#MigrationAdvisoryCommittee report and why it has dismayed many of us.

A few days ago the Migration  Advisory Committee published their final report entitled EEA Migration in the UK. So two fundamental questions to start with : 1) who/what is the Migration Advisory Committee and 2) what is the EEA?

Firstly the Migration Advisory Committee - 

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is an independent, non-statutory, non-time limited, non-departmental public body that advises the government on migration issues. MAC is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Home Office.

Secondly - EEA - The European Economic Area (EEA) is the area in which the Agreement on the EEA provides for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the European Single Market, including the freedom to choose residence in any country within this area. The EEA was established on 1 January 1994 upon entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The contracting parties are the European Union, its members states, and the member states of the European Free Trade Association. (the EEA includes all the countries in the EU plus Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and provisionally Croatia.

I have copied and pasted from the MAC Chairman's forward :

In July 2017, the Home Secretary commissioned the MAC to report on the current and likely future patterns of EEA migration and the impacts of that migration. The intention is to provide an evidence base for the design of a new migration system after the end of the implementation period in 2021.Today we are publishing our final report, focusing on our assessment of the impact of EEA migration and our recommendations for the UK’s post-Brexit work immigration system.  We discuss a wide range of impacts - on wages and unemployment, productivity, innovation, training, consumer prices, house prices, public finances, allocation of public resources, public services, crime and subjective well-being. We have tried to provide an assessment of impacts across all sectors and regions of the UK, and of the differing impacts of different types of migration and on the different parts of the resident population.

Back to me - so in a nutshell - it is assumed free movement to the UK will end as a consequence of Brexit. This report will be used by the UK government to shape the UK's future migration policy. ie Who will we let in and why.

Like many observers I am extremely irritated and frustrated by this report.


I would now like to introduce to you an organisation called Migration Watch. Migration Watch is a think tank focused on immigration and asylum research. It is independent and non political organisation (although some people claim it is right wing political). Migration Watches objectives as described in its articles of association are "to conduct research into migration issues and to educate the public in the relevant facts".

I have copied and pasted the following from the Migration watch web site :-

Message from Migration Watch Chairmen

Lord Green of Deddington
Chairman

Alp Mehmet
Vice Chairman

Our central concern is the current massive level of immigration which, if allowed to continue, would mean that the population of the UK would increase by 10 million in 25 years, 82% of it due to future migrants and their children. Migration is, of course, a natural part of an open economy and society but it must be sustainable and must have the assent of the British public - yet many in the media and political class have long dismissed widespread public concern and the strong view of a clear majority that the current level of net migration of around a quarter of a million a year must be significantly reduced.

As an independent and non-political research organisation, we are a leading voice in making the facts known as widely as possible and in making suggestions as to how immigration might be reduced.

Yesterday Migration Watch issued the following statement in response to the Migration Advisory Council EEA Migration report :-

This is a very technical report which seems blind to the impact of high levels of EU immigration on many communities in this country as a result of rapid population growth. With immigration adding one million to our population every three years this simply cannot go on. These proposals would permit continued high levels of immigration, including those with medium skills from all over the world. The overall outcome would be to weaken immigration control rather than strengthen it.

Here are a few points I would like to make about the Migrant Advisory Committee Report.

The MAC committee is made up almost entirely of economists. The chair of MAC is a professor from London School of Economics. They are academics. They have been used by the Bank of England, the IMF, the EU and World Bank to do analysis and write reports.

• Therefore the MAC report about recommendations for future migration levels is written entirely from an economic perspective - what they judge will be best for our economy - for business - for employment - for tax raising.
• Yesterday Nigel Farage said this "The referendum wasn't about whether GDP goes up by 1% or down by 1%, the referendum was about leaving political union and becoming an independent country! That is the issue that neither the Conservatives nor the Labour party wishes to address."
• As usual Nigel Farage is bang in tune with the majority of the electorate. Most people did not vote to leave primarily because of economic considerations - (although many believe membership of the EU is bureaucratic, wasteful and failing as a result - and that we can do better economically trading with the rest of the world).
• So if Brexit vote was not primarily about GDP and was about leaving a dubious political union and reestablishing ourselves as a democratic independent country again - what did the electorate expect to follow?
• All research and anecdotal feedback from canvassing revealed the vast majority of the public wanted and end to free movement of people as a primary motivator for the leave vote - and this analysis is widely accepted.
• Does this imply 17.4 million leave voters are in effect closet racists? (what many remoaners choose to infer.) Of course it doesn't.
  
• What does it imply then?
• It implies the 17.4 million people believe free movement of people and the uncontrolled inward migration that results is at a minimum a significant negative for our society and put more strongly irresponsible, sheer madness and totally unsustainable.
• Why do they feel that? Because they are grounded and have commonsense unlike the vast majority of academics, liberal elite politicians, swathes of the media and the London centric bubble. (as characterised by the make up of the Migration Advisory Committee).They see beyond the short term interest of many UK businesses (happy to be able to achieve cheap labour rates - regardless of the wider consequences.)
• So what is the issue with free movement of people. Simple. Population growth and its effect on our quality of life. 
• The majority of people in the UK want strict controls on inward migration and a massive reduction of numbers coming in overall.
• Scandalously this was not taken into account by MAC in its recommendations. MAC only focused on what might be best for our economy - GDP - as if that is all that counts.

Reasons why the majority of people in the UK want inward migration massively reduced. Amongst others -:

1. Money (GDP) is not everything. Quality of life is more important. Uncontrolled and continuing inward migration in vast numbers has negatively impacted on quality of life.
2. If money is the most important the majority dispute inward migration has made the average person richer - in fact they believe it has made them poorer.

How to justify - substantiate these feelings :-

1) Quality of life - how has it been undermined by inward migration? Put simply - we are overpopulated. (please note statistic gathering can only be historical and some of the statistics I have obtained are from differing years. However they only evidence increases ands upward trends)

• The UK population now stands at 65.6 million and has increased by 2.4 million in the five years since Census day in 2011.
• The population is growing at the fastest rate for almost a century and is projected to increase by 400,000 a year. Bristol currently has a population of 450,000.
• 82% of UK population growth between 2001 and 2016 was due to the arrival of migrants, their children and their subsequent children born in the UK. So immigration has added roughly one million to our population every three years and of course it is showing no sign of slowing - in fact the reverse.
• Now as a result of this mass immigration our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool – for as long as immigration is permitted on the present scale.
• England is already twice as crowded as Germany and 3.5 times as crowded as France.
• If net migration were to continue to run at current levels the UK population would rise by just under 10 million in the 25 years to 2041, of which 82% is directly or indirectly due to immigration.
• England, where 90% of migrants settle, is currently the second most densely populated country in the EU, after the Netherlands and excluding island states such as Malta.
• England is also more densely populated than India, the second most populous country in the world.
• Only by sharply reducing net migration can we slow population growth and ease pressure on housing and public services.

What is the impact of all these extra people on our quality of life? :

• The additional population growth makes congestion worse and adds to the pressures on public services. This comes at a time when public spending is being reduced.
• One in four children born in England and Wales is to a foreign born mother. The rise in the number of births has put pressure on NHS maternity services.
• While many migrants work in the NHS - it is well established they and their families are motivated by free health care. They are entitled to register with a GP and take full advantage of the free health services available. Consequently services are even more overstretched and underfunded. (the solution - bring in even more foreign workers!) Waiting times for treatment definitely diminishes quality of life.
• It has also led to a shortage of school places. 60% of local authorities will have a shortage of primary school places by 2018.
• The UK has a serious housing crisis. Mass immigration is the main reason for the additional demand. If it continues at current levels, we will need to build 135,000 new homes a year just to house new migrants and their families. This is 370 per day or one home every four minutes. (our laws require social housing is allocated by need and there is NO priority given to our own population who might have been on the housing list for years.) Greenbelt under pressure - the south of England gradually being concreted and tarmacked over.
• Population growth on this scale renders integration of newcomers virtually impossible. Segregated areas of similar ethnic groups are created, and some schools are dominated by migrant children
• The dominance of males is often reinforced, especially from countries where the status of women is low. 
• Aspects of our cultural identity are under pressure or have been lost. This creates resentment.
• In 2015 The Guardian reported Surge in Migrant Voters : Almost 4 million voters – about one in 10 of the entire electorate in England and Wales - are predicted to have been born overseas come May and, for the first time, it is predicted that more than 50% of voters of the eligible electorate will have been born abroad in two seats. A record number of people who were born outside the UK will be able to vote in this year’s general election and are likely to hold the balance of power in several key constituencies, according to the first comprehensive analysis of the migrant vote. Two seats – East Ham and Brent North – are predicted to be the first constituencies with a majority of the eligible electorate born abroad. In a further 25 seats they will constitute more than a third of the electorate and at least a quarter in another 50 seats.
• again The Guardian (2014) - Startling rise in the birthrate of British Muslims ? Almost a tenth of babies and toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim, declared the Times on its front page on Friday, indicating what it describes as a "startling shift" in the demographic trend in England and Wales. So where did the figures come from and are they as revealing as claimed? The numbers originate from a 2011 census release first published by the Office for National Statistics in May 2013 and in more detail in November as a specially commissioned ad hoc table. The figures do not calculate birthrate as such, but show that almost a tenth of babies and toddlers (under-fives) in England and Wales are Muslim. Of 3.5 million children up to the age of four in England and Wales recorded in the 2011 census, 317,952 (or 9.1%) were Muslim. The Times report also states "the percentage of Muslims among the under-fives is almost twice as high as in the general population". That is correct. According to the census figures, 4.8% of the 56.1 million resident population of England and Wales in 2011 were Muslim, and as stated above 9.1% of all under-fives in the population were Muslim. In addition, the story points out that fewer than one in 200 over-85s are Muslim – an indication they claim of the "extent to which birthrate is changing the UK's religious demographic". The census figures show that of a population of 1.3 million over-85s in 2011, only 5,513 were Muslim.

Of course there is a great deal of perversity from those who wilfully see no issue with the levels of inward migration (they have their own agenda) we have experienced in the last ten years. They argue none of the congestion, housing shortages, pressure on the NHS or schools is to do with inward migration but reflects poor Government planning and under investment by one of the richest countries in the world! These same people usually argue the failure to integrate and ghettoization of migrants is to do with white right wing racism. All this impacts on quality of life and many feel our culture is being diminished by overt political correctness emanating from the liberal elite and the BBC.

2) Money. Large scale migration makes us poorer not richer!

A majority do not accept the strident assertion that we are all richer because of migrants. However it obvious the following is true :-

•  Firstly - large scale inward migration has resulted in a larger UK GDP. There are more people working! However unless you lack fairness and objectivity those using this statistic to justify migration have to concede when you look at wealth per capita that is not the case because GDP has to be shared amongst more people. 
• Secondly - some individuals have been winners - often the already well off - those that have been able to take advantage of  low wage rates. (cheap to get your car cleaned, your grass cut, your house painted) The most obvious is business whose profits have been enhanced by paying lower wages to migrants and by utilising migrant skills without the cost incurred in offering apprenticeships and training to our own people.

Why does unfettered high level migration make us poorer overall? Some of the reasons in no particular order are :

• A ready supply of cheap migrant labour keeps wages across the piste down. Low wages allows greater state benefits to be claimed (which migrants are just as entitled to claim as \our own people.) It is the case migrants can claim child benefit even if their children are not in the UK!
• There are two assertions regularly made :- Firstly we need migrants we do the jobs we do not want to do ourselves. However to most of us it is obvious we have 4 million people unemployed and claiming benefits! The other point I would make is many migrants are only interested in doing menial work as a stepping stone. They move up the jobs ladder - so the logic is we have to bring in even more at the bottom. The cycle continues - more and more and more people. Secondly - we have an ageing population and need to increase the work force to support them. Immigration is no solution to an ageing population because, of course, immigrants themselves grow older. Any benefit is temporary unless we were to have continuing and ever increasing levels of immigration.
• Those that support high levels of migration argue they contribute - they pay tax - of course they do. But they are entitled to use the NHS, our schools, our housing stock - our public services and so are their families that they invariably bring. The ordinary person with commonsense will not accept and do not believe migrants overall put in more than they take out. The common view is migration is draining the UK. The National Health Service has become The International Health Service!
• Many businesses are claiming they cannot function without a ready and unfettered supply of migrant labour. Of course they want what's best for them and what is best for them is cheap compliant labour especially if it is subsidised by the tax payer in the form of benefits. In France for instance where employing people is not so attractive because of labour laws businesses have invested much more in technology. Production levels are significantly better than ours as a result. Businesses will always take the cheapest easiest most profitable option. If cheap migrant labour is not there they will find another solution.
• Similarly businesses claim they need to bring in more skilled labour. Fair enough. However most of us feel we should do a better job of training our own - from our own pool. Of course that will cost business a bit more in the short term. It is madness for instance that we are not training enough nurses.  

Many will see this blog as racist. I am not a racist. I am one of the majority and can see things as they are. As individuals I have no problem whatsoever with people coming here for a better life. However collectively and certainly in the vast numbers that we are being swamped with I have a major problem. The British public want numbers massively curtailed and are dismayed by the Migration Advisory Committee report which badly fails to address the catastrophic problem we are creating. The British public are prepared to take a financial hit if it results from dramatically reducing inward migration - although many like me believe migration costs us financially overall as I have said. In the same way they are not concerned about the siren calls from business for cheap labour or cheap skills as a necessary to secure our future. Business will just have to be more entrepreneurial and they will. The British public is concerned about overpopulation - and  see much bad for the future that will flow from it if it continues. Brexit and the ending of free movement of labour they believe gives the Government the opportunity to finally massively reduce numbers coming in. The MAC report is not in step with this view. Quality of life is moving in the wrong direction for the majority and they will not stand for it. Government needs to understand that clear message.

To stop the rapid rise in the UK’s population size, net migration would have to be reduced to well below 100,000 a year. It is currently at over 300,000.

• 
  

#ReligionintheUK and the National Secular Society - a personal view.

This is a personal view.

Let me make one or two fundamental things clear at the outset :-

In my view religious belief or not holding a religious belief is a personal issue. I believe everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe and to practice their own religion.

I also believe we are equal under the law of the land - or at least should be.

Where there is conflict between the law of the land and the practice of personal beliefs - the law must be paramount (prevail) - otherwise we are not equal under the law.

As far as I understand it this is the legal position in the UK but I question whether if it is in practice. I am increasingly concerned the principal of an equal society under the law of the land is being slowly but inexorably undermined - being trumped - by deferring to the pressure of religious groups and their sensitivities and beliefs. One most pressing and obvious example is the emergence of Sharia law in the UK.

The other day I came across an organisation (through their web site) that reflects my concerns. The organisation is The National Secular Society. It has a highly regarded intellectual history. I have downloaded some information about them from their web site as follows :

The National Secular Society https://www.secularism.org.uk/ champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.

We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens.

Our story began in 1866 when a large number of secularist groups from around the UK came together to strengthen their campaigns. Their leader was Charles Bradlaugh. Since those early days the National Secular Society has pioneered many important social reforms and society has changed a lot.

For centuries, religion-based laws forbade entry for non-believers into parliament. They banned abortion, divorce, contraception, homosexuality, blasphemy and even cremation. Those laws have now been dismantled; human rights and equality for minorities are broadly accepted and protected by law.

In the struggles to bring about these reforms, the NSS has always played a prominent role and sometimes a decisive one.

To mark our 150th anniversary in 2016 the National Secular Society commissioned a portrait bust of Charles Bradlaugh which is now on display in the Palace of Westminster as part of the Parliamentary Art Collection. We also produced an anniversary brochure giving a potted history of our first 150 years.

We campaign for the law and the administration of justice to be based on equality, respect for human rights, and on objective evidence. In a secular democracy everyone is equal before the law, regardless of religion, belief or non-belief.

We seek to ensure that Human Rights do not lose out to religious demands, and challenge inappropriate or discriminatory exemptions to equality law for religious groups.

The secular law of the United Kingdom should protect the rights of people in all communities, and it should not be undermined or supplanted by any parallel religious system. People have the right to seek spiritual and religious advice. But misinformation and malpractice can risk religious rulings being imposed on vulnerable groups.

I have mentioned the emergence of Sharia law in the UK. I have copied and pasted below extracts from The National Secular Society website :

What’s the problem?

There are thought to be upwards of 100 sharia councils and tribunals operating in the United Kingdom, offering arbitration and mediation services, and dispensing religious rulings on marriage, child custody and divorce. These are not courts of law but there are concerns that Muslim women (especially those not born in the UK and/or unable to speak English) perceive them as having real legal authority.

Sharia is a system which leaves children vulnerable and discriminates openly against women, undermining their legal and political equality. Sharia Councils have been shown to have acted in ways contrary to the law and leaving women vulnerable to domestic abuse. As such, we argue that the state needs to better tackle the numerous problems and dangers the use of sharia councils brings with it.

To seek a religious divorce a woman must gain permission from these almost entirely male councils, and there are reports of women being denied this request even in cases where she had faced abuse.

If a woman is 'divorced' suddenly, or against her wishes, she can be left homeless and without any money or assets, because the 'marriage' has no legal force, giving her no rights or legal protections.

Protecting women's rights is the priority, but that isn't the only concern. The existence of these parallel legal systems poses a threat to common citizenship and undermines the integrity of secular law.

There is no easy answer to challenging the hold of sharia councils over these communities. The problem is not only one of supply, but also of demand. If there is no demand for sharia councils, the influence of these bodies will collapse. We believe the demand for sharia is best tackled in the education system as a part of citizenship education and this will be aided by anything that breaks down barriers between communities and reduces segregation.

What are we doing?

• We are founder members of the One Law for All Campaign which launched in 2008 to call on the UK Government to recognise that sharia and religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and that citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable.
• We recently submitted evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Sharia Councils, arguing that the secular system must not be undermined. We have also been supportive of efforts in Parliament to tackle the inherent gender inequality and discrimination promoted by religious tribunals such as sharia councils.
• We are also advocating for an information campaign to reach out to women and inform them of their rights in law. All schools, both in the state and independent sector, should be under a duty to promote understanding of citizenship and legal rights under UK law so that people – particularly Muslim women and girls – are aware of and able to access their legal rights and do not regard religious 'courts' as sources of genuine legal authority.
• In addition, we successfully campaigned for the withdrawal of a Law Society sharia succession practice note which sought to assist solicitors in drafting 'sharia compliant' wills, arguing that by publishing the guidance, the Law Society was issuing religious rather than legal advice and effectively legitimising sharia and encouraging discrimination.

FAITH SCHOOLS

Previously I have written a blog about Faith Schools. Here is the link.

http://davidshoulder60onwards.blogspot.com/2018/02/faithschools-wake-up-dozy-britain.html

SEPERATION OF RELIGION AND FAITH

The National Secular Society have for 100 years campaigned for the disestablishment of the Church of England, and for a true secular democracy.
From their web site :

We campaign for the separation of Church and state and for the removal of the Bishops' Bench from Parliament.

In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else. In the 21^st century no religion should be granted a privileged position.

Secularism is crucial to successful democratic governance across the world: this is just as true in the UK as it is in the Middle East. We campaign for a secular democracy with a separation of religion and state, where everyone's Human Rights are respected equally.

Specifically The National Secular Society have campaigned for :

• Disestablishment of the Church of England
• Scraping of the Bishop's bench
• Ending of Government prayers
• State ceremonies - no specific religious content
• A secular head of state

I am pleased to have come across The National Secular Society. They have identified and expressed (and campaigned) very articulately, intellectually and peacefully on this area of real concern for me.

Please have a look at their website. https://www.secularism.org.uk

You can sign up to receive news letters for free.

PS. To make it easy I have reposted my Faith Schools blog here (posted 1/2/2018) :

#FaithSchools wake up dozy Britain

Today the Chief Inspector of Schools has issued a warning about the indoctrination of young and impressionable children by religious extremists. It is a chilling warning. Here is the BBC news report :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42902864

If you do not want to read the report - I have copied below some of the things the inspector has said.

"Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education.

"Under the pretext of religious belief, they use education institutions, legal and illegal, to narrow young people's horizons, to isolate and segregate, and in the worst cases to indoctrinate impressionable minds with extremist ideology.

"Freedom of belief in the private sphere is paramount, but in our schools it is our responsibility to tackle those who actively undermine fundamental British values or equalities law."

I do not really have the time to write a blog about it now but I feel compelled to at least say something so I will be succinct and you should do your own research.

• Historically in the UK we have always had Christian "church" schools - particularly C of E schools.
• As we have C of E schools of course we have Roman Catholic schools too. (and to some limited extent Jewish based schools)
• Generally the religious element in these schools has been pretty low key and they comfortably follow the National Curriculum.
• Generally these schools get good academic results which is why they are popular.
• Generally it is accepted they do not get good academic results because of religion but because these schools attract motivated aspirational parents - who will jump through hoops to get their child into the "best" local school available.
• Because academic results have been good (when government are desperate to find ways of driving up academic attainment) - governments have been supportive in allowing state "faith schools" to develop and for new state funded "free" schools to be opened.
• In todays multi cultural Britain it is only right and fair IF you are going to support faith based schools that any faith can back a school. As a result there has been significant growth in Muslim (particularly) and Hindu faith schools. 

While I agree Government should be striving to increase educational attainment it always seemed to me that by allowing schools to select pupils by religion we were building problems for the future - and so it has proved.

1. I believe it is immoral (and potentially dangerous) to allow young malleable innocent minds be indoctrinated by a particular religion. (I believe education offered by and through the state should be wholly secular with religions taught generally as an academic subject - to form the basis for children to make up their own minds about what they believe or not believe when they are old enough to do so.) An understanding and appreciation of other religions is surely essential in a properly integrated multicultural society.
2. On a practical level I cannot see how faith based schools can do anything to contribute to integration of religious groups in society - in fact the polar opposite. They have the clear potential to be isolationist and create suspicion.
3. It is clear there is a particular problems with some Muslim faith schools that have a "fundamentalist" belief that has been so damaging in our society.

What needs to happen now we have allowed this problem to develop.

• I recognise it will be hard to turn the clock back - and faith schools exist.
• I would immediately stop the expansion or opening of any more faith based schools in the state sector by withholding state funding. We have to treat all religions the same.
• I would be vigorous in ensuring (as recommended by the Ofsted Inspectorate) that all faith schools adhere to the teaching of the National Curriculum and core British values. Any school breaching this requirement should be deemed "failing" - placed in special measures and the governors/head challenged/replaced under the supervision of the Ofsted inspectorate. If necessary funding should be withheld or the school closed (as already can happen with failing schools).

It never ceases to amaze me how by being a tolerant and fair society we fail to see that highly motivated unscrupulous people can exploit us. My concern is our overweening political correctness will not allow us to deal with this potentially dangerous and definitely negative development.