The long awaited and much lauded 'Australian-style points system' is upon us. What is this likely to mean? /1 theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/f…
First, it isn't that new. The same conditions have long-since been applied to non-EU people, who face massive costs, unbelievable bureaucracy and the constant fear that the slightest mistake or restrictive reading of the constantly changing rules will invalidate them. /2
What is new is that this regime will now apply to EU citizens who have until now benefitted from free movement. There should not be a need to repeat this after 4 years, but this did not mean an unlimited right to settle in the UK. Restrictions were (and are) in place. /3
Free movement relies on the same set of rights that UK citizens benefitted from. Which means that in treating EU citizens the same as any other third state, UK citizens cannot expect any preferable treatment in return from EU states. The 'divergence' here is real. /4
This matters for a whole host of other reasons. It is not about giving Europeans preferential access, but also the UK's self-interest if it wants to be part of other dimensions of EU policy that rely on free movement, at least in part. #Erasmus is a case in point. /5
This change is also being presented as a straightforward one and fair to everyone, no matter where they come from. But this presentation is misleading. Why? First, because migration law is complex. Very complex. /6
Public perception is (perhaps) that entrants to the UK will come via this route only. Not so. There are other routes (all with inherent difficulties) and the emphasis on curbing so-called 'illegal immigration' will not be solved by this change. /7
Second, making the rules seem fair is one thing but applying them is something else. Behind the rules is a whole host of administrative procedures, embedded in a culture which has explicitly been influenced by the 'hostile environment'. /8
The change also relies on risky assumptions. First and foremost, that people will (literally) queue up to get in the UK. Highly skilled migrants have a choice of any number of destinations. If the UK economy is hit by Brexit, as all serious analysis predicts, why come here? /9
Second, the only 'desirable' migrants are highly-skilled ones. The reaction of businesses to this is clear: what if they can't recruit? Tough? I've never been convinced by the 'Business likes cheap labour argument' when demographics mean there often aren't 'locals' available. /10
One-size-fits-all is problematic when we know how much UK salaries differ, and takes no account of regional differences or where there are greater needs for recruitment. The Scottish govt knows this, as I was asked to explain on STV recently. /11
The UK government's rejection of Scotland's explicit recognition of a distinctive migration policy and visa regime for its (vast) rural areas is difficult to swallow. Despite the political context, this is a proposal based on evidence, not 'feelings'. /12 gov.scot/news/plan-for-…
But the most misplaced part of this policy, despite its presentation as ensuring 'fairness', is that it reinforces the idea that only high-skilled people have value and that Europeans have been taking advantage of the UK for years ('treating it as their home' etc). /13
If the aim is to appeal to voters hostile to immigration/believe the UK is a 'soft touch'/there are simply 'too many', it will fail. Why? Because that would rely on an eventual acceptance the system is 'working'. Is there any evidence (anywhere) that people ever think this? /14
No. All that happens is that we hear future promises about tightening the system to tackle the 'problem'. More rules, more complexity. And no recognition that migration, including free movement, have overall benefitted the UK. /15
So, instead of a migration policy that recognises the UK's needs and makes a positive (albeit difficult) case for migration, we have one which seeks to satisfy those who are never likely to believe that the system is working or capable of working. /16
If, as businesses are saying, there will be fewer people available to work in sectors which rely on EU citizens (hospitality, care as two prominent examples) then what is the solution? The obvious one is lifting restrictions to fill gaps, and hope people start to come back. /17
And that means we are back to square one again, but with the damage to the UK's post-Brexit reputation as "Global Britain" already done. /END
