Europe’s mobile population

Net migration to the UK reached a near-record 333,000 last year, with EU citizens accounting for 184,000 of the total

How does the public view the influx?

Unfavourably: mass immigration is very unpopular in Britain. A study of survey data by the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory suggests 77% of UK citizens, first and second-generation immigrants included, favour reducing immigration. More than half would like to see it reduced “a lot”. It is consistently ranked as one of the “most important issues” facing the nation; and UK citizens seem as worried about immigration from within the EU as that from outside it.

Why are they worried?

In recent years, inflows to the UK have reached unprecedented levels. In 1991, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) put the population at 57.4 million. In 2014, it was 65 million. Some 53% of that growth is due directly to migration. The rest is down to births exceeding deaths – but if you factor in births to foreign-born parents, migrants account for around 75% of Britain’s population growth. Constant news coverage of the large numbers of refugees and illegal migrants crossing Europe’s southern borders (see box), and the prospect that poorer nations such as Albania and Turkey might possibly join the EU, have added to the sense of unease.

How much migration to the UK is from the EU?

Currently, about half. The ONS figures for 2015 suggest longterm net migration (the difference between long-term arrivals and departures) was 333,000: 630,000 in, 297,000 out. And of those coming in, 270,000 were EU citizens and 277,000 non-eu ones, the rest being returning UK citizens. (EU workers staying less than a year aren’t included in the figures.) This is a big change from 20 years ago: before 1997, net migration had for decades been below 100,000. It shot up under New Labour, but it was only after 2004, when eight ex-communist states joined the union, that the number of EU immigrants began to match that of non-eu ones. Today, as a result of the eurozone crisis, about half of those EU migrants come from the “old EU”, not the east. Overall, there are some three million EU citizens in Britain – 5% of the population.

Why do EU citizens have the right to come here?

Initially, the right to work in other member states was an Italian demand and it was accepted as a fundamental law of the EEC (later, the EU) in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. But there were many administrative barriers to settling abroad – until the 2004 Free Movement of Citizens Directive swept them away. This directive decreed that any EU citizen with valid ID documents can enter another EU country to reside, work or study. There are some restrictions on the benefits that can be claimed in other countries, but quite a few are available from day one. And after five years, EU citizens acquire a permanent, unconditional right of residence.

Can EU immigration be restricted?

No. The 2004 directive allows member states to refuse entry or expel other EU nationals for such reasons as “public security or public health”. Otherwise, it’s non-negotiable, as David Cameron found out when he tried to tinker with it. In his EU renegotiations ahead of the referendum, he proposed that EU migrants shouldn’t be eligible for in-work benefits (housing benefit, for instance) for the first four years. This was rejected, in favour of a very limited “emergency brake” for nations whose welfare systems are suffering due to excessive immigration.

Have EU migrants benefited the UK?

They have certainly helped the economy to grow in absolute terms. Younger and better educated on average than their British equivalents, they’re more economically productive than non-eu migrants. And they’ve taken up the slack in industries where jobs were hard to fill. A 2010 study showed that 40% of all employees in agriculture were from the former Eastern Bloc EU states. Anecdotally, they are also said to be more reliable and harder working; and statistics show they’re less likely to claim benefits. Migrants have made British business as a whole more dynamic, by raising levels of demand and driving new investment.

So does that mean we’re all better off?

Not necessarily. Migration has clearly added to the overall size of the economy (GDP), but the effect on GDP per head is probably very small. Its impact on the public purse is also slight: most studies show it is either slightly positive or, in the long term, slightly negative (even young migrants will claim pensions at some point). And though detailed economic research has shown little overall downward effect on wages or unemployment levels for UK workers, the increased supply of labour has depressed wages in some sectors – notably hospitality, care and construction. The Migration Observatory’s analysis suggests that low-paid workers have lost out, while medium and high-paid workers have gained. And migration has clearly pushed up housing costs, and raised pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services.

How would a Brexit affect EU immigration flows?

A key claim of the Vote Leave campaign is that it would allow us to “take back control” of our borders and set up a points system permitting only highly skilled foreign workers. But it’s unclear how this would work. If, after a Brexit, the UK wanted continued access to the single market, in a deal similar to those secured by Norway and Switzerland, we’d have to accept free movement as part of that agreement: both Norway and Switzerland, though outside the EU, have higher per capita EU immigration than the UK. Control of immigration would be much easier if any post-brexit government took the bold step of opting out of the single market, but then our exports to the EU would be subject to taxes (tariffs) imposed by the EU; or we’d have to try to negotiate a Canada-style free trade deal with Europe. It would also mean having to broker deals to protect the rights of the 1.2 million UK citizens living in Europe. Like the EU referendum in general, it’s a choice between an unpopular status quo and a barely sketched-out alternative.