Cameron is focusing so hard on EU migrants he is missing the bigger picture

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/16/cameron-eu-migrants-tories-ukip-migration

Version 0 of 1.

David Cameron is trying to keep the Conservative Ukip tendency at bay by dangling the prospect of new migration curbs from the EU. New hints were dropped today that a “game-changing” announcement was imminent, in which the prime minister would set new “red lines” for his negotiations on the reform of the European Union, to include limits on the principle of free movement.

One change could be the introduction of a points system similar to that operated by Australia and Canada. Another could be the exclusion of new EU member countries from the free movement provision until their living standards come within touching distance of those in the UK, in an effort to reduce the so-called “pull factor”.

As the Conservatives fight to prevent another loss to Ukip in Rochester next month and face possible new defections to Ukip before the general election, the political appeal of such measures to ministers is clear. The rational, and the practical effects, however, need to be challenged, for several reasons.

First, the large number of arrivals from east and central Europe after the EU expansion of 2004 need not have happened had the then Labour government either delayed free movement – as it was free to do, and Germany and others did. That error – if it was an error – was compounded by the then government’s huge underestimation of the number who would come. A more accurate appraisal might have encouraged better preparation and maybe lessened some of the public hostility. There were measures that could have been taken. Instead, the impression was created of over-generosity laced with incompetence. This is how EU migration became the bogey that it remains, for many, to this day.

Second, while the government is right that EU arrivals cannot really be controlled so long as freedom of movement remains a sacrosanct principle, EU citizens do not present the biggest economic or social challenge as far as migration is concerned. It may suit Cameron to play to his own Eurosceptic gallery by accepting Ukip’s terms, but non-EU migration remains almost as high as EU migration (though it is slowing) and this is something the government can do something about.

Indeed, if looked at from the perspective of cost, as a BBC magazine feature (More or less: calculating how much migrants cost or benefit a nation, Jan 2014) has done, it is not EU migration, but non-EU migration that needs addressing. This is because a greater proportion of non-EU migrants arrive under family reunion provisions and tend to be older, less educated and do not contribute, or contribute less, to the economy. The UK’s family reunion provisions are generous compared with those of many EU countries.

Something similar applies to non-EU student visas. Although the procedures are more rigorous than they were and many so-called “bogus” colleges have been closed, the testing system – as several exposes have shown – is compromised, and lax border controls make it hard to ensure that students leave when their studies are complete. The government has also encouraged a model of higher education that makes universities and colleges unduly dependent on overseas student fees. Higher education is a powerful lobby arguing against tougher non-EU visa curbs.

Third, it is time to drop the – deliberately? – misleading way of compiling the figures according to “net” migration. It is widely understood that those leaving and those arriving are for the most part different categories of people – those leaving are more likely to be older, often retirees or international professionals, while those arriving are often young and looking for an education or job, or are family dependents. The reluctance of successive governments to produce figures, and a breakdown, for arrivals suggests fear of the public reaction if the gross figures were made known.

It is hard to avoid the impression that ministers have chosen to demonise EU migration because it plays to anti-EU sentiment, but also because it avoids fanning the social tensions that might result from a more frank discussion about the issue.