London can expect major influx of EU immigrants
EUROFACTS
19th Dec.2003
Vol 9 No 5/6
Britain’s open door policy will place a strain on the
capital’s jobs and housing markets.
No
one knows how many citizens from East and Central Europe will move to Britain
when the Accession Counties are admitted to the EU on 1st may 2004,
which is a cause for concern in itself. Citizens from Malta and Cyprus will
also be eligible
To
work here after their countries become members. The total population of the new
EU states is 73 million and includes 38 million Poles, 10 million Czechs, 10
million Hungarians, and 5 million Slovaks.
Even
if the Government is reluctant to acknowledge as much it is clear that the
number one destination will be Britain. For Britain is the only large member
state to waive its right under the accession treaty to delay extending full
working rights to citizens for up to seven years. As France, Germany, and Italy
have all done. Among smaller states, Denmark has been the most recent to
introduce measures aimed at preventing an influx of cheap labour. Unlike in Britain, there will be no
automatic access to benefits from social security schemes, and permission to
work and reside in Denmark will only be given to workers employed in the jobs
paid according to a tariff system that regulates minimum salaries for
particular skills.
Apart
from Britain’s open-door policy, there are additional reasons for
thinking that this country will attract far more citizens from the new EU
states than any other. These include the popularity of the English language,
Britain’s relatively high levels of recent economic growth and relatively low
levels of unemployment.
Among
those settling in Britain are likely to be a significant number of Romany
gypsies. There are estimated to be 3-5 million Romanies in Central and Eastern
Europe, although more than half of these are in Romania, which is expected to
join the EU later as a part of a second wave of entrants. The fact that many of them presently believe
themselves to be subject to racial prosecution is a reason for believing that a
high proportion of these in Hungary, Poland and the Czech republic are likely
to take full advantage of the right to move to the other EU countries,
especially Britain and Ireland (which also has an open-door policy).
So
far the Government has appeared relaxed to the point of indifference about the
likely consequences of EU enlargement. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary
has said that numbers coming in would not be significant, adding “ The
evidence is that emigrant workers return to their countries after joining the
EU, thanks to the increased stability and prosperity that membership brings.”
(See eurofacts for 20th December 2002) The FO has pointed out that the entry of Spain and
Portugal actually resulted in fewer immigrants from those countries than
expected.
There
are several reasons for thinking the Government is dangerously misguided:
·
The
disparities of wealth and income between Britain and Central Europe are far
greater than in the case of Spain and Portugal.
·
The
new member states will not receive the same level of support as earlier
entrants such as Ireland and Greece, the countries that have most recently
benefited from EU largesse; the incentive to move will consequently be greater;
the incentive to return less great.
·
Unemployment
rates in some new EU countries – particularly Poland and Slovakia – are far
higher than in the UK.
Experience suggests that London is likely to bear the
initial brunt of the social tensions and problems arising from a sudden wave of
immigrants. And those these are likely to impact most keenly on the poorest
areas of the Capital – which currently has the highest rate of unemployment of
any region in the country. Immigrants are likely to move to those boroughs where
the unemployment rate is highest because housing costs tend to be lowest in
such areas. These are likely to include Tower hamlets, which has an
unemployment rate of 12.3 per cent, hackney
(12.2 per cent). Newham 11.7 percent, and Southwark (10.3 per cent).
Moreover, the arrival of large numbers of unskilled workers is bound to depress
the wages of the low –paid, while the minimum wage will prevent both natives
and immigrants pricing themselves into work.
Those sceptical about the value of Britain’s membership
of the EU are likely to conclude that this is yet another example of the UK’s
impotence to protect important national interests from developments that arise
as a consequence of EU measures. The coming months will provide unambiguous
evidence as to whether they are right in supposing that the Government’s
behaviour in this matter is irresponsible to the point of recklessness.
DECEMBER-2003
* * *
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
http://www.ukip.org.uk
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME RULE for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY
THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
