The news that there is significant pressure from within the Cabinet to choose restricting migration over access to the single market is a sign that, perhaps, this is not about our place in the world, it is about making sure that the world has no place in the United Kingdom.
Six years ago, when the Conservative policy of reducing net migration below 100,000 per year was announced, I was somewhat unimpressed, and I wasn't alone. The failure to take into account that, to some extent, it was linked to a figure you couldn't really control, i.e. those choosing to leave the country, and that migration from fellow EU member states wasn't negotiable were merely two of the more obvious flaws.
In fairness to them, and that's pretty much where fairness ends, by withdrawing us from the European Union, they'll have solved that problem (sort of), ironically just at the point where non-EU net migration has reached nearly 200,000 per year.
What is does mean is that they've written off easy access to the single market, as you can't really imagine the Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) accepting any deal that doesn't include freedom of movement. They've also indicated that Northern Ireland is disposable, as you can't envisage a soft border with the Republic of Ireland either (perhaps they can, presuming that the Irish will be willing to act as auxiliary members of Border Force). And the Irish are now beginning to wonder whether or not to join Schengen...
You can already sense some discomfort in the agricultural sector, which risks being cut off from a significant market whilst being unable to obtain the Eastern European workforce upon which parts of it are so dependent.
Of course, the likes of David Davis and Liam Fox are of the view that we can replace our European market with those of Brazil, the United States and the Commonwealth, and this is of course theoretically true. One might muse aloud whether or not you can make good deals when you've weakened your negotiating position so much, and doing deals in countries where you might not be able to rely so readily on the rule of law might not be awfully attractive, but these people have had years to work this stuff out. They are, we are assured, bright people.
And there doesn't seem to be any thought being put into the question, "why do all these people come to the United Kingdom in the first place?". The fact that there are clearly jobs for them to do, jobs which the locals either can't, or won't fill, appears to be overlooked by these great minds, who have clearly not been in too many restaurants, bars or sandwich shops lately.
They're not displacing the locals either, as unemployment is low in relative and historic terms, and the introduction of a national minimum wage (and now the national living wage) means that wages are not obviously being driven downwards either in those sectors most reliant on migrant labour.
Perhaps they could check their local hospital, or GP surgery, where migrants are filling those roles that we simply don't seem to be able to fill ourselves.
Let us be frank, the target was stupid in 2010, it was stupid throughout the Coalition years (and trust me, even though the Liberal Democrats thought it was unworkable, they hardly had to do anything to undermine it) and it is stupid now. But if the Conservatives think that achieving it is more important than the state of the economy, then stupid doesn't come close to covering it.
Ironically though, if they do drive the economy off of the proverbial cliff, they will heighten the prospect of achieving their goal for, if the economy is weak, there won't be the jobs and opportunities to attract migrants anyway...
Six years ago, when the Conservative policy of reducing net migration below 100,000 per year was announced, I was somewhat unimpressed, and I wasn't alone. The failure to take into account that, to some extent, it was linked to a figure you couldn't really control, i.e. those choosing to leave the country, and that migration from fellow EU member states wasn't negotiable were merely two of the more obvious flaws.
In fairness to them, and that's pretty much where fairness ends, by withdrawing us from the European Union, they'll have solved that problem (sort of), ironically just at the point where non-EU net migration has reached nearly 200,000 per year.
What is does mean is that they've written off easy access to the single market, as you can't really imagine the Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) accepting any deal that doesn't include freedom of movement. They've also indicated that Northern Ireland is disposable, as you can't envisage a soft border with the Republic of Ireland either (perhaps they can, presuming that the Irish will be willing to act as auxiliary members of Border Force). And the Irish are now beginning to wonder whether or not to join Schengen...
You can already sense some discomfort in the agricultural sector, which risks being cut off from a significant market whilst being unable to obtain the Eastern European workforce upon which parts of it are so dependent.
Of course, the likes of David Davis and Liam Fox are of the view that we can replace our European market with those of Brazil, the United States and the Commonwealth, and this is of course theoretically true. One might muse aloud whether or not you can make good deals when you've weakened your negotiating position so much, and doing deals in countries where you might not be able to rely so readily on the rule of law might not be awfully attractive, but these people have had years to work this stuff out. They are, we are assured, bright people.
And there doesn't seem to be any thought being put into the question, "why do all these people come to the United Kingdom in the first place?". The fact that there are clearly jobs for them to do, jobs which the locals either can't, or won't fill, appears to be overlooked by these great minds, who have clearly not been in too many restaurants, bars or sandwich shops lately.
They're not displacing the locals either, as unemployment is low in relative and historic terms, and the introduction of a national minimum wage (and now the national living wage) means that wages are not obviously being driven downwards either in those sectors most reliant on migrant labour.
Perhaps they could check their local hospital, or GP surgery, where migrants are filling those roles that we simply don't seem to be able to fill ourselves.
Let us be frank, the target was stupid in 2010, it was stupid throughout the Coalition years (and trust me, even though the Liberal Democrats thought it was unworkable, they hardly had to do anything to undermine it) and it is stupid now. But if the Conservatives think that achieving it is more important than the state of the economy, then stupid doesn't come close to covering it.
Ironically though, if they do drive the economy off of the proverbial cliff, they will heighten the prospect of achieving their goal for, if the economy is weak, there won't be the jobs and opportunities to attract migrants anyway...
Spot on! People voted against the EU because of lies, and didn't vote for anything anyone understands even now. There is no turning back,cans won't be in our lifetimes, if we do leave. We should have the option to vote for what is eventually negotiated - once that is known.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is mostly from countries we control immigration from anyway - not from the EU.