivel and for someone supposedly so learned I can only assume doing so purposefully and therefore is dishonest.

        • jjjj

          Well, Stalin and his crew certainly fooled some luminaries of the ‘learned’ in the 30s. What do you think has changed?

      • Max07

        It is a well written article, but I had the feeling that he felt honour bound to chuck in the stuff about UKIP voters being prejudiced and ill-educated as a sop to his peers, who expect this sort of thing.

  • Jack

    Great to see so many comments saying that his focus on EU immigration is dishonest because the real problem is non-EU immigration, then going on to say that for that reason we need to leave the EU. It’s like they have to stick to a script to win a prize or something.

    • ManOfKent

      Great to see such a wholly disingenuous interpretation of what people are saying, as predictable as that is. The “real problem” is the dereliction of duty by Government in failing to control immigration full stop. The discriminatory (even racist) divide created by government between non-eu and eu integration is a false divide created further the aspirations of the EU.

      Its very simple government must take control of immigration again and they cannot whilst signed up to the EU. Therefore they must withdraw from the EU and in doing so we end that discrimination between groups of immigrants..Once that is done we can then debate the numbers and type of of immigrants we allow to enter this country under a quota system.

      Its hardly rocket science given that over 180 nations around the world have some sort of quota style system in place already.

      • Jack

        They can ‘control’ immigration while in the EU in the same way that the government can ‘control’ job creation. As Collier rightly says: “We can redesign our welfare system so as to align better with the rest of old Europe where benefits are based on past contributions rather than current need: why are immigrants queuing at Calais?” Good question that. I bet they’d be desperate to stay in France if France was in the EU…..

        “Great to see such a wholly disingenuous interpretation of what people are saying.” – What I said is precisely what some people are saying. Who’s rattled your cage?

        • Why should we redesign our systems just to accommodate the EU? I mean countless billions will be spent along with thousands of hours of parliamentary time when instead the EU should change for us as we pay them for membership.

          • Jack

            Everyone pays for membership of the EU; we pay a miniscule amount after rebates and returns, even more miniscule when you consider the trade benefits it brings. Total expenditure not including EU spending in UK: 0.64% of GDP. We get a lot of that back as well.

            Just to accomodate Europe? We need to redesign the welfare system for many more reasons than that. What about the acres of lazy b*stards who think the world owes them a living? What about the people who think having to wait more than 2 hours for free, world-class healthcare is unacceptable? These people need to be woken up frankly.

            Just for Europe? Just for that enormous market, that continent of which we are a part and which we should want to continue to be closely involved with? No just about it mate.

          • 11 billion after rebates is not minuscule in fact it is over 10% of our current deficit!

          • Jack

            After rebates and EU spending the the UK, not counting the increases in business revenue that membership brings. What of the other benefits it brings? Shipping to EU countries is SO easy, and procuring parts/chemicals is also incredibly easy. It stands in sharp contrast to exporting/importing from the US or Canada, and don’t get me started on Japan. What of the political benefits of a strong, united Europe, not to mention the fact that member states haven’t been at war since its inception (unprecedented in European history).

            It is also 1/10th of our welfare spending.

          • 11 billion is what the EU costs us a year and as for trade then read this:

            http://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=12738&article=www.thinkscotland.org

            and learn what a terrible deal we have.

            One does not have to be in the trade block to trade with the trade block.

          • Jim

            Makes you wonder how we ever bought and sold anything before the EU.

  • MC73

    Also, adjust the tax and NI system to make lower-paid jobs a valid option for the domestic unemployed, thus making them more inclined to compete for jobs.

    I find it odd that the prof does not mention non-EU immigration. As well as the obvious problems caused by the importation of religiously maniacal peasants who bring with them the corruption and unpleasantness of their benighted homelands, I think that there is an immoral trend towards trying to solve Britain’s problems by importing people. Can’t train enough nurses (because some idiot decided it’s a job that requires a degree)? Import them ready-trained from the Philippines! Never mind the Philippine health service…

    We could do a lot more in tightening immigration from outside the EU. The immigration systems of Hong Kong and Singapore work well. Why not model ours on theirs?

    I would also suggest a special ‘3rd world sh1thole’ category that would mean anyone from Pakistan, Somalia or similar hellholes has only the slightest chance of getting in.

    • Jack

      He has written about leaving the EU. Why mention non-EU immigration?

      • Thorsted

        It will never stop because of the human right and asylum conventions. UK jurisdiction has become global with them -so the whole world has rights in Europe because their counties can´t give them.Its a Utopia off cause and intellectuals loves that. That is why he don´t mention it.

        • Jack

          Are you drunk? I’m not sure what you’re response is supposed to be saying to me, can you frame it in the form of an answer?

          “Its a Utopia of course and intellectuals love that.” – This glorious continent where everybody is equal before the law, where standards for what is and isn’t acceptable are harmonised and where every country is pretty damn prosperous. Yeah, them academics and their crazy penchants for utopia.

          • Thorsted

            Yes, every subject and citizen of the state are equal before the law-but is a somali or Syrian a citizen of your state?(I am from Danmark) No, they are from a failed states and have the rights of a failed state. No state-no rights. European nations states shall not be empires by law where non subjects from without the state have rights. If you want to address non-EU immigration you have to address that. You have de facto with human rights made your juristriction global.

          • Jack

            “No state – no rights” – appalling.

          • Thorsted

            Yes, it is how the world is. Give me one example where you have rights without a state; Central american where gangs have more power then the state or Libya with clan warfare. You can not have right without a state -and most of the 3.world are “failed states”. You will give people from failed states rights in Europe with human rights. Will you colonized the 3.world again so they can get rights or do you think that it will come by itself and until it happens Europe most be colonized and it civil society erode -or shall they have a little help like in Iraq or Libya?

          • Jack

            You don’t have rights within a failed state, but someone from a failed state has rights when they are in a functioning state.

          • Thorsted

            Yes – thats is my point its colonization policy and the “white man burden” by other means. We know that the reason we have working states in Europa and also asian counties like Japan is the high level of trust and association( social capital). In the arab world you have a tribal culture where there is no trust and association outside the extended family -and common good it not there-that is also why you see cousin marriges -no trust to world outside the extended family. So, behind failed states is failed cultures. In multicultural societies this high level of trust and association goes away-empirical data shows that. so, you are willing to completely erode the civil societies in Europe the basis for it all -to help people you share no civil society with and who don´t have the culture to make a working state? Or as Alexis de Tocqueville said; “Culture is the mother and the institutions are its children.”.The mother is not there in the 3.world -but she shall not die in Europe because of an irrational egalitarian ideology.

  • John Andrews

    Cameron and Miliband should stop saying ‘we hear you’ on immigration and implement the measures proposed by Collier in this parliament. Then we will find out if they work.

    • jjjj

      But they won’t. They’ll do anything to get into power and safe in the knowledge that they have 5 years, they’ll preserve the status quo. Unless, someone is forced to do something in politics or business, they never do.
      Vote UKIP.

  • Fenman

    Britain is the EU’s biggest export market(and the biggest market for German cars) ,even the apparatchicks in Brussels dare not endanger that. As UKIP has pointed out the biggest importer to the EU is China which has no trade agreement at all with the EU. So, Professor intellectually lazy to trot out the danger to trade canard. Once independent we can unilaterally negotiate our own trade agreements with China, USA, Brazuil etc. Also, note the Swiss export 4 times per capita to the EU than the UK does, so they are not suffering from Brussels.
    The real argument is cultural. The British people did not ask to become a ‘multi-cultural’ society, a formula for conflict, and every survey shows a majority against. The policy must be integration and immigration shd be based on a points system including an English exam. Immigrants who come here must want to become British, and it is this concept the idiots in the HoC must develop. There are hard British values like the separation of powers and the rule of law as well as the soft ones like freedom and tolerance which immigrant community must comply with to aid harmony. Sadly many immigrant cultures do not whether it is Islamists, Somalis or Romanian gypsies and this does cause major problems, as do the sheer numbers swamping schools and NHS in certain areas.

  • global city

    Paul Collier seems to have overlooked the fact that the veto is less and less possible. The mid term intention is to eliminate it.

    Also, the ‘federalist dream’ is as alive today amongst a similar number of young fanatics as it ever was. They intend to continue on the path of ever closer political union.

    What then, Paul?

    • Augustus

      Yes, why should we ‘cooperate’ towards this ‘federalist dream’? The supranational EU is murdering the European nation state by a thousand cuts already, and this isn’t for mutual economic individual states benefit, but in order to gather more and more powers unto itself. Centralization is the name of the game. How can Europe with all its different cultures, languages and historical differences ever succeed in becoming a full-blown federalist state? Of course it can’t, It would eventually become unworkable and doomed to failure, but the Eurocrats will do their utmost to wipe out national identities nevertheless. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be intergovernmental cooperation on all manner of policies, but when it comes to immigration an open borders policy dictated by outsiders will always have dire consequences with regard to security, benefits, health care, education housing etc. etc. Britain should lead the way out of this straitjacket. We need a new political landscape back to sanity, and back to our fully deserved freedom from dictatorship.

  • yes a good piece, though he doesn’t actually address the question of non-EU immigration, applying the same sensible thinking would imply imposing more thoroughly e.g. the Oz style points system.

    • livnletliv

      Lol, crawl back to the gutter you crawled from.

  • colchar

    “Ukip supporters are from the less advantaged classes, but not
    sufficiently wretched for the status of disadvantaged. Ill-educated and
    prejudiced, despite their numbers they are politically marginal because
    they are spatially dispersed. Hence: ignore them. This would be a
    terminal error. Instead, we should try honesty.”

    Why not try some honesty about who are supporting UKIP rather than stereotyping them?

  • jeffersonian

    “Instead, we should try honesty.”

    How novel.

  • Guest

    Hey, did anybody read about the thousands and thousands of murderers we have let into Britain, cause they did not fill out the forms honestly enough?

    sorry but, BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA…

    and this country has the mothertukkin’ audacity to tell Russia, or Israel or any other country anything about policies, both internal and foreign?

    Bloody dhimmified and pathetic Britain couldn’t fight it’s way out of a paper bag, let alone what’s going to happen very soon. When only 5% of your populations (mussies & their dhimmis) have brought a once great country to its’ knees, what will Britain be like in 10 years, when it’s 10%?

    Sorry, but I’m done mourning and crying, when nobody listens, I live in Canada now where terrorists are shot on sight and not paraded around and coddled like the Lee Rigby be headers. This is for you Britain:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

    • jjjj

      Yes. the Home Office is utterly out of control and not fit for purpose. And to think that under Reid we were saying the same bloody thing. Nothing has changed. No wonder Dave’s promise to reduce immigration is frit. This incompetence should be punished in the ballot box.

    • Trofim

      Terrorists are shot on sight? Have you got figures to support your use of the plural?

  • cartimandua

    Well I am a Ukip supporter and in the top few % of household income.
    We don’t have a labour shortage. We have people living in social housing who cannot risk a park bench by moving for insecure or zero hours work.
    IF after sorting that out we still have a labour shortage we need short term work permits with no access to the NHS or other benefits.
    This is what other countries do. Only the UK says “come on down” earn little and get the lot.
    We do need to get out of the EU or we need to apply the above conditions to EU migrants. Currently we are a hotel where people come to earn money for themselves.

    • jjjj

      But the fault lies mainly with the large employers who love immigration because of the effect on wages. After all, their kids won’t be competing for jobs or for resources. And when the time comes they’ll jump into the lifeboats out of here.

      • livnletliv

        Well the large employers can clear off with their chain gang, they pay no tax here anyway thanks to the tax loopholes that the eu set up to rob us blind.

  • grutchyngfysch

    Lots of points picked up well by others – but on the issue of the UK’s difference from the EU on identity cards – perhaps it is worth considering that the fact of the UK being an island nation has historically allowed us to be free of more invasive attempts to control and document identity by the state. We can control our borders tomorrow with infinitely more ease than most EU nations, since, with the exception of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we have no land borders with foreign nations to police. Interestingly, the Irish border is one of the key hotspots for inward migration.

    Yes, we could conform to the EU – but why should we? We have a different past, we have a different philosophy underpinning our legal system, and we have a different cultural outlook. We have never been continental. It is not wrong or evil to desire to be more continental – but the flip side to that is that it is not ignorant to approve of what we have inherited and to have no great wish to dilute it through conformity to other peoples’ dreams.

    • jjjj

      It’s too late. We have moved to being ‘continental’ and not for the better. How many third rate Tapas bars to we need? And with the demographic changes, cultural changes can’t be far behind. As to the legal system: The Supreme Court seems to be saying now that we can rely on our own traditions rather than the ‘Uman Rights Act. See Lady Hales’s lecture on ‘UK Constitutionalism on the March’ to be found on the Supreme Court’s website.

  • BillyCobbett

    ” It would help if ‘English’ ceased to be an ethnic identifier and became the accepted identity of everyone reared in England”

    Then I would have to start using another ‘identifier’….was thinking of Celtic-Germanic.

    • AJAX

      Ahy?

  • LordFarquaad

    Condescending b——-.

    Brexit would be ‘economically ruinous?’ (when we have a massive trade deficit of tens of billions with the continent and it represents only 36% of our international trade and falling)

    UKIP supporters are ‘ill-educated and prejudiced’ (I have a Cambridge degree, and while I might value national cultures and community cohesion, I wouldn’t describe myself as ‘prejudiced’)

    Europe will probably settle into a benign old age so let’s just sit around on the sidelines, with no vision for our own national destiny, in the hope immigration will settle down and we’ll avoid any meaningful national competition or ambition…

    Talk about a weed-clad ivory tower. It’s not just ‘populist mythology’ that says idiots like this shouldn’t be in positions of authority.

  • Kennie

    Isn’t this chap Collier supposed to be educated, yet he doesn’t know the difference between the EU and Europe.
    The UK will never leave Europe, but may well leave the EU.

  • livnletliv

    Paul Collier, how long have you lived in your double bubble, how did you become so far removed from reality? This is the most pathetic drivel i have ever read.

  • jesseventura2

    What do you think would be the result of a referendum asking if muslim immigrants should be returned to countries of origin?

  • KenelmDigby

    ‘Immigration is not economically ruinous but a threat to trade would be’.

    So how comes China, which of course is not an EU member, manages to sell billions upon billions of dollars worth of goods to the EU, and year on year that total is rising rapidly?
    Don’t you think we’ve all been shot a line with these oft-repeated and oft-made claims that somehow if the UK got its national sovereignty and independence back it would somehow lead to trade curtailment with the EU?
    Don’t you realise that that EU states sell far, far more to the UK than the UK sells to them, so by basic-basic economic pre- Adam Smith reasoning curtailing UK trade will hurt them more than it hurts us?
    But one thing I’ve found over the years is that all appeals to logic are just lost on EU enthusiasts and immigrationists.
    And you can add the fact that overall recent immigrants to the UK cost the UK taxpayer something like £100 billion in total since 1995. This coming from a lefty pro immigration ‘think tank’. EU immigrants contributed a paltry positive amount to the tax coffers, but non EU immigrants took out an eye wateringly enormous sum.

    You know what the answer is. Go on, vote UKIP, you know it makes sense.

  • KenelmDigby

    I just love all those ritualistic sneers and libels that somehow all UKIP supporters are ‘ill-educated, lower class, unemployed, ignorant, marginalized, unsophisticated, bigotted, council house dwelling,’ etc etc etc – make up a choice snobby epithet of your choice, but try to avoid ‘white trash’ if you can – you just *might* get into trouble, but I doubt that you will’ but you know that it’s no quite ‘nice’, unlike the other epithets that you’ve spent 5 minutes scratching your head thinking about.
    Anyhow, two tossers of third rate professors of a third rate subject – am I allowed just one insult of my own?, namely Messrs Ford and Goodwin, started this trend off, thought they were ‘very clever’ by doing so, and a lot of others have jumped on the band wagon to show their trendiness and allegiance, as these things usually go.
    Anyhow all the sneers that the ‘clever’ apply to UKIP all describe the people that the Labour Party was created to represent. Funny how no one insults traditional Labour Party voters in that way.

    • Max07

      I thought the article was well-argued and interesting, but you’re right – once again we have UKIP supporters caricatured as ‘prejudiced’ and ‘ignorant’. The fact that many of them may have rather more hands-on experience of dealing with the day to day consequences of mass migration than the better off and the expensively educated is swept aside as ‘prejudice’.

    • Chris Morriss

      Your user name rang a bell. Are you a reincarnation of the chap who came up with the strange ‘weapon salve’ concept?

  • Denis_Cooper

    “I would rather stay in and wield a veto.”

    Doesn’t this chap know that thanks to successive EU treaties since the 1957 Treaty of Rome, starting with Thatcher’s Single European Act, there are now hardly any areas of EU decision making where there is still the possibility of wielding a veto?

    And didn’t he notice this from just two days ago, typical of how the eurocrats like to proceed?

    http://euobserver.com/political/126859

    “Juncker seeks to bypass vetoes on tax reform”

    “European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has indicated he will try and get around member states’ veto powers over fiscal issues when he proposes new laws to clamp down on tax avoidance.”

  • Denis_Cooper

    Comment posted but vaporised for no good reason by the stout defenders of free speech at this august publication … pathetic.

    • Max07

      The Disqus filter has become ridiculously vigilant of late. Did your post contain the word ‘h£ll’, for example?

      • Denis_Cooper

        Nope, it just pointed out that there is now rarely any national veto for the UK to be able to “wield”, and that only two days ago Juncker said he was going to try to circumvent some of those that do remain over tax “reform”:

        http://euobserver.com/political/126859

        “Juncker seeks to bypass vetoes on tax reform”

        But then I was lucky that my comment even appeared briefly here, given that I have been totally blocked from commenting on the Coffee House blog by an editor who has a very one-sided and rather cowardly view on freedom of expression.

        • Max07

          It blocked my comments about a certain MP being unable to vote on his first day in the House. I tried to be as oblique as possible, but even the phrase ‘tired and emotional’ seemed to cause problems.

  • disqus_bRkNglLTpo

    I really don’t understand the obsession with EU immigrants. A Polish plumber will drink beer, watch football, work hard, and not require any discussion at all as to when it is and isn’t acceptable to rape children. They will have little cultural impact beyond improving the sausage section of the local supermarket, and – as the author of the article points out – their financial impact will probably balance in a generation or so.

    Interestingly, this article talks about the merits of “diversity”, and I would strongly agree. Surely, most of the immigration problems are down to the reduction of diversity in some areas? (Look at the names on Tower Hamlets council for example…) Where cultures mix they learn something from each other and they often learn something about themselves.

    Maintaining the culture of a village in the Hindu Kush, but with the welfare benefits, and practical benefits of an English location is surely going to go very awry.

  • Scradje

    Just stop all unskilled immigration and ensure that the remainder are not criminals and have skills that are actually needed or a large amount of cash to invest in the British economy.

  • Ken

    Generally a well argued piece with practical proposals for addressing both the scale and associated problems of immigration – let’s face it, there is not going to be a vote to quit the EU, like it or not, so we need to act tough within the EU. Out and out BNP style racists apart, none of us wants an all-white Britain – we love our local curry house and that friendly Asian corner shop – but we do resent whole cities becoming foreign territory. (What about London Borough of Tower Hamlets?) Nor do we resent affluent French and German professionals settling in London. And yes, Polish builders have been a boon. It’s all a matter of numbers. More and more people means more pressure to build housing and destroy green space – our environment is precious. And yes cultural cohesion matters a lot. At least immigrants from the EU share a common Christian culture – in many cases rather stronger than in the faithless UK! Poles and others have reinvigorated the RC Church in many inner city parishes. Immigration from beyond the EU is a different matter – we are allowing far too many with no excuse to be here to simply vanish and never leave. If the Italians are willing to allow in countless poor and ignorant Africans we need to have the resolve to turn them back at the border – their situation is sad but we have no duty to them and many of them have nothing to offer the UK. The fact that we and other western countries have encouraged the chaotic situation now prevailing in the Middle East hardly helps. The potential tide of immigrants to Europe and to the UK is just vast and we have to be realistic about how many we can accommodate – and to select which we want.

    • Sam_Beresford

      You make some good points, but I disagree that there isn’t going to be a vote to leave the EU. If and when we get our referendum, I think the balance of probability is that we’ll leave, as the latest Survation poll – which shows a 12 point lead for ‘out’ – suggests.

      • I wonder if they would do the referendum the “Scottish way” … by not allowing British Citizens who do not live in the UK to vote, and allow Europeans who do live in the UK to vote …
        I am Dutch, and I would vote out!

      • Pacificweather

        The British (especially the English majority) always vote for the status quo. This is the only country in the history of the world that voted to have 2/3 of MPs elected by a minority of the votes cast by their constituents.

    • mohdanga

      Good points but what is the matter with an all white Britain? It was this way for hundreds of years until the 1950s and Britain seemed to function just fine. If it were proposed that Africa, China, India, etc shouldn’t be all black, Chinese or Indian there would be immediate reaction from the chattering classes that these countries were being destroyed by allowing foreign cultures in.

    • Pacificweather

      LB Tower Hamlets has every nation under the sun working in Canary Warf from the African security guards to the American, Japanese and Swiss CEOs. The 44% of Bangladeshi residents of the borough are somewhat under represented. Not sure why.

  • Sam_Beresford

    This is probably the most thoughtful case for ‘in’ that I’ve read, and even though I want to leave the EU I do think that Prof Collier makes some good points. He makes some very good points about Aid and International Development too in his book ‘The Bottom Billion’, which I would highly recommend to anyone.

    There are some things he misses, however. Probably the biggest is sovereignty – I don’t see why we should continue to cede control of our labour laws, fisheries and agriculture, foreign policy (increasingly) and a whole host of other things to the EU. There is no magical reason why this needs to happen – its simply the logic of ‘ever closer union’. It often means we get a raw deal, and fundamentally, it undermines democracy and accountability. In Dan Hannan’s memorable phrase, the EU represents a Kratos without a Demos. There is no single european people that feel part of a common state; hence genuine democracy is impossible. This is a fundamental, structural flaw with the EU.

    I also think the economic case for remaining is very weak. There is really no reason to think leaving would be “economically ruinous” – they would be legally obliged to give us access to their markets, and any (illegal) revenge tarrifs they did impose would be pretty minimal. Less, in fact, than the extra £1.7 billion we have recently had to fork out because things like prostitution and narcotics trafficing are now measured as part of our GDP. This is not the 1970s, when old commonwealth markets were not large enough to sustain British trade, and the world was highly protectionist. This is the era of globalisation; the EU is an anachronism.

    I highly doubt the EU is capable of the fundamental reform it needs. As the needless destruction of Southern Europe has demonstrated – which is morally horrific as well as economically barmy – it is far more wedded to its own dreams than making life better for its citizens.

    Time to go – and hopefully, drag the rest of Europe out with us.

  • pitbull

    what about the 1.8 million British citizens living in the other EU countries?

    • mohdanga

      The vast majority of these would be professionals who don’t suck off the benefit system unlike the 3rd world enrichers washing up on Britain’s shores.

      • balance_and_reason

        yes or retiree’s living off their savings and British pension…usual bullshit socialist bluster.

    • Jim

      What about them?

  • Denis_Cooper

    You really are a bunch of cowards, aren’t you?

  • Greyfox

    Perhaps I am not worthy to make a comment and should leave all decisions to my betters, who seem to be making such a good job of things. This professor appears to be an arrant snob, who doesn’t believe in democracy unles it agrees with him.

  • Hoot_Gibson

    Remember what a DT journo said about immigration:
    “Somalis are undoubtedly better off living in the UK but are we any better off for having them here?”
    Please any sane answer to counter that?
    My patience has finally broken when watching a TV programme this week showing a Romanian Gypsy thanking the English welfare system for allowing him to build a mansion in Romania all paid for by idiot taxpayers like me to him with welfare payments.
    No wonder I have absolutely no sympathy for immigrants lost at sea or killed hiding under lorries.
    To assuage my liberal guilt at this “inhuman” attitude I thought of giving charity to the children of Africa then realised if I do all I am doing is feeding the next generation of immigrants so I will not go down that path.
    The politicians and MSM still deny any discussion to the elephant in the room on immigration that of 3rd world illegal immigration still pouring in to this country in greater numbers than those from Europe.
    We must stop all immigration or this country will implode under the stress’s being created in our infrastructure and communities every day relentlessly driving native peoples to seek radical solutions.

    • evad666

      I lost it when a Somali woman was clearing more on benefits than my gross salary of 35k while her husband abandoned her to go and fight for Al shabab.

  • Marvin

    The figures used regarding “Net ” immigration is a smoke and mirrors con used by the
    ruling elite to disguise the real incoming numbers. ultra mass immigration has an effect on every aspect of our lives. Infrastructure, schools, prisons, benefit claims, housing, crime etc. And do not let the left wing PC brigade treat us like plebs about the benefits of immigration to the economy. My basic maths shows me that the tax receipts are minimal compared to all the benefits and tax credits that are paid out.

  • Bertie Wooster

    How about leaving the EU and getting immigration under control. That’s a win win result.

  • david

    More nonsense from the europhiles. there are many more aspects that make the EU a totally unwanted organisation. Undemocratic un voted for Financially irresponsible corrupt to the core, and Hates England!Just to name a few!

    • Pacificweather

      Sounds just like Westminster politicians. We’re doomed.

  • Barzini

    All this talk of EU immigration is a red herring – 2/3 of immigration to the UK comes from the rest of the world…….it’s this immigration which is resulting in the ghetto-isation of the country and the destruction of social cohesion……

    Also, in general Eastern Europeans are ideal candidates for assimilation and typically have decent educations and similar values (with the exception of gypsies of course)……it’s far from ideal having so many at once, but in comparison to third-world immigration it’s not a major problem…….

    • evad666

      Now how many Somali nationals moved here from Holland because the benefits were better?

      • Pacificweather

        One, but he was found to be innumerate.

  • Nigel Korwin-Mikke

    LOL! As always ignore the fact that british companies marked for asset stripping are hiring shady ‘college’ graduates from India in masses to ‘consult’ the process. Instead pointing fingers on Polish good ethics and good universities graduates working the jobs far beneath them for the simple reason that all good jobs were taken away from Poland together with all our national wealth. We have no choice but to come to your hostile country and slave here. Another Penny shop Enoch Powell.

  • Mode4

    European integration isn’t a problem, after a few generations Poles will blend in. Cultures and religions that are not compatible with our own are the problem and it has to be stopped. Europe is not just about immigration as the author says, it is about our sovereignty. We are losing our Democracy. Nobody cares what Ed or Dave says because it doesn’t matter any more. We are run by the Germans. It is only a matter of time before the Germans target the city of London which is 13% of our GDP then its pretty much all over apart from the genocide of course. People need to wake up.

  • ieuan jones

    The real reason the English wants out of EU it isn’t immigrants coming to this country it they are scare of the future and the problems we started we blame it on other people and not blame it on us that’s why they like ukip they said to take us back to the past.

  • VSP

    An arrogant and elitist article making excuses and talking their usual outstanding rubbish. What they speak of as an answer to UKIP, is to ponder upon how to retain what they foisted upon our democratic values rather than achieved by democratic consensus. I hope a democratic voice in UKIP can do better than they say.. Commercial power has only increased and remains centralised around London. Any independent economic stability and reward from an industrial sector was intentionally removed by these same immoral speculators who continue to erode a sustainable level of moral justice, It is they amid their dependence upon the corporate EU ideals that took our northern winning streak and packed them off, and so all mutual and skilled beneficial applications withered. We as the greater democratic voice were shafted. Nothing to replace them except menial service jobs as laid out by financial addicts plotting a singular fiscal plan where we are now dependant slaves abused by a PC to preclude free speech. . There is more to life than listening to their obnoxious adverts. I wish UKIP well for out of the EU is just a beginning., and they do not like it at all..

  • Added thought….Potential government bartering on numbers of immigrants allowed in is rather a detail bearing in mind successive governments have failed to achieve their projections. This would indicate perhaps the means of control is not totally effective. Perhaps this may indicate other or added means are necessary.One suggestion would be a form of identity card.
    Previous government threw the idea out- perhaps the amount of information to be held was too ambitious and intrusive. Other European countries have cards. Serious criminal activity would perhaps be some thing that could be recorded. There could be a saving on dual identity benefit criminality?

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    Typical academic mumbo-jumbo – it’s Collier who’s “talking around” the problem because like most bien pensant liberals he has no idea what the problem is. So let me tell him. The flooding of previously stable white working class areas with strangers is an act of extreme carelessness, disparagement, and downright BAD MANNERS. Being told to shut up, being ignored, and ultimately being denigrated as racists has at last turned the old industrial working class against their puppet masters in the Labour movement – this is a real moment of enlightenment for the white working class. The Thornberry tweet was one insult too many. At last, the worm has turned…

  • Alexis Bannister

    According to some estimates, $3 million per day is wasted on illegal aliens imprisoned in the US.

  • fundamentallyflawed

    Not quite sure the headline containing “solution” is apt. Maybe I am just tired but this is the same old immigration is good and all we need to do is tighten the rules a little.
    – Benefit immigration from europe has already been proven to be overstated – they are coming here to work.
    – “Brakes” on immigration from Europe impede free movement and will be rejected by Germany.
    -Non-Eu immigration has already been considerably curtailed. (although given the recent uproar on the Guardian about a couple in cornwall unpopular with sections of the left)

    And wasn’t the £20 billion figure given as “contribution” to the economy. It wasn’t a tax total as stated above (and given that tax receipts have fallen probably isn’t).

    And no wonder businesses love cheap labour from Europe – anything to keep costs down – the reports from the Sandwich factory suggested that local workers in the same industry from a factory that had closed were overlooked in the rush to import their hungarian counterparts. It had little to do with problems finding local workers.

    • Pacificweather

      You are right. It is not as if sandwiches are price sensitive. You can buy a sandwich at £1.25 or £3.50. A sandwich made in the shop costs the same as one made in the factory and transported to the shop. The solution is to only buy sandwiches made in the shop and drive the companies that use only foreign labour out of business. Of course, some of the sandwiches made in the shop will be made by Poles and Brazilians but you get the point. At least you’ll get a freshly made sandwich.

  • evad666

    Time to mandate Managers, Politicians and Political Pundits are all foreign and cut their salaries to the bone.
    Enough of the “Because you’re Worth it” Management salaries. They aren’t and never have been worth it.
    The Political cartel of Lib,Lab,Con needs to be disassembled it is,has been and will continue to be corrupt. Witness the non reaction to Child abuse in English towns and cities with the refusal to talk about the colonization (sorry immigration) program.
    The Media and their Political Pundits have known what was wrong and only in the case of MP expenses have been willing to do their job.
    All three groups are now terrified as their cosy symbiotic existence has been rumbled.
    Time to put a scaffold in Parliament Square.

  • Rupert Williams

    Brexit will not be economic folly.

    It is essential.

    Hopefully UKIP will self immolate in time to avoid upsetting the outcome of the tories referendum.

    The EU has been a disaster for europe, and its one size fits all policies corruption and socialistic instincts are really starting to bite.

    A generation of youth is sacrificed to the euro almost as surely as their Grandfathers and great grandfathers out of whose calvary was spawned this monster.

    • Pacificweather

      The French were right to try to keep Britain out of the EC. Britain has been a disaster for Europe. Maybe in 2017 this error will be rectified.

  • gerronwithit

    The question is always why do (hopeless) immigrants flock to the UK? And the obvious answer is for the benefits.. However, have you ever heard of a Britain migrating anywhere for the benefits? Other than transportation in the 19th and 18th centuries,, are we able to offload our ineffectual to any other country?

    No, those that are emigrating have generally skilled themselves up, had a good look round and decided that this is no longer the ideal country to work, earn good money, pay fair taxes and raise a family.

    We have a lose, lose situation here and a quick scan of your city streets will prove I’m right.

  • Benjamin Martin

    I’ve found this to be a useful antidote against the quackery of the progressives who infect our media: http://bit.ly/theLanterns

  • SixtusBeckmesser

    hello rubberdog….

    ah, the joy of sitting back and relaxing, knowing all the while a ‘boy is busy spending his time desperately phoning the DT to convince them of his paranoid suspicions.

    another mince pie? Certainly, now let’s think about getting the ‘boy working hard again! Is there anything more enjoyable knowing that you have a ‘boy on the end of a string and pulling it whenever you feel he needs to work?

    No. Nothing.

    so enjoy your Christmas on the phone ‘boy – and don’t work too hard. I’ll be thinking of your sweaty little tactics while I tuck into the turkey, with a big smile on my face!

    hahahahahaha……

  • pobinr

    ‘now their refrain is of the economic benefits of immigration. ‘
    A nation’s work force is the engine that drives its economy. To create the wealth among other things to pay for care for its young & old.
    So why is it that the left support sucking the life blood out of already low population density poor East European countries, just to make slumlords & min wage employers here richer ?
    What do they think it’s doing to those countries?
    And we wind up;
    Subsidising low wage immigrants entitled to more than they pay in tax from child benefit, social housing, family tax credits, NHS, subsidised nursery care, translators etc
    Wages driven down & house prices & rents driven up, worst housing shortage since WWII, full schools, more traffic jams, more houses on greenbelt, over burdonned NHS etc etc
    Madness !
    Vote UKIP to restore sanity

    • Pacificweather

      UKIP have not yet said they will end the employer subsidies perpetrated by the other parties of which you rightly complain. They should, it’s a vote winner.

  • Brexit is economic folly? Guess how many trade deals will be concluded in the short term, because the UK will have been liberated from the shackles of the Brussels experiment.

    When it comes to immigrants, are they coming because of a more generous social package in the UK, than where they are leaving? If so, why not cut benefits, because having a higher worker to recipient ratio is healthier for the country, than a lower one.

  • Mike Stallard

    Dear Sir Paul,
    Please go to my hometown of Peterborough and enter Pakistan on what was once my home – Lincoln Road. No integration there! I don’t know what to call myself any more because as an Englishman from English parents and grandparents, I am – what exactly? Honky? Kufar? Obroni? Pale, male and stale? In my hometown, I am a Kufar – worthless, ignorant and doomed.
    A Polish friend of mine told me that he had lost his factory job after 7 years of solid service. Now he works for an agency. When he was lucky enough to get a day’s work – at his old factory – he told me, it was black – full of black haired Bulgarians. The pay has, he told me, gone down from basic wage to £3-4 an hour – after deductions. He cannot support his wife and family on that without using the welfare provision for which he is touchingly grateful.
    And how do you cope with another friend of mine who arrived in UK from Latvia and got a job in a local factory. Her husband joined her here and she was depending on his income so that she could support her newborn baby. Instead, he just dumped her and took over the flat. She was homeless – just like the Victorian picture of eviction. So? Are you going to leave her in the street?
    Or another person I know who went mad and had to be sectioned. He was African, but legally Portuguese. Do you just let him wander around raping people?
    When you come down to personal cases, somehow all your clever talk becomes rather dangerous.
    PS Have you ever heard of Flexit?

  • Mode4

    What a dreadful snob Collier is, he clearly despises the working class. He must be Labour or Tory, its hard to tell the difference these days. Probably sips chardonnay around Thornberry’s place while they talk about their peasant roots and how far removed they now are from the working class that they despise.

  • Rodney H Vincent

    What is good for big business is not the same as what is good for the community as a whole. We have only to look around at the pressures on the NHS and other public services and then ask ourselves if we are happy with uncontrolled mass immigration as it has been happening.
    Do we want more of the same, if not I think most people know what is the only action they can take, and it doesn’t mean voting for the three main parties, as there is little to separate them.

    • Pacificweather

      Vote for any party that will substantially raise the minimum wage. Higher wages lead to lower immigration because there is no financial benefit from importing foreign labour. Jobs must be real jobs not subsidised jobs supported by the taxpayer providing tax credits and housing benefit. The economy will be more productive, the tax take will rise and the deficit removed.

  • Sean L

    Was expecting some sense given the headline. Should have known better. Just the usual corporate BS. As to headlines, traditionally the Spectator’s were mildly witty or cryptic. Now it more resembles Daily Mail style hype, often with a misleading or tenuous relation to the actual content.

  • LordJustin

    Amazing how socialists will trot out just about any justification for their treasured policy of introducing identity cards to enforce state control and accountability of the citizen to the organs of the State.

    For the working and lower middle class, any positive effects of uncontrolled immigration are unintended, accidental, and will, if at all possible, be ruthlessly stamped out. The policy is designed to export poverty to wealthier economies, whilst importing prosperity to less wealthy economies in the shape of manufacturing attracted by lower overheads.

    In other words, the EU is the classic socialist super state: the very rich at the top get richer to stop them leaving, the very poor get benefits to keep them state dependent and stop them rioting and looting, and the hard working majority in the middle – traditionally the engine of wealth, innovation and enterprise – are mercilessly squeezed into today’s version of the poverty trap – too poor to avoid punitive taxation, too decent to scrounge from the State or descend to rioting and, thanks to the punitive cost of higher education used by the Elite to keep out the oiks, too uneducated to leave.

    No amount of socialist propaganda – including the good professor’s condescending socialist propaganda masquerading as economics – will prevent the squeezed middle voting UKIP. If the momentum is kept up, nothing will be able to prevent those votes turning into a new Thatcherite revolution – and the sooner the better.

    • Pacificweather

      I have always thought that we should give words our own definition and not accept the majority definition. I am pleased to find a kindred spirit. The greatest and most deleterious act of socialism has been perpetrated by successive British governments rather than the EU. Employer subsidies are destroying our economy and burdening the middle class taxpayers.

  • Roger Hudson

    Paul needs to be taken behind the bike sheds for a bit of re-training. To lump all UKIP supporters as ill-educated is a disgusting slur.

  • Thedon

    All this BS makes me extremely angry. In 2010 I was unemployed for 6 months and a job offer in Saudi came up. I never intended to stay there. 4 years later, and after everyone is proclaiming how great the UK job market is, I decide to return. I spend LOADS of money time and effort returning to the UK gambling I can find work. I don’t. I can’t sign on and now have £400 to my name. I have had ONE job offer. Back in Saudi. No thanks!! We are constantly told that the immigrants are here to “do the jobs the population won’t do” and on the other hand “we have employed highly skilled people because of a shortage in the UK”. So between these two sides of the argument there are NO jobs left!!! It makes me sick!!!

    • Pacificweather

      Immigrants do the jobs that Britons can’t afford to do. That’s why successive governments have expanded employer subsidies because single men and women can only get housing benefit. Taxpayers are subsidising the jobs that pay poverty wages. You can’t live on poverty wages so you can’t get a job. If you are prepared to be really poor you will find work easier to get. The question is, do you want to be paid poverty wages to make your employer better off or do you want to go back to Saudi. I think I would keep looking.

      • Thedon

        It’s not a choice of being poor. It’s economics. I need a minimum of £950 per month before travel and food, can’t sign on. The “big aerospace company, not BAE” that I was going to Saudi with is operating dubiously out there and, coupled with a NON TAX FREE salary (6 month contract) and the security situation there was untenable.

        • Thedon

          I’m white, Middle class, skilled, single. Is there no hope for me now??

        • Pacificweather

          Poverty isn’t so bad. There is always housing benefit. Tax credits if you have a family. Seriously, Christmas is a bad time to be out of work but by mid January firms will be hiring again. I switched from contracting in engineering to local government because their year ends 31st March when it is easier to get work.

  • Manny Bartow

    According to some estimates, $17 billion is wasted each year on educating anchor-baby offspring of illegal aliens.

  • Pacificweather

    It seems that the article is saying that an end to employer subsidies would lower immigration from the EU. It would also save the British taxpayer billions. It would seem to be worth a try.

  • ArthurSparknottle

    Would it be permissible to ask why it is that so many Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian heritage British born youngsters have to seek a spouse from the land their parents came from?

    As a mere pleb, it seems to me that the decision on the part of parents to oblige their offspring to marry a foreigner they do not know, is likely an abuse of our generous tendency to allow family reunification. I am sure that there are occasions where people travelling abroad, meet and fall in love with people whom they later ought to be able to bring to Britain, but the vast numbers of South Asian foreign marriages in my opinion probably involve the importing family making a fat profit on importing someone hitherto a trained goat herder or village girl from Mirpur or Sylhet or some other rural backwater – almost always the origins of our Pakistani and Bangladeshi friends.

  • Immigrants won’t be a problem if Britain enforced its western values and taught the newcomers how to behave or be British.

    • Pacificweather

      They behave very nicely at the moment. If we taught them to be British they would never stop moaning.

  • ADW

    How about democracy? If a majority don’t want unfettered immigration, then respect their views whether you agree or not.

    • Pacificweather

      If you want democracy you’ll have to move abroad. Have you considered Scotland?

  • Andrew Morton

    Just stop the non EU immigrants for crying out loud. The evil that is islam which is encouraged by our successive governments is killing our country like a cancer.

  • Kennie

    “….just as the SNP promotes an inclusive definition of ‘Scottish’”
    The SNP definition of “Scottish” is anyone from anywhere who will vote SNP.

  • Rockingham

    Until I retired I ran my own engineering firm, all my workers were British trained and qualified, qualifications I knew I could trust, and I also trained my own, I had a very good education and achieved all my goals, I was in constant business deals with the western European companies, and didn’t have any problems with any of them, I never wanted into the EU from day one, and voted against, I now vote for UKIP, because I know we can do better outside of the EU, and because I cannot trust Cameron and the tory party, labour and liberals are both pro Europe, so a vote for them is wasted, I am also very pro British and pro British workers.

  • Daniel Kaffee

    A brief explanation of the serious crisis caused by illegal aliens: http://youtu.be/j48J7YsPrW0?t=2m55s

  • Luke Barrass

    I hope you do know that under our British constitution it is illegal for Britain to be a member of a foreign power, which is what the eu is.

  • yodaddy51

    If Europe keeps accepting Africans, you had better build a a lot more jails because you’ll be needing them.Look at American Blacks crime rate!.

Close