Did he really say that?

[ALB]

According to today's papers, the Foreign Secretary (somebody called Philip Hammond, apparently) declared on a visit to Singapore:

Quote:

Europe can't protect itself and preserve its standard of living and social structure, if it has to absorb millions of migrants from Africa.

This raises all sorts of issues, including the old one (favoured at one time by Lenin) that the standard of living of workers in the developed countries depends on the super-exploitation of people in the rest of the world.

I don't suppose he meant to raise this issue but if his claim is true what are the implications — that it's us in Europe against them in Africa? And this is the future of the world? In fact why did he single out Africans (many of those in Calais are reported as coming from Syria, Afghanistan, etc)? Could it be that his race prejudice has got the better of him (yes, it's rather obvious)? In any event, not very diplomatic.

[Young Master Smeet]

Yes, it's economic bunkum : although increased population would suggest that it wuld decrease GDP pr capita,inward migration has a  positive effect on GDP (more work gets done), and productivity growth should do the rest…

[alanjjohnstone]

These are not accidental slips but part of a co-ordinated campaign to demonise immigrants as the cause of UK people's problems.Isn't the weakening of the trade iunions, the expansion of part-time or zero-hour contracts and the spending cuts to  public works construction more of an effect on living standards. The fact is if he had the facts and figures to support his allegation he would of provided them but all the evidence from think-tanks from the left, from the right and from the government's own departments say immigration has a limited and localised effect on pay and jobs.And broader, the EU requires population growth because long-term demographic projections is that too many old people will be supported by too few young people. GDP will drop. We require immigrants…young people…The SOYMB blog has been highlighting the realityof immigration for a while (and i personally in the Weekly Worker.) The common Leftist argument is that we should restrict immigration on the grounds that it is what the ruling class seeks…by increasing supply of labour to lower the wages of native workers. British jobs for British Workers etc etc I resort to Eugene Debs as he expresses it wellhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htmBut Ernest Untermann repliedhttp://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1910/0820-untermann-replytodebs.pdfHere, i think his complaint will resonate with those who were in the Merchant navy and saw the total disappearance of British crews to mostly Filipino seamen.  http://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1910/1210-untermann-immigrationques.pdfIt's not a new debate and if i recollect correctly, the SPGB EC long ago had to chastise some in the SPC on their attitude towards Chinese immigration to Canada But as i have stated the SPGB is only a part of the World Socialist Movement…and we don't take sides in nationalistic sectional disputes based on a person's accidental place of birth. Anecdotally, when working in Royal Mail, staffing policy changed to recruit part-timers, mostly foreign students or migrant workers. I heard all the usual jibes…"Its like the United Nations here"…"Glad to hear someone speaking English" …but when it came to an unofficial strike over an issue only very indirectly affecting the part time staff, 100% bar one came out (we had more native-born scabbing.) That surprised many and changed attitudes. The more we worked together, the more we talked together, the more the differences faded. It is no surprise that it is in areas of low immigration with little interaction between peoples that differences are polarised and the media and politicians can be held culpable for the fears they incite. 

[ALB]

Just read a reference in Paul Mason's new book on Postcapitalism to a 2014 OECD report "Policy Challenges for the Next 50 Years" on which he comments (the report envisages an average annual growth rate up to 2060 of 3%):

Quote:

To make the OECD's central growth scenario work, Europe and the USA have to absorb 50 million migrants each between now and 2060.

That's a million a year on average or 5 "millions" over 5 years. True, the OECD doesn't think that will happen but then neither will growth (which of course depends on using more more labour). On the other hand, if the capitalist economy does grow at that rate then millions of migrants will be pulled in, whatever Hammond, UKIP and the others might (not) want. Perhaps Hammond could go along with this as long as they don't come from Africa.

[Author]

Posts