 Y ddweud y sefydlu yw'r disgwysiwn, cyfnodd o'r amgweithio'r hyn yn ddweud y Ddweud o Ddweud. Rydyn ni'n gwybod yn ydych i'n ddweud yma. Rydyn ni'n ddweud y ddweud yma, Os Ddamelon, i fy ysgaf Johnathon, i ddweud ei ddweud. Rydyn ni'n ddweud yma i'r Ymgylchedd Unedlaeth i eu Paeth, a'r tyfu sydd eisiau ar y cyfnodd yn cael ei ddweud. gömdeithas i'r ddechrau'r gweithio ar gyfer ar ei ddweud o'r ddau'r ddweud o'r ddau ddau, nad ydych chi yn ffafor o'r ymlaen wedi'i ddweud. Yn gyhoedd Damian byddwn ni'n wentlygu yn y ddweud o'r rhweithio, gallwn i'n gweithio'n cymaint. Mae'n i'n gweithio'n cymaint, mae'n gweithio'n gyhoedd. Dwi'n gweithio'n cymaint. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n cymaint. Rwy'n golygu'n meddwl, yn yw'r panel ni'n meddwl ystod arnyn i'r boblau ar y cyfnod yma, oes yng nghymru yn y ddod yn y Cymru. Mae'n sefydlu ar hynny ddim bywyd ychydig ar y program. Rwy'n golygu'n meddwl, Roedd yma i'n gweithio'r hynny,ysiwch i'r unrhyw gweithio'r hynny. Roedd yma i'n gweithio'r hynny. Roedd yma i'n gweithio'r hynny. Roedd yma i'n gweithio'r hynny. a Rhondda Europe. Rhondda Europe is a European Round of Round Corporation, and we are a big research institute, again non-partisan, so we also don't take views on whether Britain should stay or should leave the EU. We aim to inform policy making and decision making process through our research and analysis, so the voices that we heard in the first panel about basing, embedding the discussion in facts and evidence, it's pretty much at the heart what we do, and we work across different policy area from defence through health, employment and social issues. But I'm here today to speak about three important points that are often overlooked in the discussion that so far focused very much on what EU migrants take from the UK. Our research suggests that indeed EU migrants are to the British economy, and that's an issue that is very close to my heart coming from Poland and, as Catherine mentioned, exercising my rights for free movement of people. The three main points that I want to make is they emerge from the research funding that we have carried out, and they focus on the, for the first fact, the EU migrant workers come to the UK to work. That's the first thing to say. The second point is that they very often work below the level of skills and qualifications that they have. And the third and final point is about the fact that we found no evidence that social benefits are the pull factor for them to come over to the UK to work. And I will get back to those three points in a moment, but I wanted to very briefly tell you a little bit about the background of the study. Because we're speaking about evidence and facts, so it's good to know what we're talking about. The study that we carried out focused on social economic inclusion of EU migrant workers in four cities. One of that was Leeds in the UK, and the remaining three were in Italy, Milan, in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, and in Frankfurt in Germany. We carried out the study together with our partner in ECORIS, and the study was funded by the European Commission Director General for Employment and Social Affairs. We used a mixed method approach, and we relied on a number of methods, literature review being one of them, and the statistical analysis of data in the UK that was a census data for England and Wales and national insurance number allocations. But we also relied on a number of qualitative methods. We carried out several interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups, and we also had a survey with EU migrant workers in Leeds to which we received over 200 responses. Now, it's important to bear in mind that depending on the sources, some of our findings can be generalized to a wider population of EU migrant workers, and some are only indicative. So that's just something to keep in mind. Now, let me come back to the first point that I made, the first point being that EU migrants that come to the UK come here to work. And our study found that the main reason for the EU migrants to come to Britain is to either look for or take up an employment. And when you look at the demographic profile of EU migrant workers in the UK, you will see that their young 76% of them are below 49 years of age. Most of them, the vast majority is economically active, and out of those that are economically active, 90% are already in employment. Those employment-related claims that the EU migrants come to the UK are also supported by our survey with the EU migrants. We asked the EU migrant workers for the main reason that made them come to the UK, and about 60% of them said that it was to find a job, to take up a job or to find a job. We also asked them to indicate from among a range of different factors that influenced their decision on coming to the UK what were the important ones. And the top answers from the majority of our respondents indicated employment opportunities and well-paid jobs. That's about the first point. Now the second point that is really important is that those migrants that work here in the UK very often work below the level of qualifications and skills that they have. What we found in our study is that the EU migrant workers that come to Britain are really well educated, especially compared to the local population. But when you look at the occupation data, you will see a big difference. You will see that many of them work in occupations that require no or very low-skilled jobs. Let me give you an example. When you look at EU migrants, especially from the eastern and central Europe, not pointing fingers, 16% of those people have no qualifications, which means that they didn't complete the upper secondary level school. But if you look at how many of this group works in low-skilled occupations, that's 42% of them, so it's a huge mismatch. And compared to the native-born British populations, those percentages are much more balanced. It's 22% and 23% for low-skilled occupations. Now there are many different reasons for that situation and that mismatch of over qualifications of migrant workers in Britain. Some of that might relate to the low or insufficient recognition of their qualifications at the local markets. Others might relate to the fact that they will have language problems, as English would be their second language. There might also be reasons related to the fact that migrants are just more willing to take up jobs that don't fully match with their skills. There might be other reasons as well. Now that brings me to the third and final point that I wanted to make, which is that we found no evidence that social benefits create a poor factor for migrant workers to come to the UK. It is true that after meeting certain requirements, EU migrant workers are entitled to certain social benefits. That's true, but we found no evidence that it's a major poor factor. On the contrary, what we found and what our study suggests is that the majority of EU migrant workers here in the UK do not take any benefits. At least 67% of our survey respondents at least declared that they're not taking any benefits. Those that do, those benefits relate primarily to child care allowances and child benefits. To sum up, I spoke about three key points. EU migrant workers come here to work. They very often work below the level of qualifications and we have not found evidence that they come here because of the social benefits. Now it is true that I focus on three emerging findings from our research. We also found other interesting issues. We did find that increased inflow of migrants creates and increases pressure on local services. It is also true that the increased competition for jobs might create tensions between local and migrant workers. However, it was often overlooked as the contribution that EU migrants bring to the British economy. That both cultural and economic contribution is something very important. It could be even bigger if they worked and if the skills and qualifications were used to the full potential. I think I'll stop here, but if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer. Thank you very much. I'll then take questions now. I'll let the panel speak and then we'll come back to questions. Benefits on to pool, so why the four-year rule, Damian? OK, let me start. My paper and I and Stephen proved it was associated with the genesis of what eventually led to the migrant break. I wasn't interested in a few preliminary works that set out what the paper said. I wanted to say why it's still behind it and why it's still stick with it and then say what I think about the emergency break. So, preliminary words. I accept and strongly believe that migration brings many material and non-material benefits to the United Kingdom and to British citizens. I don't think there's many British citizens that can't say their lives have been enriched by knowing citizens from another human perspective. I fully accept also all the stuff by Christian Dussmann on the fiscal benefits of migration. Johnathan's work, Roger Levin of admiration, the stuff he says about the relatively weak pressure on public services and labour markets, I accept. I listen to all the stuff on benefits on the pool. I don't think we need to argue this anymore. The evidence of the first two years of EU 8 migration was evident to that. At that time the habitual residence rule and very few EU 8 nationals could actually claim benefits in the UK. Over 330,000 registered financial insurance numbers. There were 190 successful applications in those two years. It was largely a benefit-free process. So one has evidence from our own eyes even before we go on to models, comparative or anything else. Unless we're saying it's in some significant way, poles, bolts, whoever came there. There's been some generational shift over there which President Kaczynski would have pulled by and they've sort of moved in some interesting way which seems completely plausible. So what did my paper say and why would I hold back? Now the paper suggested two things and I would have suggested the third thing but I was encouraged not to put it in. It suggested, first of all, that with the exception of schooling and health care, most public benefits should not be made available for anyone during their first three years of residence within the UK. It said secondly that it should be reinforced that EU law could in no way restrict operation of domestic labour laws. You could bring in your own EU law labour laws but sort of Laval type situations should not be possible. Those are the two things on the paper. The third I'll come to this in question because I understand that I would have put in is I would have said for those three years that a mobile EU citizen should pay the taxes, the income tax of their home state, not the host state. So the Polish account of the fifth should be paying Polish income tax, not British income tax and I would feel about that very strongly actually. Now why do I take those positions given what I've said about the overall cumulative benefits, emotional benefits that I certainly have with migration? Well, let me start first of all with European citizenship. European citizenship as a community of the free and equal of the European Union does not exist. If it did, we were serious about this mutual commitment and so we would be giving money to the poorest of the poor in the European Union from here in the UK and they are certainly not the ones that come here. There would be the immobile in countries like Bulgaria and Romania who live in some desperate countries. That element of solidarity does not exist at the moment, institution from the UK and others. Other EU states doesn't exist within Europe if you look at the terms of the European stability mechanism. What European citizenship does is, and I have to say I'm informed about what I saw in Brazil when I was looking at the mobile internally in Brazil how it works, is it privileges the mobile. It's a privileging of rights for the mobile over the immobile. The mobile who move, get rights to work, reside in other member states, claim social benefits, vote themselves in elections and bring their families over. Now the two challenges of this, and I haven't heard this answered yet and I might be wrong, are two. The first is, it means the immobile are passive beneficiaries or recipients of this. It's passivity, which I listen from. Those in the host state only get what the mobile bring with them, which may be very significant, but they are passive. Those in the home state only get what they return, they may lose a lot, they may just get remittances, and that is it. And that is a highly disenfranchising thing for the immobile. Whatever one talks about that, economic benefits. The second thing is this question of distribution. It may be that part of the negative narrative about EU citizenship is precisely because Polish citizens, or Baltic citizens, or European citizens, do so well. What one looks at, what one would not take into account of these statistics is the relative socioeconomic positioning with society that happens as a result of migration. Wages might be stable or whatever, but if your children are not in the same place of school, you can't see yourself. And this is a general thing about the relationship between immobile and that immobile is, you know, you're not running a race. So, to my mind, this was highly challenging about something was highly challenging about European citizenship. These things create a lot of the difficulties associated with it. Serious, this is an issue about globalisation, not about nasty negative stories about EU citizens. That one has to find some relationship accommodating the aspirations of the mobile and the immobile. Now, how do I suggest I do it? I will take national citizenship. In a mobile world, national citizenship is increasingly a narrative for the immobile. I'm going to Singapore in July. I know perfectly well that when I go there as a British citizen, it's like I can emotionally vote as an expert. I get very few of the benefits of that election here in the UK by going there. That's the choice I make. It's people who stay in the territory that benefit most from national votes. Now, if one was thinking, EU law at the moment has no real narrative about national citizenship, and what would national citizenship offer? This is what the paper is about. It's that there's always a place you can return to and that it's as valuable to the immobile, whether you're a Pole that remains in Poland or a Brit that's here in the UK as it is to be mobile. Now, that is what I liked about the three-year residence period and the tax. It's said to the immobile that there are certain mutual commitments that you have by virtue of your citizenship. We're not talking about human rights yet, and we have those mutual commitments just for you. The residents were saying these things are really special. So any EU citizen after three years, it is their contribution. The fact that they've done something great by just being here means that they should be part of these mutual commitments as well. Now, that is what I liked about it. First of all, the sense of mutual commitment. The second thing I like about it is I like the fact that British welfare state is non-contributory. The current system for EU8 nationals is a form of contributory access to the welfare state. You have to work normally to get it, and it's a rubbish contributory one. You can work for two weeks for 12 hours a week and get it, or you can be here forever and still won't get it. I think that is completely wrong. It is also a changed basis. I do not like the basis of integration predominantly being employment. I think there are many other ways people contribute to a society, and residence is sufficiently ecumenical to get those. You can argue about what are citizens rights and what are human rights, but that is the reason for it. That was the reason for it, and I thought getting EU8 citizens to pay taxes back into their home country would mean that those people in our home country would get some of the benefits of mobility. In a much more progressive and well-distributed way of being the state deciding them, rather than just family allegiances, or people like to spend money on a flat because they could now afford it, putting up property prices in some of these cities. Now, the emerging break, did it do an emerging break? Do I have about a minute to describe it? Well, it didn't do any of that. His main thing was largely about trying to reduce migration. It won't do that for the reason we've already talked about. All for our evidence. It also creates a narrative that is unappealing for people like me. It has also got just briefly a number of legal challenges ahead of it. The paper by me and Steven Booth wasn't particularly new. Demos has suggested something quite similar a bit earlier. What we used to suggest was a bit new, that it could be done through secondary legislation. I was told that everyone was wrong and rubbish, particularly Government lawyers. It was particularly gratifying that they caved in on that, although they haven't explained why yet. And no doubt a lot of EU lawyers that they've gone wrong will say, this is a legal point, treaties need to be reformed, not the secondary legislation. It's still open as to why that is or is not the case. Alongside this question of whether they did enough, is the commission has to provide the evidence, which Johnathan's paper will be non-existence, that there has been migration from an extended magnitude over an extended period of time, and it must have done one of these three things. In fact, an essential aspect of the social security system brought serious difficulties in the labour market to excessive pressures on public services. Now, as I understand it, they weren't initially going to do that. It changed their mind within something like 13 or 14 hours in this commission declaration. That's been unfair, maybe they've already done the evidence, but legally they have to provide that, and it's contingent on that. And they won't be able to do that. That would be a source of the legal challenge. The third thing on this is a lawyerly point. You can't delegate under EU law, you can't confer to use the jargon, or two-wide powers, powers that involve political discretion. The way this legislation will work is it will delegate to the council to authorise the UK's power to apply this break. This is arguably an excessive delegation under the Shagon Borders Code, gentlemen, and that will probably be challenged. It will all be challenged in about three years' time, just before somebody gets to the Court of Justice, just before the next election. Part of me wants them to agree with me on the first point and not agree and find it illegal on the other, so I just think it would be fantastic to see how the British politics would emerge until, for the part, a year before the election. The other thing that has to be said about, and there's another reason why I dislike it, it's not just that I didn't use the right packaging, you had this seven-year element. If my argument is that it's about rejuvenating national citizenship, you're finding an argument for European citizenship, an argument for European citizenship will be aspiration for the first three years, which is what we'll know, and then you are special here, rather than you're just in a bit of work for us, which is undervalued and you're not using your full skills. But that is a narrative, and the seven-year break doesn't address this in any way. It won't be renewed, everyone knows that now. Although David Cameron claims this particular case, and I think this is where the European Parliament will have the most argument with him, it's actually only affected for three years for the EU citizens. The way it will work is that up to from year four, and if it was fourth year or third year, you'll be entitled to claim benefits. Now David Cameron was asked by the British press with this particular case. He said no. He said that people who arrived in year seven would still not get benefits for four years. I don't know how he can legally do that. We will have to see the commission proposals. It is very difficult to imagine legally an authorization that can be tapered in that way. So it's actually a very, very narrow thing. Symbolically, going back to my argument, it's a powerful thing, maybe for negative, positive views, depending on your view on referendum. But in practical terms, it's a very narrow thing he's got, and in my view, not for the right reasons. At least for the reasons I believe in. I'll stop that. Thank you very much. It's good to hear you talk about that, because obviously Damien is famous in legal circles for being the man behind the four-year rule, and it's actually rather nice to hear him explain it in his terms rather than the terms that it's got boulderised into. Thank you. How are you? Can I hear from you now? Okay. I'm not a legal buff-in. I'm not a brilliant academic. I did study physics and electronics and then another degree in computer studies. So I have a slight interest in statistics. I worked for 26 years in a blue chip company as an industrial engineer. So I challenge things. Anything that moves, does anything, doesn't do anything, I will challenge. So I've had a challenging role. I've been involved in the Polish community because of my parents. My parents were both Polish. They met in England and I was the first issue from that bonding in Herifid, I believe. I was actually born in North Wales and I've lived most of my life in the Central Midlands in Montemobre, somebody like Stuton Cheese, I believe, that's where it comes from. Okay, so that's me. The Federation of Poles has been in existence since 1947 and it was created by all the Polish organisations post-war to try and represent the view point of the Polish minority at that time, most of whom were ex-soldiers or RAF people and so on. Things have obviously changed considerably since 2004. In fact, before 2004, when I retired in 2001, I worked for two years as a legal cashier for a solicitor's office. One of the big jobs I was involved in was organising business visas for the precursors of the migration that started in 2004. The only way you could access the UK then was to actually become a self-employed person in England. All you had to do was apply to the federal government to fill in the form to say you're self-employed and well, and behold, you could work here. So I was involved in that and I believe there were about six or seven solicitors office who worked in the two years I was involved in it and between us we probably introduced something like 15,000 to 20,000 Polish and Czech and Latvian migrants to this country before 2004. So there's a precursor that was already a net being set up in the UK at that time. I've looked at this idea of this rethinking UU free movement. I asked myself some questions. What were the drivers that made the people come here? One's already been mentioned by everybody. Job availability. And I think that is the major driver. But there are other drivers. There's an independence which comes with being able to support yourself in an independent environment. And in countries like Poland, for instance, which I'm fairly familiar with, there's a very strong familial influence. You come over to England, you are then relaxed from that influence. So there's a freedom element, which you wouldn't have there. But they can still live. They can live here in England. They can earn a reasonable salary, reasonable money, albeit quite often working at jobs well below their educational standard. But they live in a dual world. They live here to earn money. But they live in another world which is connected with modern media by Skype or Internet so they can watch a published television, they take part in published politics, participate in everything. And they don't get as involved as they should do perhaps within English society. That is a difficulty. And there tends to be a cleakiness. Because of the large distribution, the near million holes that are in the UK at the moment are spread fairly evenly throughout the whole of the country. The reckoning is about £200,000 in London, £250,000 in London. And then you go to all the regions, and I've got some figures here which say that, what, North West £75,000, Yorkshire and Humber £60,000, West Midlands £80,000, East Midlands £79,000, the East £78,000, South West £60,000, South East £94,000. So they're very, very well distributed. And they cannot form a power base as some other groups that have come in other ways. For instance, you do get concentrations of, say, Hindus or the West Indies that came over as groups, the Ugandan Indians, I know particularly because a lot of them are in Leicester. They form quite strong entities and they can form a representation of stuff. So we have a problem that these people that are here that are working very hard, they're helping the country, they're benefiting themselves, they're benefiting the country, and undoubtedly they're benefiting their home country as well, the country of birth, because they're supporting relatives and family there. So it's a win on all sides, this thing. Other advantages, because they're here, they can participate in the free health service, which is also available in Poland, albeit perhaps not quite as easily available, and you do tend to have to, what do you call, backhand to get through the best services, you know. There are some problems. They do work below their educational level. There's another aspect which nobody seems to want to mention but don't realise. The Poles in particular I've seen them working. Those who know something about work measurement know that there's an output level which is comfortable in a job situation. You work a 70, 80% efficiency. Poles are working 120, 130% efficiency, which are generating jealousy amongst their co-workers from the local indigenous co-workers because they are doing a faster job and they get turned off, you know. Local people get turned off. We have the example of the chap in Peterborough who was offered a job at something ridiculous like £8 an hour of something tomorrow and he's been attending the labour exchange for the past three years. He was like, oh yeah, that's fine, I'll do it until he found out the job was on the farm. He said, oh no, I'm not going to work with those foreigners. So you get that sort of response and that's an instinctive self-defence response. So those are just a few observations. The big question is how much more to come? How many more migrants are going to turn up from Poland? I don't know is the answer but I think the number will reduce. You can see that the current migration level to the UK is reducing over the years. From the peaks of £70,000 or £80,000 a year it's now down in the 30s of £40,000. I believe net migration may be even lower. So there is a general lowering tendency and you can't forever be exporting people from a country to another country because you're running out of people in your own country. So there's going to be a residue that's going to have to stay in Poland or in Ukraine, in Latvia or whatever it happens to be. The other thing is there are other aspects which need to be taken into consideration. Do you know what the birthrate of Polish mothers is in the UK? It's about £22,000 a year which exceeds the birthrate in Warsaw. So there are other aspects which are going to influence the populace and the country as a whole. Polish people are very good at adapting and finding a way through and getting to do things. But they do have one reluctance and that is to learn English. It's quite common that you see people talking in Polish and so on. I actually, in my local town, I tried to run a little school for the 700 or so Polish that migrated to my town and I had something like 20 or 30 takers to start off with. I taught them the numbers and how to ask how to get there and how much is this and where is the chemist and some simple basic questions. The numbers attending were perhaps a very poor teacher but that's mostly the case. It's very difficult to actually force people to learn a language. If they have no need to do other than understand or go over there or push that, that's enough instruction for their place of work. They don't need any more. There's no driver to learn more. This is going to generate a future problem of communication between the children that are born here and are educated here and their parents. As the children mature to say university level, their parents' knowledge of the local language of English or German or whatever they were, would be relatively low, whereas the children would have lost their knowledge of their parents' language and they would be a mismatch in communication skills. There are lots of little problems there but I think that there's going to be forever pressure from countries which have a lower earning capacity, per capita, to move to the richer countries. The EU 14, as was or 15, will tend to be a magnet or even some of those are now very good for people from the EU 8. We're getting more and more Spanish people, more and more Portuguese, more and more Italians coming to this country. If you look at the figures, what is it, the split in terms of foreign born Europeans in the UK is pretty close, 50% from the original European Union country, the 14, and the EU 2 plus EU 8 countries. They're pretty well split, something like about a million and a half each in the 3 million that are working in this country, in the Basinist country. I think I've given you lots of little facts and figures, a few ideas tomorrow over and asked a few questions. I hope that was of interest. Thank you very much indeed. And last but not least, I turn to Agatha, and my guess is that you're not working below your school level. I should hone on. That's right. Also, you asked a lot of questions. My name is Agatha. I am a solicitor. I came to the United Kingdom in 2004. I read law at a British university. I then completed a legal practice course and became a solicitor. In the meantime, I also did an MBA at another British university. I specialised in corporate law. I worked for a number of years in the city. I co-founded a Polish community centre in the Midlands. I often work with the community on a preventive basis, helping members of the community with the issues and problems and challenges that they face. I am a board member of the United Pauls and in contrast to the Federation of Pauls we represent the later influx of Pauls, so the 2004 succession. We aim to encourage the integration and collaboration of Pauls in the United Kingdom and indeed encourage them to participate in the political and social life of this country. We have no precise position on Brexit. However, I have the benefit of being able to express my own view on the matter and I believe that my view is shared by a large part of the community. However, it is worth noting that the view of the community on the issue is actually not by no means homogeneous. It is actually quite diverse so there are quite a few Pauls who are in favour of Britain leaving the United Kingdom, I should say. You will know that we cannot vote so I've been here for 12 years and I haven't got the opportunity to vote on a decision that it is highly likely to affect me. Although both myself and Mr Dixon who's a barrister who spoke previously are currently dealing with a legal challenge to that situation. So while we cannot vote we do object to being labelled migrants especially given the pejorative connotation that this label has. So I am a migrant and my British friends who are solicitors in Warsaw are expats. So that is the distinction. What's important to highlight and it has been talked about on a number of occasions now is the contribution that we make to this country. Again, referring to Professor Dustin's research 20 billion between the years of 2000 and 2011 as I recall correctly if I recall correctly. This needs to be recognised and this needs to be something that is being talked about as well. Indeed, also with people who do not wish to accept I think that there is a general perception that migrants take out more than they contribute. I like to emphasise what net contribution means. It's quite obvious but sometimes perhaps not as much as you would think. Net contribution of course means that not only do you cover what you take out but you also provide a surplus. I have perhaps a naive wish that politicians would focus on the facts and figures rather than sentiments. Although this sentiment is important and I will come back to this. I do not necessarily agree with the Derwish about English. I think that many people from my generation speak English very well. Many of them came here and studied at British universities. Many of them studied at Polish universities and came here and indeed worked in the city and speaking English very well and they are appreciated where they work and indeed value the contribution of what is valued by the employers. There are a number of other factors that also need to be taken into account. We live in a different world to what it was 30 years ago. My generation I would go as far as to say that my generation considers free movement of people as a human right. It is something that is so natural to us being able to go to a different country being able to study in a different country being able to go for a study break for a year here or there see other European countries meet other people and so on. It is different to my parents' generation. It is just so natural and obvious to us. The world is a different place. At the moment the European market is the largest market in the world but in 30 years time research shows that in 30 years time countries such as Mexico, Russia, China and so on are likely to have larger all of them are likely to have larger GDPs than any of the European countries. These needs to be taken into account. We ask there is no doubt about that economically we are stronger together as one single market. There is no doubt about that. Indeed politicians such as Barack Obama for example recognise this and that is why they express their views which are clearly in favour of Britain staying in the European Union. In terms of the argument regarding schools and the NHS there are a couple of things to mention here. Actually if you look at again hard data and research you will note that Polish children other European migrants as well but I say Polish children in particular because obviously we are the largest part of that group. Actually increased the level of education in local schools actually when it comes to subjects such as mathematics and physics and so on because obviously language is not that much of a barrier when it comes to calculations. There is obviously an added benefit of being able to learn another language I mean heaven forbid that any British child should speak another language. In terms of the NHS again a point to be made here is this, as Joanna indicated many of the children who many of the migrants who come here are young, they tend to be healthy ready and willing to work so in actual fact the the stretch of the NHS that is being talked about is perhaps not as as significant as they are trying to to tell us. And in terms of the stealing jobs argument two points to make here there isn't a set amount of jobs in the economy it's not that we have say a million job vacancies in this country and regardless of what the demand is for particular services there's not going to be any further jobs it's normal economy isn't it it's maths that's what it is if you have economy more than maths but if you have greater demand on particular services that means that you need to create more jobs and so on and so forth so that argument doesn't really hold that well and in terms of the wages a function of the free market that people will save jobs for whatever the employer should be allowed to to employ who they want and apart from obviously having to pay the minimum wage and that provides the consumer with benefits and cheaper services often better services I would say as well so that's something that ought to be taken into account as well another one more minute another so I will finish with this I would like to tell you a very quick story about what I think about the sentiment part which I mentioned and it is this, I have conversations about this with my British friends and I had a long conversation with somebody recently and about the benefits and drawbacks and this and that and he finished he can quite give me proper arguments it was just really the gut feeling that we are not getting a very good deal and then he finished his sentence with this we should have a privileged position within the European Union and I'm like was that and he says well because we're British and I'm sitting there thinking that is precisely the problem thank you very much maybe just could you say a couple of words about the case you're bringing, is it possible to talk at all James do you want to say anything about the case you're bringing given that the area where there seems to be such terrible discrimination it seems to be this one and obviously I can say one or two things about it essentially I'm representing a Romanian dentist who's been here for over five years now so he's in legal terms he's got permanent residence and he is challenging the two things now exclusion from the parliamentary franchise and now the claim is being amended to also challenge the exclusion from the referendum as well the referendum franchise mirrors the parliamentary franchise and the interesting thing is and not many people know this is that in general elections and in the referendum the vote is not confined to British nationals it encompasses most people here probably well it encompasses foreign nationals it encompasses a lot of Commonwealth citizens in fact all and Irish which are Commonwealth citizens and also EU citizens and also Cypriots and Maltese so first of all there's a discrimination argument that we have chosen to enfranchise some foreign nationals but not others what's the basis for that and secondly within the EU category there is a cross-cutting effect because some EU citizens are enfranchised and some aren't and so this is the Fulton challenge it's a judicial review and I should say that we are still seeking to get permission but it's now before the Court of Appeal and we will see what they make of it and I'll just mention this as well but I personally think that the idea of a second referendum isn't complete fantasy because if well it has to be I can see that the the remaining campaign doesn't want to talk about this for other reasons because I think it's if it's presented as a once and for all decision the idea is that it will galvanise people to vote who may I think that's the basic thinking isn't it but if you look at the history of referendum in since 1991 to Denmark treated mastery there's been a history of the people being perceived to get it wrong and then a quick vote that was the other way I personally don't think that's complete fantasy on that cheerful note Julie you want to say something you want to say something and Jonathan as well sorry Catherine the reason I mentioned that is because these legal challenges in terms of discrimination could actually be meaningful obviously for this referendum it's a bit late but if that does turn out for the case it could be could be actually quite meaningful so one minute Julie what are you going to say what help I've used help I've made my real question before was going to be to Damian about surely what use free movement of workers and free movement of benefits are different at the moment you've got a right to come as a person so it's not about free movement of workers only and the idea that you pay taxes to your home country would be absolutely toxic in the debate here but on the enfranchisement all of the EU it's a national competence none of the other member states allow British nationals to vote in their elections or a referendum either the interesting thing about jurisdiction is that we have enfranchised foreign nationals in general elections as far as I know no other country enfranchises foreign nationals in parliament well it goes far as they know the country but certainly in the European Union it's a policy but Damian you should check this then to the ECJ not to yeah well we've asked for a reference we'll see what happens we'll suggest it's moved slowly that's a trouble if I just to gather up some questions just a quick quote I just wrote a couple of sentences I picked up from publication the right to vote in the referendum will apply to UK residents who are British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens UK residents who are citizens of other EU countries will not be allowed to vote unless they are citizens of Ireland motor or Cyprus that is a price it's a definition of what you're saying so there is a restriction you've got to be a resident to be allowed to vote if you're in the common from the Commonwealth you have to be a resident of this country thank you Jonathan I mean I agree with you I want to repeat the point that I think that the idea that the polls here would pay the taxes the Polish government would be politically toxic but because this distinction between the mobility to gain from free movement and people who don't somehow undermine the concept of European citizenship as an economist I find this slightly bizarre American citizenship is widely accepted as being a concept that has political meaning people move from West Virginia to Texas in search of jobs all the time and they do not pay taxes back to West Virginia that doesn't seem to undermine in terms of the benefits to the mobile people apart from remittances there are benefits that I was talking about before to those of an adjustment mechanism we have economic evidence that wages are higher at a certain point is lower in Poland as a consequence of the migration as an adjustment mechanism so I think this is a slightly distinction finally second referendum I may maybe I'll look at idiot in six months time but I think this is totally different to Maastricht because we're not being asked to sign up to a treaty for which we're required our agreement is required to come into force this is it one time I think it will be politically impossible for any UK government to come back to the second referendum thank you I'm Adrian Fevel from Leeds I think it's quite difficult to make a comment on on these panels where there's so much good sense being talked all the way from compelling individual narratives through to fine research but no one is really addressing the central issue for me which is why all of this good academic research and other research is having so little impact on the political debate so I think it's due it's restricted to academics surely no but if I can finish I think it's quite profoundly to do with the kinds of very naive models of political knowledge that we're being forced to work with by the ESRC and by other funding agencies and I think a dangerous flattening of debate when the kind of knowledge we need needs to be critical, historical and challenging concepts and challenging the way in which things are being framed gets equated at the same level as I mean this the best possible way think tank type research or personal testimonies and so on and I think that's something we need to be addressing and shifting this into the area of law is problematic because law maybe facts do count and law maybe there is a channel for genuine scientific research in legal argument but that channel is not present at the moment in the British political debate any newspaper coverage that you've seen that is quoting academics they're reducing academic work to sound bites that they then put alongside raises like some people think that you know EU migrants are yellow or something you know it's it's that kind of problem that I think we need to address in an academic context Thank you Thanks for that I actually agree with my way and I'm on the critical historical side I wanted to just pick up the national, the return to national citizenship in David's contribution I have read your book so was it 4 opening 4 opening I'm struck by the same thing then it does seem odd you know so long after we've talked about post national citizenship so long after your citizenship has been there to be it is returning to the national as an organising idea and I'm really interested to hear why you think that's justified and why you think it's compelling now and to do that I suppose in place of my question is I suppose a fear of golden ages and I think there's a golden age of national citizenship you're imagining that someone would be returned to and I don't think we should be wary of that because it's too much forward and not right and I was to say it in the bad language which came up a few times and of course migration is completely different now I agree you know it it's a banality but in the year of internet and the mobile phone it's completely different and it seems to be a state that is really concerned of integration in a world where people just will have deep connections to where they're from has gone to be more smarter than in how it achieved integration and if language is the primary thing the state has gone to be smarter about making sure that all of those people that are not Europeans are actually being brought in that's what I'm saying so it's a bit like the thing I was trying to say about Labour long the state has gone to be smarter about how it handles integration Thank you Geoffrey It was raised by director in a sense that those who come are much younger and healthier and natural they use health services and the whole resource of free movement was really based on the general concept of guest work that people are mobile that people come and people go and they don't stay but the whole thing works continuously in terms of movement but the problem is people begin to stay and people get older and people begin to use the health service and the education services and that's why in a sense we do need to rethink it because the whole basis of the thing is based on something rather different which is on mobile workers rather than more static workers Thank you I'll take everyone, I'll give everyone a chance Are there any other questions that anyone wants to raise Mary Can you just speak of a tiny bit more Can you just speak of a tiny bit more Can you just speak of a tiny bit more The mismatch that was talked about between the education skills particularly once these new years and that being indicative of certain forms of prejudices or racialisations and those types of inequalities and what that might mean for EU citizenship and also an effective EU membership between states if you've got those inequalities that are operating Thank you I'm going to stop there and give the one minute I was wondering also a point about national citizenship this idea I think you said that national citizenship is a basic and return to besides the point that it's a bit of a crude choice between start and return which does seem to be sometimes in first especially in relation to millions of distance benefits there's a line of cases whereby the host state can refuse millions of distance benefits for large stretches of time but beyond the credence of the choice simple fact I think is that if you return you are by no means guaranteed any social protection in your home state I think until the 1980s there was a sort of minimum to distance benefit based on either duration of residence or if you are returning national but European Court of Justice has condemned that as being nationality discrimination my question would be this then if the European Court of Justice has dismantled that safety net should it then be reintroduced do we remind more that people fall in a gap in terms of social protection or do we remind more that this is nationality discrimination or do we remind more that this is nationality discrimination thank you all right David do you want to I probably won't be able to anyone's thing to have missed something let me know turning to Julie's point first of all if paper didn't make the distinction between workers and mobile use citizens the reality is that for use citizens and not workers as you currently stated they must be self-reliant so it all intends and purposes one or two they can't get benefits now if one looks at the consequences of that in practical terms it means someone who's being here for a couple of weeks doing very marginal work can get benefits at the moment where someone who's been here for four or five years almost all the way to a permanent residence can't and that strikes me as a discrimination between a use citizens that is wrong it's probably highly in some cases maybe highly gendered but it goes to different levels of participation in the labour market et cetera now on the question about whether it's politically toxic both you and John Finlay first of all I don't find that a good argument at all on an academic setting the work out whether it's principled not whether it works or not and I think it's a highly principled position I don't see why it's a Hungarian vision in check should be paying for doctors that the NHS benefits from that exclusively in relation to whether it would be politically toxic it's not clear that would necessarily be the case if you tend to how it's framed and the reality is that many EU aid citizens who are low income pay no income tax at the moment in the UK because of the relatively high thresholds you have to pay before you pay income tax they would pay tax back in their homesteads so it would actually personally find attractive it would actually be something a much stronger thing if you're arguing about pull factors to get them to require to pay tax for low income migration in that home state and that argument was never made it could have been made by some of the EU aid states but it wasn't made and it turned off and erased a lot of points I didn't say first of all I think it was misunderstanding the immobile don't benefit I say they are passive beneficiaries by much and it's a different thing it's about the issues about passivity and that is what they find disenfranchised now just taking the arguments about them one by one in the US many federal systems you have fiscal trends the citizenship deal you don't just have mobility and these fiscal transfers can be direct or indirect so in Germany it will be from land to land the US I think is a defence budget to do all the purposes of fiscal transfer to areas of a lot of it goes to the south in terms of employment and you can find various things now that's part of the citizenship deal the second thing that is different is you don't have a national citizenship at state level in the US like you do in the EU it is a dual system and the dual system at the moment does not work because the national citizenship dimension of it is meant to be a system of mutual accommodation mutual respect according to the treaties the european citizenship of it is very well defined it's less qualified which leads to disequilibria in my view now getting back to my passivity you raise the stabilisation effects that's a migration that can be beneficial for the home state that can presumably deal with unemployment problems that's true but that is a cumulative thing it's an economist's answer it doesn't look at the distributive consequences within the society you might well particularly as much of the losses of labour is over qualified as we've been hearing you might get a subsequent loss in human capital it's very difficult to work out we might be able to work out at a collective level for the state individual consequences for particular neighbourhoods etc and it's the quality of the change that is initially according to my argument the migration is bad it's the change that leads to some people destabilised relatively and the sense of passivity now the points grump I don't think this idea we're moving to a post national citizenship world I'm sorry I just disagree with that the EU specifically says that national elections are for national citizens and most of them I still believe in Marshall and say that they would see that all my citizenship voting a national election mainly for tax and spend aspects what EU citizenship has come along with and done as has citizenship in the Macerson is given an alternative which is cast in the treaties as additional not organising alongside that now my paper is not arguing for re-nationalisation I would strongly disagree with that it is arguing for a relationship between the two national citizenship is about aspiration and mutual commitment to people after a certain period three years national citizenship has a special safety net for the ear mobile and for those at return now in relation to the last gentleman's point you relied exclusively on the court of justice there is nothing to stop a nation a nation state and this is a matter for elections national citizens to say we won't apply residence rules for our own citizens so it is perfectly possible on elections to say it is completely unfair for people who come back from diplomatic postings or whatever that their children can't get help with universities or whatever that is a matter for the national rules of the game and national citizenship and if they choose not to do that that is a matter for that society they can be bleated out one minute each just two points here one in relation to the contribution that migrants make but the fact also user said about the fact that people come here but then they stay yes that's true but by then they would have contributed a significant amount of money like many of my friends 40% of the salary in actual fact so yes obviously there will come a point where they will need the assistance of the states such as the NHS such as hospitals schools and everything else but by then they would have contributed a significant proportion of the significant amount of money to the system and therefore they should be allowed to benefit from that system and another point in relation to what the gentleman said about the media and the weight that is being given to particular arguments I absolutely agree with that but I think it's disgraceful that the opinion of say a Cambridge professor is levelled with somebody Joe Block on the street who has read the latest edition of Daily Mail so I entirely agree with that Miss Cambridge the professor is reading the Daily Mail to inform us of what he's written Thank you very much A few quick points really to address the comment from our gentlemen from Leeds Yes we are looking to make sure that the research that we do really makes a difference and is taken on board by policy makers obviously as we all know it's tricky it's not to say not but the study we carried out focuses on specific cities in four countries and the recommendations that we issued really focus on EU but primary the local level of policy makers decision makers to share good practices that are established in terms of managing inflow and unexpected big inflows of migrants to the UK and other countries and that brings me to the second point about the migration and the time issue and I completely second your point the inflows of EU migrants to the UK is unexpected by public services I think it was exceeding expectations by all means but there are things that are coming the health care issues, the educational issues that can be managed knowing of the number of migrants and the populations and another thing to say is that the differences within the migrant population they are not homogenous at all in a previous panel they are really very different and they are very well established older generation of the Irish immigration here in the UK through to the former EU 15 countries and the new Central and Eastern European countries and that brings me to the issue of language so you can also differentiate within the community of migrants those that come here with really good skills also qualifications and level of English to find jobs matching their qualifications it's not trying to generalise but for others that English is an issue that's a really key point and it's also coming from our research that it's really difficult to fully integrate and be included in a society if he can't really communicate way on so many different areas and that's really really critical on the mismatch of qualifications over qualifications and occupations just very briefly it's not specific to migrant issues the mismatch between qualifications and skills mismatch in Europe generally is a problem what we focus in our research was really looked at the migrants as such and we saw the differences that are really incomparable and knowing that one out of four European employers can't find people of the right skills and qualifications that seems to be an issue that could be addressed through the looking for a better involvement and use of the skills and qualifications of migrant population thank you quickly I think somebody said that a lot of the migrants don't earn enough to pay tax I think even on minimum wage on the 40 hour week they are well into the minimum tax bracket well into it that's one thing secondly language thank you for your support I'm surprised that the government has withdrawn ease of support in a lot of areas and also I'm concerned about the proposals to remove foreign languages from the A level curriculum which was moved a few a year or so ago which we fought very hard against and we managed to get a delay on that decision delay Do you mean GCSEs? GC, no, A levels You're not forced to do it for a language anyway No, no, but they will remove the opportunity to do it they want to remove the education aspect altogether and it wasn't just Polish there were other common languages that needed to be looked at so that is a worrying area I think that the majority of Polish people will be in favour of staying the residents here I think that Poland wants the UK to remain in the union as a country because there are certain similarities particularly between the governments despite their apparent differences there are very strong similarities and there is one aspect which is very important people have already touched on that if we leave the union as a country there will be the bad element of autocracy coming through in the workplace and workers' rights will be eroded I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist but I believe in fair play and I think that's a worry area for me Thank you I would just before I draw this session to close I would like to thank you all for attending this afternoon giving up your Friday afternoon I would like to remind you that if you would like more EU insight and thought advocate general is giving the annual McKenzie lecture in the law faculty which is just over the other side of the fence at Hoppers 5 I would like to add arbitration in EU law I accept that the subject matter is somewhat varied but it shows what a catholic organisation we are in the field of EU law and I would like to thank you all very much indeed for helping us launch our project any comments or other suggestions about what we should be doing and how we should be doing it greatly received but I suggest if you might kindly do that by email because I'm conscious that some of you are desperate to go and see advocate general Cot next Thank you in particular to this panel now and the panel before the break Thank you very much and safe trip home