Three crucial issues are consistently misrepresented in the increasingly hysterical "debate" about EU immigration to the UK.
First, Eurosceptics claim that EU immigrants are "taking British jobs". They are taking jobs that Britons could have, but won't do at the wages on offer. This is not only the case at the bottom of the scale: 2,300 Polish doctors have come to work in the UK, but in the last year alone over 500 British GPs took their skills abroad.
A second assertion is that the cost of accommodating immigrants damages the British economy. The UK's vaunted "economic success" depends on a constant supply of labour prepared to work hard for low pay. Any restrictions the Government manages to impose on economic immigration will hurt employers first, and the rest of us later.
Finally, Eurosceptics endlessly point to Norway and Switzerland as examples of countries that can make their own rules, free of EU red tape and restrictions. Both countries maintain their access to European markets only by accepting all aspects of EU freedom of movement regulations, as well as 95 per cent of other EU regulation. Both are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and belong to the Schengen agreement abolishing borders and passport controls within Europe.
Politicians like Owen Paterson and Bernard Jenkin - perhaps even David Cameron - know that most of their claims about EU immigration are demonstrably nonsense. Nevertheless they appear to be prepared to spout whatever they think might maintain their party in government or themselves in jobs.
Where is the genuine leader, of any party, who will cut through the obfuscation and win the arguments by telling the truth?
John Brand,
1b Rothesay Terrace,
Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article