Why does the EU allow immigration across the eurozone Watch

GrumpyCat
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
0
reply
Darth Stewie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Well the initial reason and reason many people still support it today is because of the economic benefits. Although it has a social element with the pro being it instils a sense of European community and against because that can be seen as undermining individual nations citizens sense of entitlement that is simply a side effect of a nifty economic policy.
1
reply
Bilderberg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by GrumpyCat)
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
The explanation is very straightforward, which I am sure you could have come up with if you put a bit of thought in it.

Firstly, you will find that throughout the acquis communautaire (EU Law) it is referred as the freedom of movement, rather than 'immigration'. Secondly, not only does the EU 'allow unhinged' freedom of movement, it actually guarantees it!

Now, the freedom of movement includes four elements: free movement of goods, capital, services and people (which I guess you referred to as 'immigration'). You may know that the at the basis of the EU stands the single market. For this to function smoothly (i.e. increase competition and specialisation, generate larger economies of scale etc) it has to have a relatively efficient way of allocating resources, allowing goods and factors of production (capital and labour) to move to the area where they are most needed. For obvious reasons it is not possible to 'pick & choose' the freedoms you like and disregard the ones you do not like.
7
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by GrumpyCat)
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.


I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
That isn't true, Australia and New Zealand have had similar agreement from the early 70s.

ASEAN countries will be implementing something very similar in 2015 though it is only meant for white-collar professionals in the first phase. Singapore has long had essentially had opened borders for nearly 20 years now and it's open to people from all over the world, didn't stop it from becoming one of the richest countries in the world.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by GrumpyCat)

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
Then I would suggest you find some re-runs on YouTube of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet which was a TV drama about a gang of Tyneside building workers in Düsseldorf.
1
reply
tc92
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
The social problems only come when you have such vast disparities between economies that people from the poorest countries will obviously go to the richer countries where a minimum wage, dead-end job still pays much higher than the average wage back home. It's inevitable and we would do it as well in the circumstances (barring the British hatred of actually going anywhere abroad or learning any languages).

It's all well and lovely when you think of businessmen fleeting between London, Paris and Berlin, or Auntie Marge and Uncle Jim being able to freely go and retire down in the sunny south of France.

One suggested solution would be to limit free movement to countries with relatively equal GDP, though obviously against the integrationist principles that drive the EU, so never going to be considered let alone happen.
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by GrumpyCat)
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
It's supposedly for economic benefits. While in general there's not many disadvantages to immigration (aka far more taxes paid in my immigrants than out via benefits) and helps create a reserve workforce for nations at all times (seeing full employment is actually a bad thing for an economy).

In reality I presume it far more to do with the founders and certain followers of the EU wanting to eventually turn it into a superpower or collection of states similar to the US. Thats so european countries can actually compete with economic superpowers such as america, china, India and I suppose to a lesser extent these days russia (though it was a economic superpower when the EU was formed).

It's no different to what happens in the US, many states actually started off (such as texas) as it's own country that joined a union of states (aka the united states of america), all the EU is in effect is a union of states. In some way you could say in america their states are effectively client states of the central government, as in many have their own laws, taxes etc but foreign policy derives from the central government.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
It allows it so the elites can exploit the low wage expectations of the eastern countries. While it is incredibly important for the EU to federalise if Europe is to manage its decline, it wasn't a great idea to incorporate the eastern countries. Maybe the two aims of managing decline and paying the workers proper money are incompatible; but I'm sure they could at least have admitted the poorer countries slowly one by one rather than all in one go.
0
reply
zero_gravity
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by GrumpyCat)
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
I'm not too sure about this, since I'm not a European nor someone from the UK, but I'm going to give my views on this.

I think the whole point of EU immigration is to create transnational borders. This means not having defined boundaries based on a state, but rather free access across any country part of the EU, allowing equality in a globalising world.

Personally, I don't think it is fair to the western European countries, given that the eastern European countries have more reasons to move towards western European for better employment, education, and other opportunities, but I think the main objective is to erase checkpoints and implement a more "efficient" system for travel between all EU countries.
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

It's all part of the grand plan: abolish the nation states (starting with the people) and create a federal Europe [EUSSR] under the control of the Brussels Kommissars.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by tc92)
The social problems only come when you have such vast disparities between economies that people from the poorest countries will obviously go to the richer countries where a minimum wage, dead-end job still pays much higher than the average wage back home. It's inevitable and we would do it as well in the circumstances (barring the British hatred of actually going anywhere abroad or learning any languages).

It's all well and lovely when you think of businessmen fleeting between London, Paris and Berlin, or Auntie Marge and Uncle Jim being able to freely go and retire down in the sunny south of France.

One suggested solution would be to limit free movement to countries with relatively equal GDP, though obviously against the integrationist principles that drive the EU, so never going to be considered let alone happen.
This is correct.

If we were creating an EU tomorrow i'd probably prefer to limit free movement of labour to those countries above the EU average per capita PPP (France, UK, Finland, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Sweeden, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg). Personally i would also look to extend this to the likes of the USA, Canada and Australia among others.

The desire for a European federation is also one factor.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by tc92)
The social problems only come when you have such vast disparities between economies that people from the poorest countries will obviously go to the richer countries where a minimum wage, dead-end job still pays much higher than the average wage back home. It's inevitable and we would do it as well in the circumstances (barring the British hatred of actually going anywhere abroad or learning any languages).

It's all well and lovely when you think of businessmen fleeting between London, Paris and Berlin, or Auntie Marge and Uncle Jim being able to freely go and retire down in the sunny south of France.

One suggested solution would be to limit free movement to countries with relatively equal GDP, though obviously against the integrationist principles that drive the EU, so never going to be considered let alone happen.
I'm sorry, but isn't the ability of workers to move to where they are most productive and can enjoy the highest standard of living a good thing?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I'm sorry, but isn't the ability of workers to move to where they are most productive and can enjoy the highest standard of living a good thing?
Yes for the economy and the people who come, tc92 was likely referring to some of the social negative perception of immigrants from little englanders and the like.
0
reply
STBUR
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I'm sorry, but isn't the ability of workers to move to where they are most productive and can enjoy the highest standard of living a good thing?
Not when the local host population has to suffer the economic costs thereof.

Remember you are trying to apply concepts that are more suitably applied to manufacturing/high skilled labour to immigrants that are mostly unskilled, are at least semi-skilled. Cab drivers, farm labourers, IT technicians, chefs, architects etc are not adding value by moving around either because (1) they are lose skill or (2) they predominantly service local needs. Some of them generally pay little or no tax yet are adding immense social cost via housing, police, NHS, road use etc.

It is far more effective to move the production to the local populace like they did in China/India. So why in the EU must the population move? They don't, it is a fallacy.

If your UK factory MUST have Romanian workers as opposed to UK workers (if you buy into the truly racist concept that UK workers are supposedly bad) the move the factory to Romania.

High skilled workers like bankers, researchers, engineers etc can move easily enough. It is much lower risk because they have the financial means and they pay tax to cover any cost to the local population.

Economic migration should only be used to temporarily shore up industries that a country has a shortage. The plan should be to use the next 5-10 years to adequately support that industry through your own people coming through schools/universities. It just takes proper planning something which would happen if Labour did not have its overriding ideological plan to fragment UK society with foreign people.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by STBUR)
Remember you are trying to apply concepts that are more suitably applied to manufacturing/high skilled labour to immigrants that are mostly unskilled, are at least semi-skilled. Cab drivers, farm labourers, IT technicians, chefs, architects etc are not adding value by moving around either because (1) they are lose skill or (2) they predominantly service local needs.
Explain to me how unskilled workers lose skills when they move. As for serving local needs, so what if they serve local needs? If people need cab drivers more in Birmingham than Budapest then so be it.

Some of them generally pay little or no tax yet are adding immense social cost via housing, police, NHS, road use etc.
No one pays no tax. They might lay little or no income tax but they will pay VAT, national insurance and contribute towards the growth of companies--who will then pay business taxes. Besides, many of these arguments apply to British workers, why not start kicking them out? Moreover, to the extent that these arguments hold merit, they are arguments for tax and welfare reform, not immigration reform.

It is far more effective to move the production to the local populace like they did in China/India. So why in the EU must the population move? They don't, it is a fallacy.
Oh, I'm glad you mentioned China, an excellent example of the economic benefits of migration.
It is not always more effective to move factories to workers. Last time I checked, it's easier to move a person than move a building. Besides, there are considerable network effects and external economies of scale that mean that mean that business are often more productive operating in the West.

Economic migration should only be used to temporarily shore up industries that a country has a shortage. The plan should be to use the next 5-10 years to adequately support that industry through your own people coming through schools/universities. It just takes proper planning something which would happen if Labour did not have its overriding ideological plan to fragment UK society with foreign people.
Migration has significant, long term economic benefits. This shouldn't be surprising. Letting people live where they are most productive increases aggregate production. If you want to look at an example in a particular country, look at anywhere in the New World, including the US and Canada. Where exactly would the US economy be without migrants?
0
reply
Luketreherne
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
The uk has controlled on who they let in from outside the EU , however they have no control on who enters the uk from any other EU member state.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Nadheer_Ishak
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
I am all for immigration if it is properly controlled and only those who can offer the country a needed skill set can enter or those who are able to financially support themselves are allowed in, but I really do not understand the benefit of mass uncontrolled immigration where absolutely any person can just come in and start claiming welfare payments, NHS etc. on day 1 without contributing anything to the country. Does nobody think that is completely insane?

I do not blame the immigrants for this btw, of course people from poor countries will flock to you if you as a rich country open the doors wide open to them and give them free housing and loads of money and health care and education etc. for doing absolutely nothing, you'd be crazy not to.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
I wonder if people think unskilled immigration has been bad for Austria, it has the lowest unemployment rate in the EU.
1
reply
STBUR
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Explain to me how unskilled workers lose skills when they move. As for serving local needs, so what if they serve local needs? If people need cab drivers more in Birmingham than Budapest then so be it.
(1) was a typo. I meant to say they have no skill to transfer. Any local can do the job. Any job-cost saving is counter balanced by the state having to provide services to that individual not paying any tax (low skilled workers or a farmer) do not earn enough to contribute much. Thus the cost saving is passed onto the public purse over the next few decades. Thus no savings.
(2) The concept of adding value is that delivering your service has more value somewhere else. A hairdresser does not deliver more value, maybe to himself due to more income, but not to the community/company.

That economic argument is relevant to Widget A being produced for £10 in 2 hours in UK but for £8 in China in 1.5 hours. Thus you produce it in China and use less labour for it and thus the labour hours saved can be used for other work that add value.

You guys are just misplacing economic theories to subsets of the workforce to which it doesn't apply.

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
No one pays no tax. They might lay little or no income tax but they will pay VAT, national insurance and contribute towards the growth of companies--who will then pay business taxes. Besides, many of these arguments apply to British workers, why not start kicking them out? Moreover, to the extent that these arguments hold merit, they are arguments for tax and welfare reform, not immigration reform.
Uhh, no. The government spends ~£10k per capita on services to citizens. Unless you pay more in tax you are a net receiver. That is why no economic report on immigration EVER considers schooling, NHS, police, roads and other infrastructure costs. They can't because unless you are are a high earner you don't cover the cost. It is the nature, and purpose, of the progressive-income tax system.

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Oh, I'm glad you mentioned China, an excellent example of the economic benefits of migration.
It is not always more effective to move factories to workers. Last time I checked, it's easier to move a person than move a building. Besides, there are considerable network effects and external economies of scale that mean that mean that business are often more productive operating in the West.
Only if we do not saddle the public purse with long term commitments. We should do what Saudi-Arabia and those middle-eastern countries do. You work you can stay, you lose your job you are out. Neither can you get a passport. You are temporary until you bugger off. That works beautifully if you ask me.

Although it is noteworthy that they also have problems with low income earners not leaving as they are suppose to. Hence, no low income earners EVER.

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Migration has significant, long term economic benefits. This shouldn't be surprising. Letting people live where they are most productive increases aggregate production. If you want to look at an example in a particular country, look at anywhere in the New World, including the US and Canada. Where exactly would the US economy be without migrants?
A hairdresser is not more productive in London than in Calcutta.

An engineer might be because it is a more specialized field and the work that he needs to do is in London and not in Calcutta. But there is a vast difference in having <5% temporary, high-skilled immigrant force moving around the world as needed than importing millions of low to no skilled workers.

The US; it depends on when you are talking about. If you are talking 200-300 years ago; sure. Millions of Europeans migrated into a completely undeveloped landmass and completely replaced the technologically backwards natives. Growth was huge because it went from nothing to something. Current day? Not so much the same is it. Same issue as UK. They are pushing up total GDP but there is no evidence that all those Hispanics are increasing net GDP. And with the US becoming more socialist with Obamacare the chicken is going to come home to roost, my friend.

And then of course you are ignoring all the adverse social problems, just like in Europe.

Net GDP is influenced by efficiency, new sources of energy, new minerals, new technologies etc. Influencing those things you maybe need the top 1% of workers because generally you can trade ideas across borders quite easily. Or do you think India/China had to import millions of Americans to build their space programs? *lol* The US has need for more foreign born mom-and-pop shop owners like they need a hole-in-the-head and that is all that 90% of immigrants ever are.
0
reply
Lin Chung
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by GrumpyCat)
It's a major part of the EU's laws.

But why? No countries other then the EU countries allow unhinged immigration.

I cant see any benefits to allowing a policy like this, atleast to a small peeps/Working class peeps.
More tax payers and to keep wages down.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (191)
22.66%
The paper was reasonable (389)
46.14%
Not feeling great about that exam... (156)
18.51%
It was TERRIBLE (107)
12.69%

Watched Threads

View All