Is the EU responsible for the migration mess - No trolls please

Watch
hamzaahmad786
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
The other day I saw a convo on LBC where a law grad made the point that the EU has pretty strict migration rules, which the government has chosen not to abide by.

If the government has failed to control immigration despite having the power, then how is leaving the EU going to help in any way?

Since, migration was the main catalyst for brexit, what was the whole point of having brexit when we already control our borders? (Serious question, please don't bother responding if you have nothing beneficial to add)
0
reply
Stunted Elf
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
One of the EU's has a fundamental rules that that of the freedom of movement within Europe, This worked perfectly well until they admitted Poland into the EU, the massive difference between the UK and Polish economy's (we are much richer than them) resulted in millions of polish workers flooding the UK. For myself as an employer, this was quite good because British workers are generally lazy, incompetent, and unreliable whereas the Polish are mostly hardworking and conscientious.
1
reply
icequeenTM
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Hmm idk I'm sure the main reason for Brexit was more to do with the rise in nationalism. People just thought being in the EU meant we had less control of our nation.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
I think one needs to ask the question as to why someone decides to travel huge distances and risk their lives to do so. The answer generally it to try and better their lives. So why do they come to Europe? Answer - because Europe has rich nations for whom its citizens generally enjoy a good life. So if we are to blame, it is because we have successful opportunities and prosperous economies. Should our economy bomb, I guarantee the migrants will stop coming.
1
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Stannis98)
Hmm idk I'm sure the main reason for Brexit was more to do with the rise in nationalism. People just thought being in the EU meant we had less control of our nation.
Which is true, being in the eu meant less control.
0
reply
hamzaahmad786
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by joecphillips)
Which is true, being in the eu meant less control.
But how specifically does it mean less control? I managed to dig up the law:

EU citizens have a right to stay in the UK, or any other Member State that is not their own, for up to three months with a valid passport or identity card. But to stay for longer, they need to be:
Πin employment; or
 continue to seek employment and have a genuine chance of being engaged; or
Ž to be able to show that they have sufficient resources not to be a burden on public funds and sickness insurance.

Surely 300,000+ migrants all can meet those expectations, unless there is something else at play.

Btw I found the video, this is it:
https://www.facebook.com/femibtvs/vi...5183916144412/
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Stunted Elf)
One of the EU's has a fundamental rules that that of the freedom of movement within Europe, This worked perfectly well until they admitted Poland into the EU, the massive difference between the UK and Polish economy's (we are much richer than them) resulted in millions of polish workers flooding the UK. For myself as an employer, this was quite good because British workers are generally lazy, incompetent, and unreliable whereas the Polish are mostly hardworking and conscientious.
This is a ******** argument. Obviously it is not true that British people in the round are lazy or incompetent or our economy would be going nowhere fast.

Because Britain is a richer country than Poland, wage demands are higher. So you can attract a better quality of Polish worker for a given wage, because their expectations are lower. The British people who are competing for those low wages are those who, well, couldn't find a better wage somewhere else.

In a well functioning economy, when employers can't attract a good quality of worker for a given wage, wage rates will rise to compensate. What has been happening in the last decade or so is that employers like the above have instead been importing workers from poorer countries who demand lower wages. And then employers slander British workers by complaining that, when they can't attract decent British staff with rock bottom wages, the British are the problem, whereas in reality they just have higher standards.

So, when we leave, normal service ought to be resumed and wages will rise to attract decent British workers. And employers will cry blue murder that their wage bills are rising, like they do whenever wages rise consistently. Wah wah wah.
2
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
The other day I saw a convo on LBC where a law grad made the point that the EU has pretty strict migration rules, which the government has chosen not to abide by.

If the government has failed to control immigration despite having the power, then how is leaving the EU going to help in any way?

Since, migration was the main catalyst for brexit, what was the whole point of having brexit when we already control our borders? (Serious question, please don't bother responding if you have nothing beneficial to add)

It depends what you mean.

1. There are rules dealing with:

Immigrants from outside the EU
Immigrants from within the EU
Refugees and asylum seekers

Which ones are the pretty strict immigration rules you are referring to?
The larger number of immigrants are legal ones from the first two areas.

The EU had some administrative rules which were unworkable and it would have been illegal to implement them. They were rules between countries and did not change the rules and rights refugees had.

2. The government hasnt failed to control immigration where it has the power.
It takes in relatively few refugees when compared to other countries.
The bit where it doesnt have absolute power is v other EU citizens who have freedom of movement as part of being in the single market and which UK citizens have v the rest of the EU.

Leaving the EU will mean the government can control the flow of EU citizens and keep them out if it wishes. The EU will do the same to UK citizens.

3. Not sure Migration was the main catalyst for the referendum. We dont have total control of our borers, but will when we leave the EU. Notwithstanding the laws re refugees. So your point is a misunderstanding.

Byeeks point was pretty good.
0
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
Since, migration was the main catalyst for brexit, what was the whole point of having brexit when we already control our borders? .
Oh God yet another stooge trying to blame the referendum on the Immigration issue. This is getting so lame.

It wasn't about immigration. It was about detaching ourselves from a totally corrupt Federal States Of Europe run by a politburo set of megalomaniacs who we don't get to elect. It was about reversing the fraudulent actions of numerous corrupt politicians who took the UK into the EU by stealth and skulduggery and who denied the populous a referendum on whether we wanted to relinquish our sovereignty and give it to a foreign power. These were acts of treason plain and simple.

It brought us into the mess we are now in and all of that damage now needs to be reversed.

Please stop saying BrExit was about immigration. It wasn't. That's an issue that was down the pecking list.
0
reply
dickwhittington
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
I don't think immigration is solely the fault of either the EU or the UK Gov't, rather both in equal measure.It has been known for quite some time that freedom of movement within the EU has caused an upsurge in far right and anti EU/anti immigration sentiments but they haven't budged at all on freedom of movement. They won't debate it or change it
But also, like it was said earlier the government does have the power to remove EU nationals from the country if they are unable to find work, they don't bother doing this though due to the cost and manpower required. They would rather use the figures to score cheap political points

Like its been said already, people migrate for a better life, the only way to truly reduce migration would be to bomb the economy and make the UK an unattractive place to come work. In saying that, completely stopping immigration would bomb our economy anyway as many of our business sectors rely on immigrant labour
Seasonal, tourism and leisure, the NHS to name a few

(Original post by 999tigger)
3. Not sure Migration was the main catalyst for the referendum. We dont have total control of our borers, but will when we leave the EU. Notwithstanding the laws re refugees. So your point is a misunderstanding.
I think we can say that immigration wasn't the sole reason for peoples votes but it can't be denied that it played a big role in how people voted either although some people try to lump immigration under the sovereignty umbrella
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
But how specifically does it mean less control? I managed to dig up the law:

EU citizens have a right to stay in the UK, or any other Member State that is not their own, for up to three months with a valid passport or identity card. But to stay for longer, they need to be:
Πin employment; or
 continue to seek employment and have a genuine chance of being engaged; or
Ž to be able to show that they have sufficient resources not to be a burden on public funds and sickness insurance.

Surely 300,000+ migrants all can meet those expectations, unless there is something else at play.

Btw I found the video, this is it:
https://www.facebook.com/femibtvs/vi...5183916144412/
That's still less control that we would have out.
0
reply
dickwhittington
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by joecphillips)
That's still less control that we would have out.
Less control, yes
But it is really "no" control as is constantly spouted by leave politicians and the right wing press?
The immigration argument for leaving was that we had no control even though we did, and without that immigration many of our industrial sectors would cease to function.
People have consistently been told that we can somehow curb migration to tens of thousands, even to net zero without it having a damaging effect on the economy which is simply not true
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
The other day I saw a convo on LBC where a law grad made the point that the EU has pretty strict migration rules, which the government has chosen not to abide by.

If the government has failed to control immigration despite having the power, then how is leaving the EU going to help in any way?

Since, migration was the main catalyst for brexit, what was the whole point of having brexit when we already control our borders? (Serious question, please don't bother responding if you have nothing beneficial to add)
Did we have any immigration from the rest of the EU that we couldn't stop due to being part of the EU? Yes our governments could have reduced other immigration, but being in the EU has certainly been a source of a huge number of immigrants that we as a country had no power to stop due to EU rules.
0
reply
r3035
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
The other day I saw a convo on LBC where a law grad made the point that the EU has pretty strict migration rules, which the government has chosen not to abide by.

If the government has failed to control immigration despite having the power, then how is leaving the EU going to help in any way?

Since, migration was the main catalyst for brexit, what was the whole point of having brexit when we already control our borders? (Serious question, please don't bother responding if you have nothing beneficial to add)
No

Third world immigration and Islamic immigration is the problem

French, German, Spanish and Italian immigrants are not a problem
2
reply
Mike1888
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by icequeenTM)
Hmm idk I'm sure the main reason for Brexit was more to do with the rise in nationalism. People just thought being in the EU meant we had less control of our nation.

That is exactly what it meant and the founder of the EU was a racist who planned to ethnically cleanse Europeans, research the Kalergi plan.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Stunted Elf)
British workers are generally lazy, incompetent, and unreliable whereas the Polish are mostly hardworking and conscientious.
British people are not lazy, incompetent or unreliable. They absolutely will do the sort of jobs some people wrongly accuse them of not wanting to do, and do a good job. But only if they're paid a decent wage for it.

This whole argument is nothing more than propaganda from some bosses who want to be able to get away with paying their workers as little as possible. Which they've been able to do when they can just bring in Eastern European workers who have lower standards and will work for low pay that many British workers just wouldn't accept.
1
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Rinsed)
This is a ******** argument. Obviously it is not true that British people in the round are lazy or incompetent or our economy would be going nowhere fast.

Because Britain is a richer country than Poland, wage demands are higher. So you can attract a better quality of Polish worker for a given wage, because their expectations are lower. The British people who are competing for those low wages are those who, well, couldn't find a better wage somewhere else.

In a well functioning economy, when employers can't attract a good quality of worker for a given wage, wage rates will rise to compensate. What has been happening in the last decade or so is that employers like the above have instead been importing workers from poorer countries who demand lower wages. And then employers slander British workers by complaining that, when they can't attract decent British staff with rock bottom wages, the British are the problem, whereas in reality they just have higher standards.

So, when we leave, normal service ought to be resumed and wages will rise to attract decent British workers. And employers will cry blue murder that their wage bills are rising, like they do whenever wages rise consistently. Wah wah wah.
Employers can also reduce wages by moving to another country and employing fewer people or invest in automation.
0
reply
Stunted Elf
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rinsed)

In a well functioning economy, when employers can't attract a good quality of worker for a given wage, wage rates will rise to compensate.
Except those that really understand economics will understand that certain jobs only hold certain value withing a given economic system.

Let me give an example, we used to import a certain set of wiring loom from China, the cost was £15 each.

One day when we had ran out of stock, I ended up working through the night to make a few myself. They took me half an hour each to make and used up £10 worth of parts.
Now I figured that if I was to pay someone £8/hr and they made two in an hour, that means that we could make them ourselves for £14 each, a win both for the Company, for the UK economy, and for an unskilled worker needing a job.

We set on two people to do the job, one was a young British male, an out of work former IT technician with a degree in sociology or something equally useless if I recall and the other was a young woman from Poland.

The Young woman worked diligently for many weeks, slowly getting better and quicker at her job, she never complained, kept to her allotted breaks and always a pleasure to work with.

The young guy, constantly moaned, always went over his break time, he quite clearly thought that he was being underpaid, frequently mentioned the fact that he was a graduate etc...(He didn't seem to understand that you get paid based on the value of your work, not the value of your qualifications).

After a few weeks Monika was making those wiring harness's at the rate of almost three per hour, and Ben was down to less than two an hour...

One day after I had already told Ben off for an unauthorised fag break I caught him texting at his desk, so I sacked him. Monika worked over that day and the next few days and basically did the work of both of them. Being impressed with her work, I gave her a pay raise because I know that she is worth it.

Monika went on to become a line supervisor and now earns much more than minimum wage.

I still see Ben around from time to time, I think he is still unemployed.

The point that I am making is that Ben thought that he was being exploited and underpaid, because in his eyes his qualifications and experience made him more valuable. But it was economically impossible for me to pay Ben any more than £8/h because that is all that the JOB IS WORTH. Had I had to pay any more, then I could get them cheaper from China.

For what it is worth we now have a couple of school kids that do the work part-time for £5 per hour and they do a great job, I have already offered one of them a job for when he finishes his GCSE's if he wants it.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Maker)
Employers can also reduce wages by moving to another country and employing fewer people or invest in automation.
(Original post by Stunted Elf)
Except those that really understand economics will understand that certain jobs only hold certain value withing a given economic system.

Let me give an example, we used to import a certain set of wiring loom from China, the cost was £15 each.

One day when we had ran out of stock, I ended up working through the night to make a few myself. They took me half an hour each to make and used up £10 worth of parts.
Now I figured that if I was to pay someone £8/hr and they made two in an hour, that means that we could make them ourselves for £14 each, a win both for the Company, for the UK economy, and for an unskilled worker needing a job.

We set on two people to do the job, one was a young British male, an out of work former IT technician with a degree in sociology or something equally useless if I recall and the other was a young woman from Poland.

The Young woman worked diligently for many weeks, slowly getting better and quicker at her job, she never complained, kept to her allotted breaks and always a pleasure to work with.

The young guy, constantly moaned, always went over his break time, he quite clearly thought that he was being underpaid, frequently mentioned the fact that he was a graduate etc...(He didn't seem to understand that you get paid based on the value of your work, not the value of your qualifications).

After a few weeks Monika was making those wiring harness's at the rate of almost three per hour, and Ben was down to less than two an hour...

One day after I had already told Ben off for an unauthorised fag break I caught him texting at his desk, so I sacked him. Monika worked over that day and the next few days and basically did the work of both of them. Being impressed with her work, I gave her a pay raise because I know that she is worth it.

Monika went on to become a line supervisor and now earns much more than minimum wage.

I still see Ben around from time to time, I think he is still unemployed.

The point that I am making is that Ben thought that he was being exploited and underpaid, because in his eyes his qualifications and experience made him more valuable. But it was economically impossible for me to pay Ben any more than £8/h because that is all that the JOB IS WORTH. Had I had to pay any more, then I could get them cheaper from China.

For what it is worth we now have a couple of school kids that do the work part-time for £5 per hour and they do a great job, I have already offered one of them a job for when he finishes his GCSE's if he wants it.
Wages, like the market price of any good, are mainly influenced by the interaction of supply and demand. At present we have a rising demand for labour, but wages remain stubbornly low because there is a correspondingly large increase in the supply due to immigration.

I do get what you're saying. If your wage bills rose you may find it uneconomical to create your stuff. As Maker says, those sort of jobs might end up being exported if workers can't be imported. But that's life, unfortunately. I'm not entirely sure a low-wage economy is a price worth paying to keep low-productivity jobs in this country.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
EU=free movement. It's quite simply really. Brexit should force at least this country to take accountability now with its national security.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (139)
42.77%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (38)
11.69%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (27)
8.31%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (68)
20.92%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (34)
10.46%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (19)
5.85%

Watched Threads

View All