Read more: Brexit would not damage UK security
In a joint statement this week, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Gisela Stuart put forward the case for an “Australian-style points-based immigration system.”
The four MPs are in favour of Britain voting to leave the EU on 23rd June, and suggested that post-Brexit our immigration system could be “much less bureaucratic…than the existing system."
Explaining the system that they are in favour of, the four wrote: “To gain the right to work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those who come have the ability to speak good English.”
David Cameron has been quick to rubbish the proposal. “Australia has more migration per head than we do here in the UK, so I think it’s the wrong approach,” the Prime Minister said on BBC Radio 5 Live. George Osborne has called it “fantasy politics.”
So who’s right? A panel of experts including Chukka Umunna and Peter Singer share their views.
The official "Leave" campaign might be fronted by the likes of Johnson, Gove and Grayling, but it’s clear the script was written long ago by Nigel Farage. From scaremongering about Turkey to blaming all the country’s problems on migrants, their tactics have become increasingly ugly and divisive. So it was no surprise to see Vote Leave calling for the UK to adopt a points-based immigration system, a proposal taken straight from the UKIP manifesto.
UKIP argue this would cut migration from the EU, but the irony it wouldn’t actually succeed in doing this. Australia has double the number of migrants per head that the UK does. Even anti-EU groups like Migration Watch and Civitas have warned that a points-based system would be a totally unsuitable model for the UK and could actually increase levels of migration from the EU.
Moreover, as the Spanish and Dutch Prime Minister have made clear, a points-based system for EU migrants in the UK would mean reciprocal measures in the rest of the EU. That would be disastrous for the millions of Brits wanting to live, work and study around Europe. Ultimately we chose to be part of the single market which includes the free movement of goods, capital and people. The government must do more to manage migration, including enforcing the national minimum wage and ensuring local services get the funding they need. But wrecking our economy by leaving the single market is not the right way to deal with legitimate concerns over immigration.
In Australia, which obviously isn’t in anything like the EU, I think the points system can work well. There’s two issues: one is clearly “what points do you allocate for what?” A points system may be fair or unfair depending upon how you allocate the points. And secondly, we do have a points system but we have a completely separate refugee intake. And I think it’s very important that a nation as affluent as Australia—and this would apply to Britain to some extent—should be generous in taking refugees, given the huge number of people who need a place to go.
Messers Farage, Johnson, Gove et al seem to think that if we free ourselves of the "shackles" of the EU then all the problems the UK faces will simply melt away.
Top of their hit list is migration from the EU. Even Migration Watch UK in their assessment of the Australian points-based system concluded that “it would be totally unsuitable for the UK.” When people like that are telling you that you are going too far then you are almost certainly going too far!
The Liberal Democrats are clear that EU immigration is a two-way street. There are 2m British citizens living on the continent. It is also beneficial for Britain. The "Leave" Campaign, of course, knows that we still have control. Since 2010 we have turned back over 6,000 EU nationals at our borders. We could and should do more and we can start with having a full and frank debate about immigration. Let it be one based on facts, not fear.
The UK’s current way of dealing with work related immigration is leading to distorted outcomes. By allowing unlimited immigration from the EU and applying a points-based system for non-EU migrants, there are now two and a half times as many EU immigrants arriving for work related purposes compared to those from outside the EU.
Applying a points-based system for work related immigration across the board would have a number of advantages. It would mean that those seeking work in the UK would be admitted on the basis of their skills and potential contribution to the UK economy. Furthermore, it would give domestic governments additional control of immigration flows, meaning that—whatever migration levels any current or future government deems desirable—policymakers would be more able to command public confidence in the UK’s immigration system.
In a joint statement this week, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Gisela Stuart put forward the case for an “Australian-style points-based immigration system.”
The four MPs are in favour of Britain voting to leave the EU on 23rd June, and suggested that post-Brexit our immigration system could be “much less bureaucratic…than the existing system."
Explaining the system that they are in favour of, the four wrote: “To gain the right to work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those who come have the ability to speak good English.”
David Cameron has been quick to rubbish the proposal. “Australia has more migration per head than we do here in the UK, so I think it’s the wrong approach,” the Prime Minister said on BBC Radio 5 Live. George Osborne has called it “fantasy politics.”
So who’s right? A panel of experts including Chukka Umunna and Peter Singer share their views.
It wouldn't even work
Chuka Umunna, Labour MP for StreathamThe official "Leave" campaign might be fronted by the likes of Johnson, Gove and Grayling, but it’s clear the script was written long ago by Nigel Farage. From scaremongering about Turkey to blaming all the country’s problems on migrants, their tactics have become increasingly ugly and divisive. So it was no surprise to see Vote Leave calling for the UK to adopt a points-based immigration system, a proposal taken straight from the UKIP manifesto.
UKIP argue this would cut migration from the EU, but the irony it wouldn’t actually succeed in doing this. Australia has double the number of migrants per head that the UK does. Even anti-EU groups like Migration Watch and Civitas have warned that a points-based system would be a totally unsuitable model for the UK and could actually increase levels of migration from the EU.
Moreover, as the Spanish and Dutch Prime Minister have made clear, a points-based system for EU migrants in the UK would mean reciprocal measures in the rest of the EU. That would be disastrous for the millions of Brits wanting to live, work and study around Europe. Ultimately we chose to be part of the single market which includes the free movement of goods, capital and people. The government must do more to manage migration, including enforcing the national minimum wage and ensuring local services get the funding they need. But wrecking our economy by leaving the single market is not the right way to deal with legitimate concerns over immigration.
It depends how you allocate the points
Peter Singer, philosopherIn Australia, which obviously isn’t in anything like the EU, I think the points system can work well. There’s two issues: one is clearly “what points do you allocate for what?” A points system may be fair or unfair depending upon how you allocate the points. And secondly, we do have a points system but we have a completely separate refugee intake. And I think it’s very important that a nation as affluent as Australia—and this would apply to Britain to some extent—should be generous in taking refugees, given the huge number of people who need a place to go.
We already have control
Alistair Carmichael is the Liberal Democrats' Shadow Spokesperson for Home AffairsMessers Farage, Johnson, Gove et al seem to think that if we free ourselves of the "shackles" of the EU then all the problems the UK faces will simply melt away.
Top of their hit list is migration from the EU. Even Migration Watch UK in their assessment of the Australian points-based system concluded that “it would be totally unsuitable for the UK.” When people like that are telling you that you are going too far then you are almost certainly going too far!
The Liberal Democrats are clear that EU immigration is a two-way street. There are 2m British citizens living on the continent. It is also beneficial for Britain. The "Leave" Campaign, of course, knows that we still have control. Since 2010 we have turned back over 6,000 EU nationals at our borders. We could and should do more and we can start with having a full and frank debate about immigration. Let it be one based on facts, not fear.
It's about confidence in the system
Daniel Mahoney is the Head of Economic Research at the Centre for Policy Studies think tankThe UK’s current way of dealing with work related immigration is leading to distorted outcomes. By allowing unlimited immigration from the EU and applying a points-based system for non-EU migrants, there are now two and a half times as many EU immigrants arriving for work related purposes compared to those from outside the EU.
Applying a points-based system for work related immigration across the board would have a number of advantages. It would mean that those seeking work in the UK would be admitted on the basis of their skills and potential contribution to the UK economy. Furthermore, it would give domestic governments additional control of immigration flows, meaning that—whatever migration levels any current or future government deems desirable—policymakers would be more able to command public confidence in the UK’s immigration system.
