Brexit better for non-EU migrants

[John Green]

Most of the attention has been on EU citizens, who may lose some of their present advantages in moving from one country to the other. However, for those wanting to come to the UK from outside the EU, Brexit may be a blessing.

One of the reasons why the UK government is continually looking for new ways to make it harder for people from outside the EU to enter the UK on visas is the political imperative to reduce net immigration. Everyone knows that the UK government cannot stop, while we are in the EU, the flow (or flood) of EU citizens to the UK.

So to try to meet their targets, the UK government imposes new rules to make it that more difficult for people from most of the rest of the world to come here.

This point was made, in fact, by Nigel Farage and it has strength. So for all those complaining about how costly and problematic the UK government has made it for non-EU immigrants to come here, Brexit may be a bit of welcome relief.

Once the UK regains control over its borders, and can limit EU immigration, it can be less inhibited about letting in more people from outside the EU because meeting its immigration target will be that much easier.

[heyitsme]

Yeah and its easier and cheaper to hire Non-EU people than EU nationals

[John Green]

You mean if they can get into the UK? I think there is an argument there. As they often cannot claim UK benefits for 5 years after they come here, they might be tempted to look for work in the UK paying lower than the rate EU immigrants (who get these benefits) would accept.

On the other hand, non-EU immigrants now have to pass several English language tests to get ILR. This means that they may be in a better position to look for the higher paying jobs than EU immigrants once they settle in. EU immigrants don't need to pass any language tests to get in, so if they cannot speak English, they are stuffed if they want any work in the UK.

[frustratedbrit]

Given that the current government aims to reduce net migration to the UK to under 100,000 per year, and given that net non-EU migration to the UK was 190,000 per year last year, I very much doubt that the government's stance towards non-EU migration would soften. Furthermore, the current government's immigration stance is no doubt relatively soft compared to the regime that would soon replace it in the aftermath of a Brexit.

[anniecc]

I think they would simply impose the existing system for non-EU migrants on the EU migrants, making it equally difficult for everybody. Also, they would make it a lot more difficult to appeal immigration decisions on human rights grounds.

[Wanderer]

I think a Swiss-like work permit scheme might work on Brexin. EU citz can travel and holiday etc in UK but would need a sort of more informal work permit to work.

[rooibos]

Yeah and its easier and cheaper to hire Non-EU people than EU nationals

Actually it's even cheaper to get job seekers working for free doing so called "work experiences".

Who needs poor and smelly foreign workers when you can have fresh British graduates (or dropouts, doesn't matter) for free?

British slave jobs for British slaves!

[John Green]

It may be right that they will impose the present tough immigration rules on EU nationals also. Who knows? But if this is the case, the EU might demand off the UK government that before it will conclude trade agreements with the UK in future, it should stop giving its own people this hassle to get into the UK. In this case, the immigration rules will be loosened for everyone. Who can say?

[mkhan2525]

This is a good article with an alternative point of view.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... hink-again

[hsn86]

Its not better for non-EU migrants. Because so many UK national will have to come back to UK and therefore the economy will be a big problem.

[kankerot]

Free movement of people should never have been part of the EU treaty.

This is not about xenophobia, foreigners taking jobs etc. A healthy and vibrant economy requires certain controls and regulations to stop an economy from overheating and getting into a boom bust cycle.

Anything uncontrolled will lead to market failure from a sudden cut in oil production, hot money where investors pull money into and out of economies, uncontrolled migration etc.

The problem we have is that our economy rewards rent seekers which requires a steady influx of people to maintain demand. Rather than an economy that rewards productivity. The more people coming in maintains demand for housing pyramid scheme - we need people at the bottom constantly entering so people can move up the pyramid.

[rooibos]

Free movement of people should never have been part of the EU treaty.

Free movement of people predates the EU. It was already expressed in the European community but it was implemented only in the Maastricht treaty.

It's only the British press that moan about the freedom of movement. In Germany there are probably even more intra EU migrants, but nobody moans about if because they like to have more Whites and Christmas around.

[Casa]

Please note that if this thread becomes inflammatory, it will be closed.

[Richard W]

Free movement of people should never have been part of the EU treaty.

Free movement of people predates the EU. It was already expressed in the European community but it was implemented only in the Maastricht treaty.

It's only the British press that moan about the freedom of movement. In Germany there are probably even more intra EU migrants, but nobody moans about if because they like to have more Whites and Christmas around.

Free movement for workers was in existence when the UK joined the EEC. The earliest versions of the Immigration Rules attempted to embody the free movement rules.

There's a lot of moaning in Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The Swiss people have, by a narrow margin, rejected freedom of movement, and Liechtenstein has quotas for settlement. EEA citizens have a right to take employment in Liechtenstein, but actually residing there even if employed is subject to a system of quotas.

[kankerot]

Again in respect of the rent seeking nature of the UK economy freedom of movement is not benefical.

[rooibos]

Again in respect of the rent seeking nature of the UK economy freedom of movement is not benefical.

What you probably mean is, because modern economy is no longer based on production, but on creation of money out of this air (quantitative easing, zero interest rates, etc) then people ( workers) are not needed.

If this is what you mean, I agree with you. But even in this case freedom of movement is irrelevant, at least the way we mean it today.

I'm pretty sure in 5-10 years time, most workers will from from home on their computer (or whatever it will be called in the future). Those who will still have to turn up to work will take a cheap flight from any European country on a daily basis (even now a return flight to Prague is cheaper than a train ticket from London to Manchester).

You will see middle class digital nomads moving to cheaper counties to maximise their profits. I know a British computer programmer who has moved to Romania and he pays a fraction of what he used to pay in Birmingham. He only has to turn up in Britain a couple of times a month.

In this perspective limiting or even abolishing freedom of movement is like shooting yourself in the foot.

[Millerco]

Most of the attention has been on EU citizens, who may lose some of their present advantages in moving from one country to the other. However, for those wanting to come to the UK from outside the EU, Brexit may be a blessing.

One of the reasons why the UK government is continually looking for new ways to make it harder for people from outside the EU to enter the UK on visas is the political imperative to reduce net immigration. Everyone knows that the UK government cannot stop, while we are in the EU, the flow (or flood) of EU citizens to the UK.

So to try to meet their targets, the UK government imposes new rules to make it that more difficult for people from most of the rest of the world to come here.

This point was made, in fact, by Nigel Farage and it has strength. So for all those complaining about how costly and problematic the UK government has made it for non-EU immigrants to come here, Brexit may be a bit of welcome relief.

Once the UK regains control over its borders, and can limit EU immigration, it can be less inhibited about letting in more people from outside the EU because meeting its immigration target will be that much easier.

This is absolute nonsense. The tightening of immigration control for non-EU migrants has largely been the result of public pressure and attitudes about migrants and that wont change if Britain leaves the EU. The idea that the process for non-EU migrants who actually are more likely to be on benefits and earn less than EU migrants will get easier and cheaper is just a fantasy not supported by the history of UK immigration law development. The Leave campaign has been selling this myth to try and win ethnic minority votes but there is no way UKIP or the Conservative would support fewer restrictions on most non-EU migrants after a Brexit, it wouldn't go well at all with their voters.
Even if Britain leaves it is very unlikely freedom of movement will be tightly restricted. For all of the arguments and debate and scaremongering (even on this forum) freedom of movement is a red line for EEA single market access and no political party regardless of what is said now in the referendum campaign will want to carry the responsibility for sending the country into a deep recession if Britain gets kicked out of the single market. Also the British public is overwhelmingly in favour of UK citizens rights to move to other EU countries, once the EU makes it clear free movement will never be a one way street no matter what the UK offers most people will accept that fact.
Its very possible in the event of Brexit, EU citizens might face some increased restrictions on issues such as bringing in non-EU spouses or access to benefit but an end to the core aspects of freedom of movement but free movement will not go away in the near future. It would be logistically and economically near impossible to do this any time in the near future - at best/worst it might be shut down after a decade or two and even that is unlikely. There simply arent enough government resources to seperate the 2 to 3 million EU citizens living here now from everyone else in the EU who arrives at Heathrow, Gatwick etc in the near future.

But as I said the connection between tighter restrictions on non EU migrants and EU free movement is a myth. The tightening of marriage visas, asylum laws and worker visas is part of a decades long trend in British law that started in the late 60s/70s before the country even joined the EEC.

[Millerco]

Free movement of people should never have been part of the EU treaty.

This is not about xenophobia, foreigners taking jobs etc. A healthy and vibrant economy requires certain controls and regulations to stop an economy from overheating and getting into a boom bust cycle.

Anything uncontrolled will lead to market failure from a sudden cut in oil production, hot money where investors pull money into and out of economies, uncontrolled migration etc.

The problem we have is that our economy rewards rent seekers which requires a steady influx of people to maintain demand. Rather than an economy that rewards productivity. The more people coming in maintains demand for housing pyramid scheme - we need people at the bottom constantly entering so people can move up the pyramid.

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED - its turned into a place to peddle anti-EU myths without any evidence to back them up.. basically the forum's version of the Mail or the Telegraph. Enoough.

Kankerot, free movement was one of the founding principles of the EEC/EU from day one and Britain signed up well aware of that fact. It wasnt part of some treaty imposed on the UK also internal migration has hardly led to disaster in the US or Canada, and within Britain itself the population has increasingly shifted towards the south of England away from the North, Midlands and areas outside England. People go where the labour markets need them and their migration then contributes to further economic growth, thats especially if you are talking about young, work oriented migrants who make up the majority of people moving to Britain from the EU.
Also I was going to address the rest of your comment but its hard to actually understand what exactly you are trying to say. Migration is just one aspect of population growth which can bring both benefits and raise issues that need to be addressed.Concerning the issues, Britain's housing issues are according to the experts the result mostly of under building, some of the tightest regulations on construction in the world and in London at least lots of speculation by investment buyers. Postwar European saw faster rates of population growth and urbanisation that the UK today and still managed to deal with housing crisis,
And the problem of rising house prices is hardly unique to the UK, go to Australia and America and you'll find plenty of talk about housing crisis and lack of affordable homes. Both of those countries do not have free movement with their neighbors (except for New Zealand with Oz). Lets not blame the EU for a British problem, I see enough of that in the tabloids.

[secret.simon]

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED

Just the way to have a calm, mature and adult discussion. I do not like your point of view, so shut up!!!.

That is what the above argument amounts to.

its turned into a place to peddle anti-EU myths without any evidence to back them up

If one wants only facts and no opinion, we would have to shut practically the whole forum down. By definition, the advice given by everybody else is only speculative. The closest that it approaches facts is in quoting specific documents.

Indeed, a part of the reason for this section of the forums existing is so that we can discuss what is likely to happen post referendum, whether Brexit or not. Given the paucity of concrete information and documents, we can only speculate on what could happen. That would, presumably, be the equivalent of peddling myths.

basically the forum's version of the Mail or the Telegraph. Enoough.

I am not a fan of the Daily Wail myself, but the fact that it exists and that many people agree with its viewpoint does give one pause for thought. It may concern us as migrants, but it also suggests that an equally valid alternate viewpoint can and does exist and we should address those points by discussing them rather than shutting down discussion. The latter approach does suggest an approach worthy of Russia and Turkey.

free movement was one of the founding principles of the EEC/EU from day one

Free movement for workers was in existence when the UK joined the EEC.

The emphasis in the quote above was put in by me.

The EEC was, when founded, primarily an economic community, although it could be argued that the views of its founders, Monnet and Schumann, as regards European integration were no secret. As founded, it was primarily a Customs area with freedom for the market to operate.

The Maastricht Treaty, in 1992, brought in the concept of citizenship of the Union and the idea that people can move around the EU as citizens, not necessarily as workers. Maastricht also included the Social Chapter, which brought in the social rules that we are now accustomed to.

[Millerco]

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED

Just the way to have a calm, mature and adult discussion. I do not like your point of view, so shut up!!!.

That is what the above argument amounts to.

its turned into a place to peddle anti-EU myths without any evidence to back them up

If one wants only facts and no opinion, we would have to shut practically the whole forum down. By definition, the advice given by everybody else is only speculative. The closest that it approaches facts is in quoting specific documents.

Indeed, a part of the reason for this section of the forums existing is so that we can discuss what is likely to happen post referendum, whether Brexit or not. Given the paucity of concrete information and documents, we can only speculate on what could happen. That would, presumably, be the equivalent of peddling myths.

basically the forum's version of the Mail or the Telegraph. Enoough.

I am not a fan of the Daily Wail myself, but the fact that it exists and that many people agree with its viewpoint does give one pause for thought. It may concern us as migrants, but it also suggests that an equally valid alternate viewpoint can and does exist and we should address those points by discussing them rather than shutting down discussion. The latter approach does suggest an approach worthy of Russia and Turkey.

free movement was one of the founding principles of the EEC/EU from day one

Free movement for workers was in existence when the UK joined the EEC.

The emphasis in the quote above was put in by me.

The EEC was, when founded, primarily an economic community, although it could be argued that the views of its founders, Monnet and Schumann, as regards European integration were no secret. As founded, it was primarily a Customs area with freedom for the market to operate.

The Maastricht Treaty, in 1992, brought in the concept of citizenship of the Union and the idea that people can move around the EU as citizens, not necessarily as workers. Maastricht also included the Social Chapter, which brought in the social rules that we are now accustomed to.

I stand by what I said, this thread should be closed. There are a lot of EU citizens and their family members who come on this board for information and a lot of them will be reading this particular subsection as they are the most likely to be impacted by the possibility of Brexit.
Having a thread like this that basically blames or suggest that one group of migrants is to blame for the difficulties and costs another group face is not informative or welcoming.
I hope you can grasp that and understand why I find this thread problematic.

I also stand by the other things I said this thread is not about facts on the EU, so far the EU has been blamed in this thread for the cost of visas for non EU migrants and the housing issues in the UK. The EU does not set non EEA visa fees the UK government does, it also doesnt determine the criteria for those visas - that is entirely down to the UK government.
And as someone who has lived in several wealthy english speaking countries I assure you the EU is not responsible for rising house prices in the UK or certainly not the prime factor. If you doubt it ask people in Toronto, San Fransisco, Chicago or Sydney what they think of their own housing markets.

Anyhows I just see this thread as very divisive potentially, the coming EU referendum will already cause some concern for many of the people coming here. Why they need to stumble into an essentially pro-Brexit thread here as well is beyond me - there are many places online for those. That was my main point and I stand by it 100%.

[Casa]

Anti-Brexit supporters are of course welcome to post their views, as you have... even though slightly grumpily.
Unless the thread becomes inflammatory it can continue.

[Millerco]

Anti-Brexit supporters are of course welcome to post their views, as you have... even though slightly grumpily.
Unless the thread becomes inflammatory it can continue.

I think you mean pro - Brexit if you were talking to me and sorry if I seem grumpy but the messages behind this thread is something i've come across more ajd more in the last few months. When the home office announced the 35 k income cap on working visas the comments online were full of non-Eu migrants blame EU migrants for this development. And I am not trying to be confrontational but there are views and there are facts about the EU, and there are definite facts about the EU and its impact on Britain's policy to non-EU migrants on which it has no control.

I am tired like a lot of people from EU countries / their family of being blamed for the increasing restrictions on non-EU migrants. The UK government (especially since 2011) and no one is to blame for higher fees, more restrictions and refusals of non EU migrants. This entire painful thread basically carries on promoting that distortion of the truth/myth. There is no directive from the EU asking Britain to in fewer migrant.
Remember the Germans have had millions of EU citizens from southern and eastern EU states move there in the last decade as well and they still took in almost a million asylum seekers on top of that in the last year, they didnt say oh no we've got all these Spaniards and Poles so no room for anyone else. The restrictions on non-EU migrants is about UK politics and getting votes.
If the British government wanted to turn back the clock and lower fees for non-EU citizens the home office could that tomorrow, if they want to make the criteria less strict they could. The EU plays no role what so ever.
And anybody who think leaving the EU means the current government will make it easier and cheaper for non-EU migrants to come in after Brexit is dreaming - the political climate in this country would not allow for it.

[Casa]

As you wrote "Why they need to stumble into an essentially pro-Brexit thread" I assumed you were suggesting that the discussion was one sided and lacking in views from the 'anti-Brexit'camp.

[Noetic]

If the British government wanted to turn back the clock and lower fees for non-EU citizens the home office could that tomorrow, if they want to make the criteria less strict they could. The EU plays no role what so ever.
And anybody who think leaving the EU means the current government will make it easier and cheaper for non-EU migrants to come in after Brexit is dreaming - the political climate in this country would not allow for it.

Amen to that and the rest of your post, sadly.

[sebseb]

Many non-eu migrants are not expecting lax of restrictions but simply want to see similar level of the rules applied to eu migrants for fairness reasons. The thought is also shared by many Kiwis and Aussies who are eligible to vote, as reported by the bbc.