I somehow sense this it not really a welcome, is it?

Yes it does. As the German insurance system would yours. And also, as it should since I was and still paying into the pot. So I don't feel the urge to be exceptionally grateful, in case you insinuated that.


This seems to be a term used in public debate to suggest being in favour of migration when all one actually just wants to close borders and cap migration. It suggests that there is need to control, steer and eventually cap migration when this is empirically simply wrong! I know it is counter intuitive but the evidence suggests that precisely uncontrolled migration has positive employment and income effects.

How can we say this? Well, first because of the group of migrants we looked at - refugees, surely the kind of group an immigration control system would reject.

How can we say this is not because of any factors that were actually controlling for? This is dealing with a so-called endogeneity problem: The number of refugees coming into a specific region may be determined the local labour market situation which would in turn be affected by that number of refugees coming in. Thus, we cannot empirically distinguish cause and effect. The way we deal with this is by constructing an instrument for labour supply. And that is the Danish refugee dispersion policy. Because coincidentally, it was absolutely random. That means that when precisely looking at an experimental setup when any kind of control does not matter, do we get these positive effects.

And why is that? Precisely because inlanders face competitive pressure! Since when did we start believing competition was something bad? Macro-economically, labour is essentially a factor of production. So allowing for it to be traded freely and internationally (no I'm not referring to slavery but lifting immigration related work restrictions) causes efficiency gains and makes us more prosperous.

So why not do it and just abandon all borders? Well, interestingly estimates suggest that world GDP would indeed rise by some 60% if we did that but the problems are mainly political ones. In other words, we simply couldn't agree on the right terms with many countries (availability of e-passports, problems with criminal records systems and all kinds of diplomatic issues). So we ended up in a system where we unfortunately still need way to many visas to live and travel in other places. But within the EU we could and we should really, really appreciate this.

This is actually the only good point I see on the side of the Brexit campaign, although I am a big-time supporter of that single state. Because, I believe, if you guys don't want to be member of such a project, why force you into it? I thought there were some good points raised on this earlier in the discussion. In the end, Europeans want their state, the UK doesn't want it. So why should it stay in, being on a permanent break on everything?

Well, truth be told, nobody forces the UK into anything. There is a permanent opt out from the Eurozone and now from ever closer union, so it seems quite clear that the UK gets that extra of autonomy and it will keep it. Most integration happens within the Euroarea and the UK won't be affected. But what you talk about is quitting treaties that have previously been agreed and that is jeopardising the relationship between EU and the UK in an unnecessary way.


Please try to understand what trading under WTO rules means! The EU is a member of the WTO, so it does follow its rules. The UK decided to delegate its trade policy to the EU because this way it would simply have a stronger negotiating position in the WTO plus lower tariffs! And the UK has a say in European trade policy! A significant one! WTO rule means less, not more trade! What Patrick Minford is trying to sell you is a lie. His calculations seem pretty outdated to begin with and underlying assumptions are preposterous! Do you really believe the UK would abandon all of its tariffs? Or that China suddenly does a u-turn on steel? And yes, the UK market is important to the EU, but don't fool yourself: a UK government would be taken to town in Europe in renegotiations. The Swiss had to experience and the Norwegians did as well. By the way, reputable research suggests that trading blocks actually increase world trade. And again, Minford is reputable. He is an Economist equivalent to big tobacco, climate change deniers or the NRA!


No, just partly. It was mostly a catch-up of growth following previous destruction. Other countries experienced it as well. But yes, I do believe in de-regulation, and surely it played a central role in our economic success. But I also believe in market failures and that the EU is not responsible for everything it's blamed for.

How is that untrue? You could vote in EU elections couldn't you? And your PM sits in the EC, doesn't he? He even has a veto there. The only thing you can't get over is that some legislation is decided Europe-wide, meaning others have a vote as well when you would just like to force your opinion on it.

Aha. Good to know. What a high quality contribution that is!