Latest from UKIP Daily

Is a Win-Win Immigration Policy possible?

Is it possible to have a win-win immigration policy? I believe there is. One that firstly benefits the British people and secondly, people interested in immigration or working experience.

Firstly, let’s look at the side effects and problems with the current ‘open door’ policy. The population has roughly grown from 58 million in 2000 to 64 million now and mainly through immigration – without politicians asking the British people if they agreed. A large amount has been from Eastern Europe, including skilled and unskilled, where pay is lower, and there has been free movement of people, as a result of UK membership of the EU. This has led to increases in rents, house prices, pressure on public services, schools, hospitals, congestion, public spending/borrowing and more. Meanwhile unemployment is still high at over 6%, instead of the 2% to 3% before joining the EEC/EU. Real wages have actually fallen by around 2.2%, since 2010, while during the 80s, when there was a fall in population, real wages rose by over 2.9% a year, and benefits of productivity were shared amongst the workforce in higher pay. With so many new immigrants, pay rates have fallen and also some businesses offer work in unsafe conditions. Is this progress?

There are around 500 million people in the EU, who can freely move to the UK. Actually it is more than that, which people are not talking about, and this is the 100 million or more people in south and central America who can get EU passports if they have parents or grandparents from Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece.

These figures are huge for a small island with a lot of people. British people like their countryside and do not wish to live in a concrete jungle of high rises. The same people that are happy to see the UK population rise, also would like CO2 emissions to fall – how does this make sense?

This free flow has also affected the performance of Eastern European economies and society- adversely. They have lost millions of skilled people – who they paid for in education – motivated people and entrepreneurs who create businesses and jobs. And also less people means less spending so less tax revenues. Western Europe has been asset stripping these countries of their people. In fact some villages, there are little or no young people – so who looks after the elderly? The disabled?

In addition, there is growing space needed for tourists who generate jobs and spend money, also students for studying and also business people in business, or in job rotation with multi-nationals getting UK experience.

People in Britain have also seen their culture – including free speech – eroded to suit immigrants. Many immigrants do not agree with this and agree this is wrong. If they wanted to live by German or French laws, they would have moved to Germany or France.

However there are also benefits of free movement allowing British citizens to move, live freely in other EU countries. For example, young people may like to work for a season in a ski resort, or at a restaurant in the summer on the Mediterranean, or get a job in another country. In addition retired people may like to retire in warmer countries.

Lets’ look at Greece, as an example as well. They joined the EU and got:

  • Free movement of people
  • Free trade
  • Benefits from lower labour costs
  • Overseas Greeks sending back remittances
  • EU financial handouts
  • Benefits from tourism – their beaches are like their oil, a natural resource
  • With no visa easy travel, people from other countries retired there, like permanent tourists spending money.

And still it is a mess. Why? There are no consequences for irresponsible behaviour. People can vote for corrupt politicians or also incompetent ones, and if it doesn’t work out, they just leave their country. The British people are not responsible for who is elected in other countries, so do not deserve to pay for problems created in those countries.

Things that affect prosperity are many, including: culture, language, philosophy, work ethic, integrity of politicians or corruption, competence of politicians and more. This is in the hands of each country for them to develop and improve. Turkey, a non-EU country, is doing better than Greece.

The current UK politicians have been irresponsible and have failed to do what MPs have traditionally done – putting the interests of the British people first.

Here are some suggestions for a win-win immigration policy, remembering that policies work both ways:

First step

  • Any new Eastern Europeans wishing to come to the UK only get a 1 year working visa, after which they return to their country. They do not come with any children, nor claim any benefits for their children living in their home country. They also have private health insurance.
  • Any immigrants from the rest of the world can come if they satisfy a ‘points system’ criteria, that benefits the UK e.g. a skill the UK lacks, qualifications, age, and finances. Quotas from countries for 1 year work visas, with private health insurance, after which they return to their own country.
  • Retired people can come to the UK, if they have sufficient income to pay to live here
  • Businesses can have quotas of skilled people they wish to bring in for fixed periods of rotation around the world, for UK experience.
  • People from overseas wishing to buy property need to have lived in the UK for 3 to 5 years and been in the UK for 6 months or more, each year.

Other option

  • Other EU countries, a number of which have similar income to the UK, can have free movement of people, as long as: their unemployment rate is below 5%. If it is between 5% and 6% then they can have a 2 year working visas. Between 6% and 7% a 1 year working visas. Between 7% and 8% a 6 month visa. Above 8% a points system is needed.

UK citizens get benefits from moving, and also other Europeans get opportunities to come to the UK, work, save some money, return and maybe set up a business in their own country and prosper. This policy also begins to reward responsible behaviour and voting in other countries, so helping better politicians emerge and get elected. Businesses would also feel more comfortable trying ideas like these, than only a points system. These suggestions could help UKIP get more votes and MPs, as they are incremental and offer opportunities to change depending on results.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Hugo van Randwyck (41 Articles)
Hugo van Randwyck has been researching fast track options for self-government, via EFTA options, including opinion polls. He has business experience in change management and management training.

15 Comments on Is a Win-Win Immigration Policy possible?

  1. You seem to be proposing all this and stay in the EU. Wouldn’t this need treaty change? Would the other members agree to it? I thought this was the problem Cameron has? He comes out with big statements but then realises he needs the others to agree with his proposals so he waters it done to patina niceties.

    • Hugo van Randwyck // January 13, 2015 at 10:03 pm //

      No, I’m not suggesting we remain in the EU – the sooner the European Communities Act is repealed, the better. In other articles I have suggested switching to EFTA/EEA/Single Market, so only Single Market regulations can have effect. Which allows for ‘unilateral measures’, using articles 112 and 113, for controlling immigration. Liechtenstein is in the Single Market and controls immigration.

      • JulianTheSceptic // January 15, 2015 at 1:07 pm //

        Am told Lichtenstein has special dispensation to control immigration from EFTA (i.e. Switzerland), but how does it control immigration from the 28 EU countries, please?

        Surely such a matter is prescribed by the EU Citizenship Directive 2004/38, a text with EEA relevance?

        • Hugo van Randwyck // January 16, 2015 at 9:46 pm //

          Article 112 and 113, allow countries to take ‘unilateral measures’. There is also the Growth and Stability pact, for Euro countries, which imposes fines for failing to meet targets for budget deficit and national debt – yet no one has paid up so far. The UK can use these articles – and if the EU doesn’t like it, they can always ask the UK to switch to a free trade agreement.

      • I forget the details but from what I understand the Single Market imposes too many restrictions – perhaps even ever closer union and all the basics from the treaty of Rome. So even this would be unacceptable to UKIP even as an intermediary step…?

        • Hugo van Randwyck // January 16, 2015 at 9:51 pm //

          EFTA is unacceptable to UKIP. However the choice is, carry on as now and get maybe 5 MPs, or listen to the voters and have 2 referendums, starting with EFTA/EEA in 2015, and get maybe 100 MPs. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Without sufficient MPs, UKIP will have difficulty making changes. With EFTA, countries can run: Fisheries, Agriculture, Home Affairs, Justice and save over £3bn a year. Or going the In/Out route, a maybe/possible/off chance referendum in 2017.

          • OK. Now I know what angle you are taking this (I made an assumption as this is a UKIP site) I can see your logic and thinking. Actually it looks quite reasonable – have you formally suggested this to the UKIP leadership? I’ll reread your blog as I couldn’t make total sense of it but this was because, as I said, I had made some assumptions before I started reading it.

          • Hugo van Randwyck // January 19, 2015 at 9:28 pm //

            I have discussed this with UKIP leadership, Nigel and many others, and they can see the benefit, but feel it could confuse voters. I know people may wonder, why this is so, especially when there is a chance of gaining 2 to 4 million more votes at the GE. Nobody in the media wants to talk about EFTA either…. really strange. It’s a clear vote winner. Many grassroots UKIP supporters like the idea, as it will help get many more UKIP MPs elected, a lot more.

            A link to another article:


          • “It could confuse voters”??? – Aren’t they already confused with the shenanigans of the Westminster leaders? Its good that this has been proposed to the UKIP leadership but surely this option would be music to many voters as you have pointed out with the polling figures and the potential of the 70% option. I don’t know when you told Farage and co but if started some while back it could have seeped through to the majority of the voters by now, and shot Cameron’s stupid plan.

          • I’ve reread your blog and there is none of the analysis about getting more votes at the GE or that this would be a stop gap – no mention of EFTA/EEA – before voting for an In/Out referendum. It does come across as a long term arrangement or an alternative to full out Brexit.

  2. No more pussy-footing around and EU “compromises” which usually end up some distance up the UK’s rear end.
    No “re-negotiation”
    No “Win-Win”
    We leave the EU.
    No looking back.

    • Hugo van Randwyck // January 12, 2015 at 9:42 am //

      This ‘do all changes in one step’ approach has got UKIP votes, however, not enough to win by elections with UKIP candidates – MPs switching from other parties have done better, which is great.
      UKIP needs more women voters, as well as men. It could be that women voters could be more open to an incremental approach, which gets the UK to self-government in a step by step approach. Which would be better than the continuing loss of sovereignty and wealth, that is currently happening. UKIP needs lots of MPs to make difference.

      • The problem I see is that the EU leech will be sucking the blood from Europe and the UK all the time we’re incrementally doing this and that to get out. An incremental approach could leave us without a genuine option for escape.

  3. Got a better idea, leave the EU,close the borders get rid of all the spongers, keep the skilled people if they want to stay, no top up benefits and no benefits for any one who hasn’t lived here and payed into the system for 5 years. There job done

    • Hugo van Randwyck // January 10, 2015 at 7:06 pm //

      That’s pretty much what UKIP policy is, or the public perception, and so far it looks like there could be maybe 5 UKIP MPs and 95 second place UKIP candidates, at the next election. Is this enough? We know that the other parties make promises about referendums and renegotiation – and nothing comes of it. So if we say UKIP either gets 100% or nothing – then maybe we’ll get nothing, after all the work done by party activists. If we go for 70%, and achieve 70% in the first year in Parliament, then the population stabilises 🙂
      Current opinion polls show, 30% out the EU, 40% something looser, 30% in the EU – this is democracy, and we can’t ignore it.
      The 70% option may give UKIP 100 MPs. Which do you prefer 5 UKIP MPs or 100 UKIP MPs? This really is the choice.

Comments are closed.