It’s all very fine, this wonderful advice being given on how to create a reasonable immigration system. It’s just that it doesn’t actually address any of the actual issues.
Economic migration from non-EU countries is a tiny part of the flow. Economic migration from other EU countries is the vast majority of it. The system addresses the former but cannot, by law (which we cannot repeal without leaving the EU), be applied to the latter.
So why bother?
In
Are you in favour of restricting intra-EU immigration?
Tim adds: Nope. In favour of relaxing the rules on extra-EU immigration too. Just mindful of Friedman’s point that you cannot have entirely unrestricted immigration with a welfare state (or at least not one that covers said immigrants).
That’s the cunning plan.
First come up with a load of sensible policies, like a points-based immigration system, a Citizen’s Income scheme that only kicks in after ten years’ legal residence, scrapping VAT on services (otherwise it’s effectively an extra 15% income tax), deporting foreign criminals etc. etc. and then point out that we can’t do any of this until we leave.
Which is what UKIP are sort of doing.
Why do we have to stay within the EU Timmy? Would the sky fall down if we left?
Tim adds: Celarly not. Thus one of the common themes of this blog “can we leave yet?”
Who said Housing crisis?
Who said Housing crisis?
I don’t know, but Stelzer didn’t. He addressed it very very briefly in the introduction, then never mentioned it again. One of two major omissions in his article.
Leave a Reply to Roger ThornhillCancel reply