Many will be interested in this report from Migration Watch, the body that is concerned about the level of mass-immigration into the UK. It had received little attention in the mainstream media... I wonder why! Please circulate this information to your contacts.
*******************
Since I last wrote
in February the political world has been turned upside down by the
snap election and its entirely unforeseen outcome.
There is no point
in disguising the fact that these developments are a serious set-back
for those of us who are concerned about the scale of immigration into
the UK. In the election campaign itself there was remarkably little
discussion of immigration. We analysed the manifestos of the main
parties in two short papers (
MW
410 and
MW
411). The Conservatives had a
disappointing record to defend and the Labour leadership did not want
to draw attention to their own reluctance to tackle the issue. We
also learnt (again) that governments cannot control what a campaign
will focus on.
The Prime
Minister’s determination to stick to her immigration target and its
timing demonstrated her resolve on this issue which, indeed, she had
shown throughout her time as Home Secretary. Unfortunately, the
election outcome has severely weakened her.
That said, the
issues remain the same. We must continue to press for further
reduction of non-EU migration where the government has had some
limited success but, if we cannot achieve control over EU migration,
we will face the prospect of mass immigration for an indefinite
period – an outcome that can only increase the stresses on our
society.
Those strains will
have been further increased by the succession of terrorist attacks in
Manchester and London – with widespread concern exacerbated by the
revelation that the security service is dealing with a list of 20,000
potential suspects.
Meanwhile, the
Brexit negotiations have finally got underway. We have issued a paper
(
MW
412) setting out the serious drawbacks in
the EU’s opening position on EU citizens in the UK. They say that
they want full rights to be granted to any EU citizen who has ever
lived here – amounting to perhaps six million, compared to the
three million actually here now.
They also want jurisdiction
to remain with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the children
of EU citizens now in the UK – a period that could last perhaps a
hundred years. This is ridiculous and we will continue to oppose it
vigorously.
There is, of course, concern about the
impact on British business of controls on EU migration once we leave.
We have therefore set out proposals for a visa system that should
meet the serious needs of employers while achieving a sharp
reduction, of perhaps 100,000 a year, in lower skilled EU migration
(
MW408).
I summarised them on 3
rd June in an
interview
on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme.
Essentially, we have
suggested that the current work permit system be extended to EU
workers while free movement should continue for students, tourists,
business visitors and the self-sufficient. For some occupations, such
as plumbers or bricklayers, there may be a need for a transitional
period to give employers the time needed to train British
replacements. We have also suggested that the Youth Mobility Scheme
could be extended to EU citizens. This is aimed at attracting people
between the ages of 18 and 30 from countries such as Australia, New
Zealand and South Korea to come to the UK for up to two years and it
might be helpful to the hospitality sector. Finally, we’ve looked
at likely arrangements for skilled Britons seeking to work in the EU
after Brexit (
MW
406).
Meanwhile, we continue to drive home
our essential message – namely that continued massive levels of
immigration impose huge costs on our society for only limited
economic gain. The latest population estimates have helped our cause.
They show an increase in the UK population of over half a million in
the year to mid 2016. This is the largest increase for 70 years and a
similar rate will continue unless and until we get a sharp reduction
in EU migration. Otherwise we will have to build the equivalent of
the city of Birmingham every two years – including a new home every
five minutes, night and day, to house new migrants.
It has also been necessary to
challenge the false arguments that are regularly put forward by the
well-funded mass migration lobby. For instance, one of our recent
papers rebuts the assertion that achieving the government’s target
of reducing net migration would cost the Exchequer up to £6bn every
year. As the paper (
MW
409) demonstrates, this claim is based on a
misunderstanding of a recent OBR report.
So the stakes are
high. The times are crucial. And your support is vital.
