Warnings of a Romanian migrant surge were right

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
In January 2014, when Romanians and Bulgarians were granted free movement into Britain seven years after their countries joined the EU, MigrationWatch, Ukip and others warned that this would lead to Britain being swamped by immigrants from those countries.

Cue the attacks from assorted lefties, both in Parliament, on Twitter and in The Guardian, how the likes of Ukip are wrong; that there will be no "swamping" and they are just being "racists".

Of course, as usual, the lefties were wrong...

Coffee House

Warnings of a Romanian migrant surge were right

Ed West






Ed West
14 October 2017
The Spectator

Remember when Keith Vaz got himself down to Luton Airport a few years back to greet new Romanian arrivals getting off the plane, declaring in his rather pompous way that:
‘We’ve seen no evidence of people who have rushed out and bought tickets in order to arrive because it’s the 1st of January’.
This was in January 2014, when Romanians and Bulgarians were granted free movement to Britain for the first time, and on that day there was widespread guffawing among right-thinking people about how we were going to be ‘swamped’; Twitter, even more so than usual, was filled with humour that was ill-disguised class contempt and status competition. We were told by numerous publications, think-tanks and other bodies that the likes of MigrationWatch and Ukip were just scaremongering, and there would not be a huge influx of migrants from the A2 nations.

Eastern European invasion ‘comes to nothing’, the Independent declared. As a Guardian commentator informed us, the number of Romanians and Bulgarians will actually fall:
‘So MigrationWatch’s prediction of 50,000 a year over the next five years actually starts looking like a potential fall in numbers. It is not likely that fewer Romanians and Bulgarians will end up here but it is a possibility and one that is as worthy of consideration as all the “invasion” predictions that have more in common with astrology than demography.‘
Or, as this 2013 Open Democracy piece pointed out, notions that people will move to richer countries to earn more money are too simplistic because ‘serious migration studies…are aware that the drivers of migration are much more complex and that migration systems, migration networks, migration politics, opportunity-constraints structures, social and human capital, perceptions and imaginations, individual characteristics and emotions play crucial roles.’

Migration Matters also poured cold water on claims there would be a big surge in arrivals. The organisation’s director Atul Hatwal said:
‘Our belief is that the anti-immigration lobby have cried wolf once too often. Their claim is that as many as 300,000 new migrants will arrive from Romania and Bulgaria over the course of 2014. In truth we believe that figure will probably peak at around 20,000.’
A spokesman for Migration Matters went on to say that ‘if 300,000 migrants do arrive from Romania and Bulgaria then the opponents of migration will have shown to be correct’.

I guess that answers that one then, as there are now 413,000 Romanians and Bulgarians living in Britain, roughly 90,000 a year more since January 2014, compared to 6,200 Britons living in the A2 states. Ukip were shown to have been correct.

Migration patterns are a fascinating subject in big cities; why a particular group moves to one area can be a matter of chance, or sometimes a result of just one individual. Almost as interesting is the way that some ethnic groups follow their neighbours, so that Greek Cypriot migration to north London was followed by Turkish Cypriot, then mainland Turkish and now Bulgarian and Romanian. And there are now more Turkish Cypriots in north London than in Cyprus, something which Paul Collier pointed out in Exodus to illustrate the extent to which, given the opportunity, people will migrate in very large numbers, especially if there are already bridgeheads in the receiving country.

The economic impact on A2 migration is probably either neutral or mildly positive, the key economic worry being its effect on the still worsening housing crisis; the social costs of such migration are probably quite small. The real concern is for the impact on eastern and southern Europe, which is now enduring a brain drain of huge proportions, to the extent that places like Romania are emptying of young people. Will they be able to recover when their economies reach a certain point? I don’t know.

The real question for us is why are British journalists and other intellectuals so fantastically bad at making predictions? It’s especially odd because, in this case, MigrationWatch were accurate in predicting A8 movement from 2004, so if someone had previously cried wolf and on that occasion a wolf had appeared, a rational person might give more weight to their opinion. But then this is not a rational argument. Rather, it’s a moral one that goes to the core of our identity and sacred values. Trying to convince someone otherwise is as futile as debating religion with someone knocking at your door on Sunday morning. Anyway, to any of my new neighbours in north London: Bine ati venit and добре дошли.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/warnings-of-a-romanian-migrant-surge-were-right/
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Good. Britain needs immigrants if it is not to face a population shortfall. And Rumanians and Bulgarians are exactly the sort that conservatives love, namely they are white, Christian, and religious.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
Good. Britain needs immigrants if it is not to face a population shortfall.

No, it doesn't. Britain's rapidly-growing population would still grow without immigrants, thanks to the fact that its population, much younger than France, Germany, Italy and much of the rest of Europe, would still produce a higher birth rate than death rate.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
You, like Colpy, can't wait for the next purge.

As long as they are not hot underage girls of course....this excludes Colpy.

I'm sure like many here are disgusted by your.....yearnings.

Anti-EU sentiment and a yearning for much greater reduction in immigration is not limited to me and a fringe few. It is now the main view of ordinary people right across the EU, as Austria's election of the 31-year-old anti-immigration Kurz once again shows.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
No, it doesn't. Britain's rapidly-growing population would still grow without immigrants, thanks to the fact that its population, much younger than France, Germany, Italy and much of the rest of Europe, would still produce a higher birth rate than death rate.

Rapidly growing? Britain's fertility rate is 1.9%. In case you don't understand that, it means every 100 women only have 95 children. Given that rate and an aging population Britain is going to find itself in the same position as Japan unless it increses immigration.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,948
1,910
113
Rapidly growing?

Britain is growing faster than any other country in Europe and will soon overtake Germany as Europe's most populous country and economy.

Britain's fertility rate is 1.9%. In case you don't understand that, it means every 100 women only have 95 children. Given that rate and an aging population Britain is going to find itself in the same position as Japan unless it increses immigration.

Can you give me the facts and figures from a reputable source (i.e. not The Guardian) to back that up?