The Dangerous Waters of Immigration

One of the founding principles of the European Union was the free movement of people within the Union.  This was strengthened even more with the creation of the Schengen zone which essentially stopped border controls between signatories of the Schengen Agreement.

One of the goals in this was to allow workers in a country with a less robust economy to move to another country where their chances for employment would be greater.

This was always going to be somewhat contentious as unemployed workers would possibly take jobs at less favourable terms than many local workers, especially in those countries where the social welfare net was relatively attractive in comparison to the lower paid more onerous jobs often sought out by immigrants.

That being said that this would be the case is more a reflection of the mismatch between unemployment benefits and compensation at the lower end of the range as well as the "entitlement" mind-set of some sections of the unemployed.

For that reason I am a strong proponent of minimum wages which, despite their cost at source to employers actually can help move people off welfare lists into employment.

This was behind the German Social Democrat (SPD) party's demands in the coalition negotiations which were recently approved by the SPD membership.

What was not intended by the free movement of people within the European Union was that people from high unemployment countries with poor social welfare systems would move to countries with strong social welfare systems thus providing them with health coverage, housing and unemployment benefits.

It does not matter if the numbers involved in this sort of "welfare" tourism are low or not.  What they do is put the whole structure of the EU at risk.

I am not promoting an anti-immigration policy.  I am suggesting that there have to be controls and regulations governing the movement of people even if they make it more difficult. That does not mean that intra-EU immigration should stop.  It does mean that there should be stronger controls as to who is eligible for health, housing and unemployment benefits.

It cannot be the case that host countries suddenly are responsible for "internal" immigrants.  No system can withstand this economically, and perhaps more importantly, it opens the door to right-wing nationalist groups long on rhetoric and short on substance, whose populist slogans find resonance in the population at large.

But clever, and more importantly, ethical politicians should not use such controls merely as a means of garnering support predicated on populist propaganda. 

They should not only be rigorous regarding EU immigrants; they should also be relentless in pursuing their own "domestic" tourists who have become ingrained in a benefits culture with no intention of assuming responsibility for their own well-being, and happy to blame someone else for their predicament.

I am a strong believer in the benefits of the EU but recognise it can only be as strong as its' member states.  It all starts with the social contract between the state and the electorate at large.