The EU and immigration

Whilst working in the Stronger In campaign I have noticed that people are very concerned about immigration.  I wanted to find out whether their fear that EU nationals are taking British jobs and keeping UK wages low is justified.  I Consulted an article by Alan Travis in The Guardian, 21 May.

The Office of National Statistics reports that while the numbers of EU workers in Britain has risen by 700,000 since 2013, they are outnumbered by the extra one million Britons who have gone into employment in the same period. The number of British citizens working in the UK labour force is now 28 million. That compares with 3 million foreign nationals.

As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, there is not a fixed number of jobs to go round: “It’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job, but it doesn’t mean he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.”

EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

But, what about the claim that immigrants are depressing wages, particularly for the low-paid?

The most recent research from the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics shows that areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.

Several studies have shown a small negative effect of migration on the wages of low-skilled workers in certain sectors in certain parts of the country, particularly care workers, shop assistants, and restaurant and bar workers. The effect has been measured at less than 1% over a period of eight years.

The LSE’s Jonathan Wadsworth said: “The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. In fact, for the most part it has likely made us better off."

Would Brexit make any difference? 

John Van Reenen, co-author of the LSE study, says: “The immigration impact hinges on the post-Brexit trade deal, if we go for a deal like Norway or Switzerland, immigrant numbers won’t change much, as free movement of labour is part of the package. But if we go for a looser trading arrangment, we lose out much more from falls in trade and foreign investment,” he said.

I hope this will reassure those readers who are concerned about this matter.  It seems immigration is good for our country.  So is EU membership.  It is the best way for us to ensure peace and prosperity.  

British, European or Both?

To quote the New York Times, finding economists who say they believe that a Brexit will spur the British economy is like looking for a doctor who thinks forswearing vegetables is the key to a long life.

However, whilst I was  leafleting for Stronger In in Northbrook Street last Saturday, the passers-by favouring Brexit seemed more concerned about issues other than the economy.

 Again quoting the New York Times, it seems an argument over British identity is masquerading as an economic debate.  This is about much more than economic union to most people.  As the referendum approaches, the politics of identity are colliding with the economics of global trade.  People are concerned about our sovereignty. I struggled to understand what that word meant, no one talked about it before David Cameron decided to hold this referendum.   I consulted wikipedia.  I learnt that Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as 'the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies'. 

 Time and again and again people said they did not like being told what to do by Brussels.  I wonder if their concerns are really justified.  Brussels does not control us.  The European Parliament is directly elected by us just like the Westminster Parliament.  In many ways the European Parliament is more democratic than Westminster.  It has better methods of ensuring that controversial legislation is not automatically agreed.  As a former Conservative UK minister once said. “It is very hard to find an EU regulation of significance that has been forced on an unwilling British minister who voted against it”. Nothing is passed unless all member countries have explicitly agreed by treaty to do so and even then, each piece of legislation must be agreed by national governments. For tax and foreign affairs, the requirement for this agreement is complete unanimity, and in other areas, there is a very high ‘qualified majority’ threshold.  People accuse the EU of bureaucracy yet The European Commission has fewer employees than a medium-sized city council in the UK. So we are not controlled by Brussels; we are equal participants in a union.  

The European Commission doesn’t make laws. It only makes proposals, which are then debated, amended and passed (or rejected) by elected national governments and directly-elected MEPs. Only 13.2% of laws affecting the UK have been agreed at European level in the past 20 years. 

EU legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape. We need common rules for the common market to protect workers, consumers and the environment.  Instead of 28 divergent sets of national rules we have a single set of pan-European rules.  

I hope this will reassure some readers that it is OK to be part of the EU, which is not a massive control freak organisation wishing to suffocate us, but a trading union of fellow Europeans.  And what can be wrong with being European?  When it boils down to it we are all descended form the Romans, French and Vikings with perhaps a hint of Spanish Armada here and there.  

Not since the fall of the Berlin Wall has Europe confronted such a profound question about it's future.   I really hope people realise we really are safer, better off and stronger in the European Union, which will surely destabilise if we leave. 

Photo

Financial Experts are now imploring us to remain in the EU

A vote to leave the EU next month could precipitate a stock market crash and steep fall in house prices, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, who was in London on thiscweek to present the fund’s annual health check on the UK economy, delivered this dire warning. 

“We have looked at all the scenarios. We have done our homework and we haven’t found anything positive to say about a Brexit vote,” she said.

The Bank of England has also given a starkest warning that a UK vote to leave the EU could hit the economy.  Mark Carney, the Bank's governor, warned that the risks of leaving "could possibly include a technical recession".  The latest minutes from the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) said that a leave vote may cause both growth and sterling to fall and unemployment to rise. 

Chancellor George Osborne said the UK now had a "clear and unequivocal warning" about the risks of a Leave vote, 

These warnings are very clear and support earlier expert forecasts.  

Our businesses and inward investors are emphatic: Britain must stay in.  85% of British manufacturers want us to remain in EU.  The Federation of Small Businesses  (FSB)  argued in 2014 that the EU is good for business: 20% of members of the FSB trade overseas. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) is a strong advocate for EU membership. The head of the UK government’s export credit guarantee agency reports that EU membership is “critical” for exporting around the world. A group of top free-market economists pointed out in 2014 that UK withdrawal from the EU would be a “grave threat” and would cause foreign investment to dry up. The Institute of Directors, Financial sector of the City of London and British Chamber of Commerce all support remaining in the EU. 

More about markets 

The EU is the world’s biggest single market; it is the UK’s biggest trading partner, accounting for over half of our world exports. We export more to Holland alone than to the entirety of the Commonwealth.  EU countries provide about two thirds of incoming goods and services.  An independent poll of the top 500 British Businesses in 2015 found that 99% of boardroom bosses want to remain in the EU.  Our government estimates that EU membership is worth £3000 a year to every British family. And the budget for the whole EU is just 1% of GDP, compared to about 49% spent by national governments. That’s just 2% of our public spending each year.  Each country’s contribution to the EU budget is proportional to its wealth: wealthier countries pay more. Over the 7-year cycle 2007-2013 our net annual contribution was about £63 per person (£3.8 billion). The UK’s contribution is much lower than other similar sized economies such as Germany and France, partly because we get a special rebate.  The financial benefits of access to the single market are estimated to be £30-£90 bn/year: a return on investment of 800% - 2370%.  

The EU and Womens' Rights

The Labour MP Harriet Harman claimed this week that  Brexit could derail the fight for women’s rights.

Harriet, who has been a leading campaigner on gender equality for four decades, said the EU had been the key to forcing through a series of reforms, including on equal pay, maternity rights and paternity leave.  She explained that the EU had demanded that female cleaners working for British councils had to be paid as well as male binmen, who had much better rates negotiated by their union. 

See

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/12/brexit-could-derail-fight-for-womens-rights-says-harriet-harman

Banana myths

It is time to get lighthearted now.  There are a lot of myths about the EU, which I will attempt to cover in future posts but I feel the need to keep it fun today.  The idea that Brussels has a ban on bendy bananas is one of the EU’s most persistent myths. 

Bananas have always been classified by quality and size for international trade. Because the standards, set by individual governments and the industry, were confusing, the European Commission was asked to draw up new rules.  Thus regulation 2257/94 states that bananas in general should be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature”. Those sold as “extra class” must be perfect, “class 1” can have “slight defects of shape” and “class 2” can have full-scale “defects of shape”.

So now you know. 

For more info see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall

United in Europe, Safer together

With fewer than fifty days until we vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the anti-European camp still can’t count one major ally or international independent body as a backer of Brexit.

Their endorsements to date come from the leader of the National Front in France, Trump in America and Putin in Russia and stand in stark contrast to the Remain camp supporters who have come out in droves.  

From the Prime Ministers of India, Australia, New Zealand and Japan and President Obama to the IMF, World Bank and five former NATO chiefs, our allies have made it clear that we thrive when we play a leading role in Europe.  President Obama said 

'From the ashes of war, those who came before us had the foresight to create the international institutions and initiatives to sustain a prosperous peace: the United Nations and Nato; Bretton Woods, the Marshall Plan, and the European Union. Their efforts provided a foundation for democracy, open markets, and the rule of law, while underwriting more than seven decades of relative peace and prosperity in Europe.'

On the ninth of May the Prime Minister drew on a pageant of historical episodes, from the Roman empire to the fall of the Berlin Wall to argue that Britain’s destiny is inextricably bound up with Europe’s, and voting to remain in the EU on the twenty third of June is the patriotic choice.

In response, Polly Toynbee writing in the Guradian on the tenth of May said 

'At last here was a sense of the gigantic, existential nature of this decision. Who are we, what do we want to be, where do we belong? Look up beyond this year’s wallet to the far future.'

I agree with Polly; this is about more than economics, more than immigration; it is about peace and unity instead of division.  Because with division comes mistrust.  None of the EU members wants us to leave, how will they feel if we do?  What will they think?  

It is only seventy three years since my father's plane was shot down by a fellow European.  Fortunately he bailed out successfully and I am here to tell the tale.  After two years as a prisoner of war he returned, according to accounts, a changed man.  

Even in the sixties the scars of war remained.  I remember, as a child, being driven through Manchester to visit relative in the north of the city.  All around me I saw the persistent bomb damaged sites and felt really sad that this could have happenend.  I do not want the tragedy of my father's generation to be in vain.  

Plesse vote to remain in the EU on June 23rd.  

.  

 

 

Brexit: Medical care could step back in time

Writing in the British Medical Journal on 22 April, Kosmas Paraskevas, a vascular surgeon from Newcastle-upon-Tyne explained how Brexit could threaten doctors’ working time.  This could have a direct detrimental impact on patient care. 

 

The Working Time Directive provides EU workers with the right to work no more than 48 hours per week. This was introduced to protect the safety and health of workers, and in this example, the health of their patients too.  As  “Brexit” could force hundreds of overseas doctors to leave the UK, this could mean that the EU Directive 48 hour week maximum working time might no longer be sustainable for doctors. An increase of the remaining doctors’ working time could become necessary to counterbalance this shortage of doctors.

 

It is known that long  working hours are associated with an increase in often fatal medical errors, and indeed this comes as no surprise.  It is a long time since I was a hospital doctor but I have not forgotten the nightmare of being on continuous call from Friday morning to Monday evening and from one weekday morning to the following evening.  Patients were less questioning of the service in those days.  Nowadays they expect and deserve better than to be faced by an exhaused young doctor when at their most vulnerable.  We cannot step back in time to the bad old days.