Options
Could a tier system for free movement in the EU be a vote winning policy for Labour?
deptfordbaker
Posts: 22,368 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/31/labour-tough-line-mass-migration
Assuming for arguments sake that we stay in the EU, isn't the real issue that the free movement rules are simply out of date and designed for another era?
In the UK for non EU migration we have a Tier or category system, which was brought in by the last Labour government. That means different rules would be applied to an international business person, hoping to set up a company in the UK, that for an unskilled manual worker just looking for a job.
For example free movement could be divided in to:
Tier 1: International business people, scientists, sports people etc.
Tier 2: Professionals, e.g. Lawyers, accountants.
Tier 3: Graduates
Tier 4: Skilled workers
Tier 5: Manual Workers
Tier 6: Unskilled.
So instead of say using David Cameron's idea of not allowing any movement from a country that had not achieved the average GDP, perhaps Labour could adopt a policy where each country would be equal, but the destination country could have more flexibility.
The advantage to Labour would be that they could block, cap, or restrict the tiers or category of workers that specifically affect their working class vote, thereby neutralising the UKIP effect, while at the same time not alienating their more metropolitan voters. It would be much harder for Blair to argue that there should be no limits on unskilled workers, if we were also getting skilled health workers and entrepreneurial business people.
Personally I'm not sure the other countries would agree to such a system and there are issues with tit for tat retaliations between EU states, so their may have be some rules, but at least everyone is being treated equally and its up to people in EU states to improve their employability status. This might be the solution to Ed's problems with his Eurosceptic backbenchers.
Guardian wrote:
Labour must take tougher line on 'mass migration' from Europe, Miliband told
Party is losing working class, say senior MPs, as shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander sets out EU reform plan
Ed Miliband is facing a backbench revolt over immigration policy as senior Labour MPs publicly warn of catastrophic consequences for the party unless he seeks constraints on the free movement of EU workers.
The unrestricted entry of EU citizens from eastern Europe since 2004 is hurting the "very communities that the Labour party was founded to represent", the MPs claim in an open letter published in the Observer.
Miliband is urged by the rebels, including two former ministers, to commit a Labour government to seeking to constrain the free movement of labour from European countries with much lower incomes than the UK, such as Romania and Bulgaria. Two million national insurance numbers have been issued to nationals from eastern European accession countries since 2004.
In an attempt to force Miliband's hand, the MPs claim that the "political consequences of these trends could prove catastrophic for our party unless voters can see we are intent on taking serious action". The MPs' public show of frustration follows a speech by Miliband in Thurrock, Essex, last week in which he reached out to Ukip voters by claiming to understand their concerns while signalling that he would not be offering false promises of radical changes to migration policy in the EU.
The seven rebel MPs, who include Frank Field, Kate Hoey and John Mann, expect to attract further support within the parliamentary party over the coming weeks. They claim that the party's position as it stands is not radical enough.
John Prescott also sided with those wanting significant change to Britain's relationship with the EU. Calling for "radical reform", the former deputy prime minister wrote in his Sunday Mirror column: "One of the key reforms should be a review and reform of the 'freedom of movement' to 'fair movement'," stating that any labour market needs "rules not complete freedom".
Assuming for arguments sake that we stay in the EU, isn't the real issue that the free movement rules are simply out of date and designed for another era?
In the UK for non EU migration we have a Tier or category system, which was brought in by the last Labour government. That means different rules would be applied to an international business person, hoping to set up a company in the UK, that for an unskilled manual worker just looking for a job.
For example free movement could be divided in to:
Tier 1: International business people, scientists, sports people etc.
Tier 2: Professionals, e.g. Lawyers, accountants.
Tier 3: Graduates
Tier 4: Skilled workers
Tier 5: Manual Workers
Tier 6: Unskilled.
So instead of say using David Cameron's idea of not allowing any movement from a country that had not achieved the average GDP, perhaps Labour could adopt a policy where each country would be equal, but the destination country could have more flexibility.
The advantage to Labour would be that they could block, cap, or restrict the tiers or category of workers that specifically affect their working class vote, thereby neutralising the UKIP effect, while at the same time not alienating their more metropolitan voters. It would be much harder for Blair to argue that there should be no limits on unskilled workers, if we were also getting skilled health workers and entrepreneurial business people.
Personally I'm not sure the other countries would agree to such a system and there are issues with tit for tat retaliations between EU states, so their may have be some rules, but at least everyone is being treated equally and its up to people in EU states to improve their employability status. This might be the solution to Ed's problems with his Eurosceptic backbenchers.
0
Comments
Freedom of movement across countries with completely different economies is flawed and how anyone thought it was a good idea is beyond me.
It's all very well Labour wanting a tougher policy, but they agreed to it in the first place!
Hypocrites!
I think the people who came up with that idea looked at America and wanted the same in the EU.
People from poor American states often move to richer states.
However America has a much lower population density than the EU.
Also poorer American states get a lot of Money from the federal government to help improve those states.
If that is the case there - somewhere I regard as a part of the world people would have to pay me very large amounts to visit - then clearly our current policy isn't so much wrong as totally crackers, especially without tiering.
The ongoing open door to 485 million would be one thing but the fact that EU has more than half-open doors to much of the rest of the globe bumps up the actual potential figure to 1000 million people and probably a lot more.
I see nothing wrong with the current tiering system other than a) it doesn't get applied to EU citizens & b) when it doesn't get enforced correctly with non EU citizens
• Tier 1: Highly skilled individuals to contribute to growth and productivity
• Tier 2: Skilled workers with a job offer to fill gaps in UK labour force
• Tier 3: Limited numbers of low skilled workers needed to fill specific temporary labour shortages
• Tier 4: Students
• Tier 5: Youth mobility and temporary workers: people allowed to work in the UK for a limited period of time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives
Even if both parties were agreed on the principle I'd still prefer Cameron lead the fight because I don't trust Ed to be as steadfast in that pursuit. He was afterall, part of a government who quietly signed the treaty that has caused the problem in the first place.
They can say anything they like in the run up to an election but anyone with even half a brain cell knows that if they get in power they will throw the doors wide open again
hardly.........free movement has been part of the deal since the precursor to the common market was formed in the 1950s
It was part of the deal when we joined the Common market in the 1970s
It was an integral part of the Single Market which Mrs Thatcher signed up to in the 1980s
The conservatives signed Maastricht in 92, they're the ones agreed to much of the law we have now. Labour brought forward the date ascension countries could come to the UK.
I was always lead to believe (but have never researched) that the original idea was more about the freedom of movement of trade not people. I don't recall talk of an ever intrusive and unelected legislative body sat above our own either.
Why should they come to the UK - presumably there is plenty of room in Eastern Europe given the huge numbers who have left for Western Europe? Or alternatively Russia.
It's a good idea is it yours or Labour's?
Well it's my suggestion, but the Tier system for non EU was a Labour policy they implemented. Why should they not propose the EU adopt it if they win the election? It would standardise the UK's immigration system and please their ex voters. The liberal elite could still have their nanny's and plumbers if they were qualified. They could set quotas on builders and block non skilled altogether.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/02/labour-mp-wants-party-to-be-more-explicit-on-eu-migrants
Better than Labour having Tory style infighting over free movement vs controls and limits for all migrants from the EU.
Cameron's in trouble too, people are starting to ask why he wont say in detail what powers he actually intends to get back so he can hold his referendum.
I think the voters expect free movement controls as a minimum.
but it is not happening whilst we are in the EU.
Free movement of people is the one thing that appears non negotiable. certainly according to the de facto president Merkel.
Having moved slightly on this issue over the last year I think it may be possible to have further restrictions on new entrant/low GDP countries. A free movement of people within Western Europe is a very different thing to a free movement within the whole of Europe. Personally I'm happy for as many Romanians or Bulgarians to come over here as they want but until we have a government that is willing to expand infrastructure at the same rate I think the lesser evil would be to limit numbers.
The question is, why was the door left so open to non EU citizens?
It could be their policy to propose it to the EU. Cameron's proposal to the EU is just a vague list of requirements, that may include blocking free movement to any state that has not reached a certain GDP.
What Labour needs is a policy they can live with that counters the threat of UKIP and wins back their voters. At the moment it is, they will make new members wait longer for free movement. That's unlikely to be a vote winner in the election.
A solution where all states are treated equally, there is still free movement of workers and because there are Tiers, states can control the numbers of specific types of workers to match their requirements, sounds like the only workable solution to me if we are to stay in the EU.
Staying and having no change is not going to go down well with the voters and leaving will not go down well with many in Labour.
In a way as the Euro zone becomes more integrated, we may simply find ourselves outside the EU anyway, in all but name. Perhaps the real question is will the British people vote to join the Euro rather than will they vote to leave.
Wouldn't be free movement in the slightest I think.
The problem's free movement + welfare.
I think tiering free movement isn't the thing to do.