Stephen Pollard

Britain. It is just as rational for the EU nationals who move here but who do not have a job. The same ONS figures show that one in seven EU migrants to the UK of working age does not work. In other words, of the 2.73 million EU nationals here aged between 16 and 64, 390,000 are what is termed “inactive”.

They are eligible to apply for jobseekers’ allowance, child benefit, child tax credits and sickness benefits. The European Court of Justice has held that all they need to do is show that they are looking for work.

But while it is perfectly rational for them it is anything but for us. For one thing, the statistics show that EU workers are prepared to work longer hours for less pay. In the shortterm, business may see that as a great benefit. Why shouldn’t they take jobs that Brits are too workshy to apply for?

That is the level of argument recently heard from the likes of sandwich chain Pret a Manger, which moaned that it could not find British workers to fill its jobs. It never seems to have occurred to it – or to the other businesses which have based their growth on cheap EU labour and have now said they are worried about Brexit – that the problem may not lie with British workers but with the low wages they want to pay.

As Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, put it last year, the level of foreign migration is dampening wages across the economy, threatening the very economic growth that has created the jobs they are taking in the first place.

The extra workers from the EU had “contained wage growth in the face of robust employment growth... A key risk to the economy is that these subdued growth rates continue”. In other words, the unending supply of foreign labour means that employers know they can pay low wages because there will always be someone desperate enough to take the job.

That might work for the company’s bottom line but for the economy that is very far from sensible. If wages are depressed because of politically mandated over-supply of labour, workers will struggle. They won’t then be able to spend enough to drive growth. And so we will all suffer. (And that’s without even considering the impact of large-scale immigration on public services.)

WHICH is one key reason why we voted to leave the EU. Instead of allowing anyone from the EU to come and, in effect, undercut British workers – and be guaranteed benefits paid for by British taxpayers – we decided that we should take back control of our borders. We decided it should be for the British to determine who is allowed to come here, how many people and under what arrangements.

Economically, if there was a smaller pool of workers from abroad, employers would have to boost pay to lure workers.

It is important to remember that nothing in this analysis depends on whether you think immigration is a good or bad thing. Even if you err on the liberal side of that divide, it’s important to bear in mind the consequences.

The key point is the damage done by unfettered immigration. And so, as we prepare to leave the EU, the key issue for debate is the level of immigration that we want. That is a discussion that, until we voted to leave, was entirely meaningless. But now it is central.

‘Britain should decide who is allowed in’