European Politics

Thanks!

Why do people emigrate from the UK?

The majority of people emigrating from the UK are emigrating for work but the proportions going
for different reasons vary to some extent with gender, age and citizenship and also reflect changes
in the economic environment.

The IPS asks people leaving the UK for a year or more what their main reason is for emigrating,
and their responses are categorised by their main intended activity when abroad such as ‘ looking
for work’ or ‘study’. In 2011, nearly three-quarters (72%) of those emigrating, who provided a
reason to the IPS, reported that they either had a job to go to or were going abroad to seek
work.

Having a ‘definite job’ to go to was the most frequently cited main reason for those who
emigrated in 2011 (44% or 120,000 of those who provided a reason), as it had been over the
last two decades.

In 2011, ‘looking for work’ accounted for 28 per cent (76,000) of those who emigrated and
notwithstanding the economic conditions overseas, this number has been growing for most of
the last 20 years.


@Ariana: Amsterdam counted 10.244 of them in 2007. I am not sure how to interpret your figure. Over how many years did they leave to the NL?
 
I have no idea how long it took them and I don't know where they lived. I didn't count them myself, I'm just quoting figures I happened to see recently.
The explanation given there was that it wasn't far from the UK, it was cheaper than the UK and most people spoke English.
 
From my time at uni I would be surprised if it is the dominant ethnicity in Leicester.

Having a job setup abroad or looking for work abroad may not necessarily mean that they cannot get one at home, many people wish to travel for a few years and figure they may as well work as they do it. On the number leaving the country, quite probable that many of those are previous immigrants returning home after expired visa's or similar, there's more coming in that leaving though.
 
I would wager that Amsterdam is not the only preferred destination in The Netherlands. I hear Rotterdam has a bit of a thing going for oil trade, and you don't have to be a resident in either city to work there.
 
Also from the report:

Australia, the USA and New Zealand have consistently been popular destinations for those
emigrating from the UK over the last 20 years. The popularity of other destinations has changed.
For example, Japan is no longer a key destination for emigration but Spain has risen in popularity.
Poland, India and China have emerged as new destinations for those emigrating from the UK,
largely due to emigration (return) by citizens of those countries.

Where did those leaving the UK emigrate to in 2010?

The most recent complete year of LTIM estimates provides a snapshot of the key destinations
(Table A3). Of the 339,000 long-term emigrants of all nationalities leaving the UK in 2010:
• 40 per cent (136,000) went to other countries in the European Union.
• four per cent (15,000) went to the remainder of Europe.
• 19 per cent (64,000) went to countries in the ‘Old Commonwealth’ (including 40,000 to Australia).
• 11 per cent (38,000) went to countries in the ‘New Commonwealth’ (including 21,000 to the
Indian sub-continent).
• seven per cent (25,000) went to the United States of America. (ONS, 2011)


So, a lot more people go to the EU than I (and you guys?) expected...
 
Last edited:
Perun said:
I would wager that Amsterdam is not the only preferred destination in The Netherlands. I hear Rotterdam has a bit of a thing going for oil trade, and you don't have to be a resident in either city to work there.
Click to expand...
True, they are probably spread over the west, but I am not sure really. Still, Amsterdam's British community is large compared to other nationalities:

Source about 2007:

Amsterdam, city of most nationalities (177) in the world.
Antwerpen second: 164
New York third: 150

Total in Amsterdam: 743.104
Dutch: 532.548 (with only one Dutch passport)
Morocco: 64.588
Turkey: 37.421)
British: 10.244
Germany: 6670
Suriname: 5609.
And: 123.204 people with two pasports, one of them Dutch. So these could have some Brits as well.
 
Forostar said:
True, they are probably spread over the west, but I am not sure really. Still, Amsterdam's British community is large compared to other nationalities:
Click to expand...

A number like 200,000 amounts pretty fast if you take the British residents in all major cities, plus those living in suburbs of major cities, some living in the countryside, those married to a Dutch woman, those married to a Dutch man, not having much of an outward British appearance and whatever else. It's not a big number.
 
Black Wizard said:
What's an outward British appearance Perun?:huh:
Click to expand...

Wearing a black suit, a bowler hat and carrying an umbrella.

No, what I meant was that people don't sport themselves as British by adopting local language and customs so they are not instantly recognised as Brits.
 
Brigantium said:
But I do think it would get incredibly messy, regarding things such as citizenship, let alone EU membership, currency, armed forces and other shared aspects of the current state.
Click to expand...
Sorry to go back to an older point, but how would it be messy? Do Irish people experience all these problems? The answer is no. I fail to see how it would be any different for Scotland. Honestly, I really don't think any of these things are a problem. They are all solvable. With the currency issue in particular, all I keep hearing is we can't use it, we can't us it, as if this is fact. The UK cannot stop any country from informally using British Sterling i.e. of operating a currency board. The UK currently have British Overseas Territories who already do this e.g. Gibraltar & The Falklands. What's the difference? The only problem right now for voters, generally, is seeing the facts for all this nonsense. The question is whether you (if you live in Scotland) think Scotland should be independent. That's it.
 
Black Wizard said:
Those are exactly my thoughts Perun. One of the nationalist arguments is that an independent Scotland would not have be under the oppressive rule of a Tory government that we didn't vote for but to me that shows that the nationalists have a chip on their collective shoulder and that they're running away from the perceived problem rather than tackling it. The anti-Tory sentiment in Scotland originates from Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax policy which was trialled in Scotland more than 20 years ago. I haven't a clue what poll tax was but I know a lot of people were very angry about it and it pretty much wiped out the Conservative representation in Scotland. However, that was 20 years ago and I think that it's time for people to get over it and accept that the Conservatives, and Westminster in general, aren't anti-Scotland in any way. I accept that the Tories remain out of touch with Scottish voters and could try a lot harder to re-establish themselves up here but the perception that they're anti-Scottish is unfair.

Then there's the issue of the UK being London-centric. This is true. Most of the power and money is based in London but I don't see why that means the country is being run poorly or unfairly. If anyone genuinely feels this is a serious issue that needs to be changed then I think it would be more productive to campaign for reforms rather than independence. Running away from the London-centric issue won't solve the problem. Yes, it might give 5 million people "freedom" from London's tyrannical rule but the wider issue that affects everyone in the UK will still be there. Economic imbalances between the north and south of England will still exist and people who live in parts of the UK that don't vote Conservative will still have policies dictated to them by a Conservative government. For example, voters in Northern Ireland have absolutely no say in who the ruling party in Westminster will be yet they are still taxed by London. The situation in Northern Ireland is completely different of course and the Labour and Conservative parties don't run for election in Northern Irish seats, then there's the Republicans who run for election but don't turn up to parliament because they don't recognize it's rule in Northern Ireland.

Ultimately the issue with the Tories and being part of a nation centred on London should be debated by everyone in the United Kingdom and not just Scotland. Breaking away for these reasons is little more than running away from the issue and abandoning those who feel the same way. It's as if the nationalists feel that Scottish people are somehow superior and more important to the rest of the UK.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much life in Democracy though ... is it not? There will always be cycles where you do not agree with the party in power.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Sorry to go back to an older point, but how would it be messy? Do Irish people experience all these problems? The answer is no. I fail to see how it would be any different for Scotland. Honestly, I really don't think any of these things are a problem. They are all solvable. With the currency issue in particular, all I keep hearing is we can't use it, we can't us it, as if this is fact. The UK cannot stop any country from informally using British Sterling i.e. of operating a currency board. The UK currently have British Overseas Territories who already do this e.g. Gibraltar & The Falklands. What's the difference? The only problem right now for voters, generally, is seeing the facts for all this nonsense. The question is whether you (if you live in Scotland) think Scotland should be independent. That's it.
Click to expand...

Scotland saying to their citizens "Keep using the pound, they said we can't but who cares right" would somewhat piss off the UK government, and is pissing off other countries really the best way to start the whole thing?
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Sorry to go back to an older point, but how would it be messy? Do Irish people experience all these problems? The answer is no. I fail to see how it would be any different for Scotland. Honestly, I really don't think any of these things are a problem. They are all solvable. With the currency issue in particular, all I keep hearing is we can't use it, we can't us it, as if this is fact. The UK cannot stop any country from informally using British Sterling i.e. of operating a currency board. The UK currently have British Overseas Territories who already do this e.g. Gibraltar & The Falklands. What's the difference? The only problem right now for voters, generally, is seeing the facts for all this nonsense. The question is whether you (if you live in Scotland) think Scotland should be independent. That's it.
Click to expand...
The overseas dependencies are essentially part of the United Kingdom though and Westminster is responsible for the good governance of places like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. If we have a formal currency union then we'll be less than overseas dependencies which defeats the point of independence.
 
Crimson Idol said:
Scotland saying to their citizens "Keep using the pound, they said we can't but who cares right" would somewhat piss off the UK government, and is pissing off other countries really the best way to start the whole thing?
Click to expand...
Independence will always piss off a country. That can't be evaded.
 
Point is, there is a viable second option which will piss England off if they choose to be pissed off about it. There are plenty of countries with currencies linked to the dollar, who have not asked the USA. It doesn't matter. Plus, everyone in the Eurozone is in a currency union; is there some doubt about German or French sovereignty? No. These issues are all nonsense.
Brigantium said:
Messy in that I think Westminster would try to make life difficult if Scotland chooses to be independent.
Click to expand...
That's their choice.
 
It pretty much seems like they are saying "We want to be free of UK ... except for the parts of being part of the UK that we like and/or would be a pain in the ass to implement on our own" ... everything from figuring out currency to setting up embassies and a million other details makes this seem like a poor idea from a logistical standpoint and they should not really count on England to help them out.
 
More bad news for the Yes campaign this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said on the BBC this morning that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to join the EU as it would have to apply and be approved by all the member states. The difficulty with this seems to lie with Spain's struggles with their own separatists in Catalunya and the Basque region (does that actually have a name?). I suspect that the Spanish government would vote against Scotland's application because they don't want to give any credibility to the Catalan and Basque independence movements. The BBC interviewer also pointed out that Spain refuses to recognize Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Incidentally, 108 states recognize Kosovo's status as an independent country, including the UK and, predictably, Albania. Ultimately nobody cares if Fiji and Lesotho recognize Kosovo's independence though. The countries that do not recognize Kosovo's independence include, predictably, Argentina, China, Russia and, of course, Serbia. Interestingly Serbia is due to become a member of the EU in the next couple of years so along with Spain they could provide strong opposition to Scotland's membership of the EU.

Personally I'm not a massive fan of the EU as it has way too much power and interferes with the British legal system on issues that have nothing to with it. In the last couple of years the EU has been trying to tell Westminster that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections and that preventing them from voting is a breach of their human rights. David Cameron has stayed strong on this issue and top British judges have said several times that EU law can't supercede British law on this issue, but it still remains a contentious issue and is one of the reasons that the UK is somewhat distrustful of the EU.

However, as much as I am sceptical about the EU I think it's an important organization to be part of for economic reasons. An independent Scotland would be a bit of a joke in my opinion and Scotland outside of the EU would be even more of a joke. This morning's news looks like it serves as another blow to the Yes campaign as the message was always that Scotland would automatically become a member of the EU when it becomes independent. There also appear to be no alternatives to the major assumptions on currency and EU membership so, overall, it's been a pretty bad week for the Yes campaign. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top