In a twitter discussion we had last week with Michael O’Connor and Jonathan Portes on the number of EU migrants effected by these sorts of curbs, they seem to claim that around 10% of "Eastern Europeans" will be affected. The conclusion they seem to draw is that the proposal won't make that much of a difference.
To reach that figure they seem to simply take the percentage of Eastern European's claiming benefits in 2013 - it does not seem to be based off the data over four years or compared over time to see if this snapshot is representative. The data available is unfortunately pretty bad, but there's enough data to look over time, rather than a single year.
As a share of gross flows (shown in graph below) this will likely impact around 100,000 people over the four year period. This is based on flows from the four years before 2008 and 2014.
Is this a significant impact? Depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to end free movement, it's not. If you want to put a cap on free movement, it's not enough either. That's not what we want, however - we think free movement should stand. That's the point.
If, however, you want to target the one area that seems to be of the most concern to the UK with respect to EU migration - the low-wage sector - then 100,000 over four years matters. This number will be largely at the low-wage end of the labour market - since these are the workers that claim significant amounts of in work benefits. In other words, as we've said all along, this is a targeted policy, intended to take away the de facto taxpayer-backed subsidy to perform low-paid jobs which does not exist in most other EU countries.
It's impossible to put a firm number on how many people will decide not to come due to this measure. We've provided plenty of figures showing how this would take away the incentive in many cases to move from a minimum or an average wage in some parts of Europe to a minimum wage in UK, using in-work benefits as effective top-up, in turn making the move financially attractive in the first place. In other cases the de facto income gap between the sending state and the UK will be massively reduced.
Taken together, and as anyone who has moved across borders will know, changes in the cost of living in the country of destination will feature in any decision to make the move in the first place. Perhaps not in a detailed spreadsheet kind of way, but it does clearly feature.
The volume dimension is one part of the the package - and it shouldn't be over-stated. However, it certainly shouldn't be under-stated either. Unless, of course, you want to end free movement.
I'm not sure about the so called fairness argument.ReplyDelete
"making sure that there's a link between what people put in and what they take out"
Is the social safety net an insurance or?
If it is an insurance, how many get back what they paid in insurance? I.e. people have car-insurance but unless they cause an accident they might be paying for something they never use.
The proposal will raise the effective tax on some low paid, it will make them chose to live in (even) cheaper accomodation.
Maybe less money will be sent to the originating country or maybe less of wages will be spent in the UK economy.
In the end, the practical effect is a tax-increase on some of the most vulnerable in the UK.
Wasn't Portes part of Blair's clique which favoured greater immigration?ReplyDelete
Clever mis-direction here. The issue isn't decimal points. The issue is control of your own sovereign borders.ReplyDelete
Your response on your website states that the UK's plans would not necessitate any treaty changes, but the idea to restrict non-EU family members to accompany EU migrations DIRECTLY contravenes 2004/38/EC. Could you perhaps address this, or is your view of what constitutes "free movement" narrowing to accommodate UKIP too?ReplyDelete
Is there any danger that you might not use IMPACT when the better word is EFFECT?ReplyDelete
There will be no impact on Cameron's proposals.ReplyDelete
Because his rather stupid proposals will never be put into practice.
The problem is NOT the Benefits.
Benefits for Immigrants is a distraction to keep the British public's mind off the NUMBERS of EU Immigrants and the LOSS of the British to control their own borders.
The EU pretends to be some sort of a "Country" - passport, flags, national Court, anthem etc.
It is NOT a Country.
It is a Customs Union/Trade Association run by jumped up clerks.
Regardless of Germany's deep and historic desire to rule the nations of Europe - Britain will not play.
But Britain must stand aside this time and let Germany at last, fulfil her destiny.
When that leads to war, as it inevitably will - Britain must not go to the aid of the "rebels/victims" as before.
The EU was a French bed - now it is firmly a German bed and the better for it - if one forgets about Democracy and other inconveniences.
Go for it Germany - after the last failures - it is your time now.
Cameron's proposals, even if put into effect and then not declared contrary to EU law and repealed, will have no significant effect on the rate of immigration from the rest of the EU.ReplyDelete
This is not about figures this is about a combination of popular perception of immigration combined with alienating (parts of) the general public from traditional politics.ReplyDelete
Immigration is as well very volatile and difficult to predict. Depends heavily on viability of other immigration alternatives as well as the situation in traditional and new donor (of immigrants) countries. What is already in is often still part of the immigration problem not only the new inflow.
This should be the basis of managing this issue.
In any case, it seems that the Poles are having none of it.ReplyDelete
I recall when the Tory party claimed that EU enlargement would be good because the Poles and others in eastern Europe would be their natural allies.