The title of the article is fundamentally incorrect.

The UK is applying administrative measures in order to protect one of its markets. Is it a market economy approach? No, it is an administrative economy one. The reason is self-evident - the UK economy (its labour market) does not have the capacity to cope with the competitive pressure coming from Bulgarian labour, and therefore in this aspect the UK does not meet even the Copenhagen economic criteria.

In many cases, on the UK market Bulgarian workers are happy to receive GBP 1000 for a work that a UK worker would not do for less than GBP 4000. Therefore the fear comes from the fact that UK workers are much more lazy than Bulgarian workers (a UK worker would be satisfied with GBP 1000 but only for 4 times less work).

Beimg much lazier, in fact UK workers are second class compared to Bulgarian workers in the UK.

Evan, I agree with Bulgarian. To be a "second class citizen" one first has to be a citizen of the country in question (or, at least, reasonably be seen as being in permanent domicile in said country). Rights of common movement notwithstanding, there is no obligation to provide full workers' rights to one group.

(That said, I resent the hackneyed claim that British workers are "too lazy" or migrant workers are, as always, doing "the jobs native workers don't want to". Temporary migrant workers may be working for several times the wages in their home country with a view, after a few years, returning and living comfortably. Low-paid British workers are stuck here, having to invest for their futures and often reliant on benefits systems which were originally intended for decades of personal payments, not the US style market economy we now have.)

You rightly state that the actual figures of 50,000 are a long chalk off those predicted by Migration Watch (that name always makes my skin crawl). But, you're being a little bit disingenuous, eh? Fifty thousand is, after all, 150% up on the permit number you cite.

The lure of jobs only convinces for so long. Even Edinburgh is now seeing hovels run by gangmasters, dozen or more to one property in conditions akin to chattel servitude. The government has not kept a check on this and other patterns of immigration, instead preferring to foster the image of “illegal immigration” or anodyne claims under-estimation of figures. Have a think about the beggars we’ve suddenly started seeing on the streets. My feeling is that they’re mostly Romany taken from a pretty miserable and oppressive life in Romania (where they’d been de facto slaves until the mid-19th century) or Bulgaria, and brought by said gangmasters.

I do not give them money - I do buy sandwiches or coffee - for the simple reason that I doubt any of it goes to them, but to some sleek blonde Polish mistress (I‘m referring to a specific individual). Remember the scam for an un-named orphanage during the Festival? Your suggestion that the 150% overspill be granted workers’ rights, whilst the best of intentioned, is as misplaced, I think.

Dear Alec,

Unfortunately, the "stuck" argument is no longer valid. There are so many retired low-income British families moving to live in Bulgaria in such a hectic pace that soon they will think about a minority status.

As I wrote, in the UK Bulgarian workers are happy to receive GBP 1000 for a work that a UK worker would not do for less than GBP 4000, which means that a UK worker would be satisfied with the same amount of GBP 1000 but only for 4 times less work. To want the same amount of money for much less work is pure laziness.

Your resentment is, of course, too personal for me to be interested in. On the contrary, I would be happy to read some valid arguments.

I will repeat, Bulgarian. My Britain has always been mutlicultural and I am more than happy with this, and the enrichment of social life and sense of tolerance of other cultures it has engendered. I have many good friends whose parents, or even themselves, were immigrants to this land.

I resent, however, your implication that British citizens are lazy. To make such a sweeping statement about Bulgarians would be reactionary nonsense. But, to make it about British citizens is to be considered "insightful". No, it's ingratitude. Ingratitude to enter a new house and immediately re-arrange the chairs.

British citizens have taxes to pay and the prospect of decades of life in this country during which they will have to plan for their families upkeeps. It all about being a community.

When you are a guest, yes, you are not supposed to re-arrange the chairs. But economic immigrants, like Bulgarian workers in the UK or British pensioners in Bulgaria, are not guests. Most frequently they have to buy or rent both the house and the chairs.

And then, at that point, everything changes. Community rules start meaning exactly the opposite - that you have to accept the fact that your neighbour can arrange the chairs in his new or rented house in a way that may displease you.

I honestly don't have stats on British retirees in Bulgaria, but I doubt they are working. Instead they are living off funds acrued during their working lives in the UK. Funds which would, I hope, go into the local Bulgarian economy. If not, and they are living in gated communities, I would agree with any criticism you have.

Now back to the figures of £4000 which you say British workers believe themselves entitled to. It is both rather too high for a monthly salery, and rather too low for an annual salary. Where are you drawing this from?

I know of a goodly many professional Bulgarian workers earning high saleries in medical or managerial positions. I have also encountered a number of Bulgarian workers in supermarket or cafe work receiving the same wages as their British counterparts.

If you can provide examples of Bulgarian workers receiving lower wages for the same jobs, I will agree with you. I realize that there is a shameful underbelly of mafia-like organizations keeping migrant workers in semi-captive conditions, as I alluded to in my first post.

As it stands, though, my suspicion is that you are referring to deeply menial or unskilled work - such as cleaners or fruit pickers - and comparing it to British workers preforming more complex, and therefore better paid tasks. Economic conditions in parts Bulgaria are pretty unpleasant, I have no doubt, but the British system's first priority should be to British citizens. Same would go if, despite housing or welfare crises in Bulgaria, preferential treatment were been given to wealthy British pensioners. Is it?

And why should a British worker take on an unpleasant, poorly job of cleaning toilets when there's a warm office or friendly cafe to work in? All to satisfy your belief that Bulgarian migrant workers newly arrived should be offered the most lucrative jobs?

It seems that, focusing on Bulgaria and Romania, you are forgetting things like cheap labour coming from Eastern and Central European countries. You should ask Mr. Bolkestein about his Polish plumber and, instead of giving him lists of British plumbers (which is not a normal economic behaviour), you should ask yourself why he prefers a Polish one. The Polish plumber exists, he is a fact - not only Polish, and not only in mafia terms. There are British plumbers, and if the Polish plumber exists, then with 1 to 4 or with a different ratio, the concept of laziness is correct - no matter how well you are trained in statistics.

You can have mafiotic chinatowns anywhere, and being or not a local citizen there changes nothing at all. You can even make a statistical research about how many mafiots are British or Bulgarian citizens, but besides the option that you may not like the outcome of this research, it will not help you a lot. Instead of speaking of citizens and mafias, you should speak of a normal economic behaviour - buying cheap (your house in Belgium) and selling expensive (your labour in Luxembourg).

But even if you stick to your mafia ideas - mafia, of course, is not a Bulgarian invention. It's an invention of a founding country of the EU and, therefore, it is normal that after EU accession, the Bulgarian mafia is given a chance to develop further - it has a long way before it reaches the actual scale of the mafia in that founding country. And be sure - mafias may not be the driving force behind economic immigration in the UK, but any kind of restriction on the UK labour market is giving them one more chance to develop.

As to quality of life in Bulgaria - if you look outside the gypsy ghettoes (all the same all over the world), you will be disappointed. Because you will have to correct your gloomy view. Here is a "Best quality of life" ranking coming from the Financial Times' fdi magazine - Greater Zurich, Switzerland and Stara Zagora, Bulgaria ranked equal ahead of all the other European regions for quality of life. Stara Zagora’s low-cost, newly-built accommodation and rich cultural heritage gained the judges’ vote.
http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/categoryfront.php/id/192/OCT_NOV.html

Bulgarian, I think we are - in bits at least - at cross-purposes, which I'll put down to your technical accurate but apparently lack of fluency in the intracies of English (not a reproach).

I am indeed focusing on Bulgaria and Romania, because this subject article discusses the latter, and your very name and stated priorities suggest you come from the former. I have, though, specifically mentioned a Polish gangmaster.

Nor did I suggest that mafia is a peculiarly Bulgarian institution, or even about Bulgarian mafias. We're talking about importation of migrant labour to the UK, so are not going to talk Chinese mafias smuggling funds to North Korea, are we?

Furthermore, I did not suggest that Bulgarian life is defined by grinding poverty (although it does exist to a greater extent than in Western Europe). I will say that I do think European Romani are better treated here than in their home countries, based on attitudes I've detected recent immigrants. But I'll be happy to be corrected.

Now, back to the £4000/£1000 figure. Where does that come from? The recent migrant workers in UK represent a population group which has skills to offer or the degree of organization to move here. So you're judging all of British society on the basis of the lumpen and unskilled population groups amongst us, and judging Bulgarian/Romanian/Polish society simply on the basis of the bright and most favourable amongst them. I daresay if I went to the Warsaw or Sofia slums, I would find inhabitants who do not reflect well on the national populations.

What were you telling me about statistical bias?

The UK economy does not have the capacity to cope with the competitive pressure coming from cheaper Bulgarian labour, and therefore it needs administrative protection. You may call it non-tariff barriers to the import of cheap labour, if you like - as far as "intracies" are concerned, they will not change the facts. As I already wrote, the ratio as such doesn't matter. What matters is that it is different from 1:1. Anyway, calling "in many cases, UK workers" with word combinations like "all of British society" is, with all my respect, a little bit different from "fluency in the intracies of English".

When you say that European Romani are better treated, you probably mean the Czech protective walls, or your British gypsies, with all their vardos and illegal campings. Better treated... is this a kind of a joke? Let me tell you only this - at chalga concerts in Bulgaria you often have 10 thousands of Bulgarian fans singing and dancing together with 5 thousands of gypsies. You will never have this in the UK. Not in your life. I would be happy to tell you some nice things about gypsies, but not here. You are too far away from the real picture. And the real picture, you can only start with it here
http://www.travelmag.co.uk/printer_611.shtml

To give you an illustrated example. Countries A and B both have eight hard-working inhabitants and two lazy inhabitants. That is, a 4:1 hard-working:lazy ratio.

Two hard-working B-ers move to Country A. This creates the false impression, taking B-ers from a skewed population sample, 100% in Country A are hard-working whilst only 80% of A-ers are.

Furthermore, the eight hard-working A-ers have, through taxation and years of community spirit, paid for and maintained a welfare system in Country A. Whilst, for reasons of charity and compassion, B-ers who find themselves in dire straits should be provided by some degree of assistance, this welfare system is not the product of their prolonged effort. In time - with the A-ers being an accepting bunch - through their contributions to the A-er economy and local culture, the B-ers will be welcomed.

What they might find a resistance to is their… well… your apparent expectation to enter the new house, open the fridge door and start eating.

Bulgarian, you have made statement X. This is not true. Therefore you are wrong.

Get it?

Nor have you, I note, responded to my question about the £4000/£1000 claim. What is this? Do you have examples of Bulgarian migrants receiving 25% of the wages for the same workload? Or does it come from the Big Boy’s Book of Made-Up Facts?

Next, I said I would be happy to be corrected about Bulgarian Romani. I am not here to perform a hatchet-job on Bulgaria, as you seem to be intent on doing with the UK. Yes, I was referring primarily to spine-chilling stories recounted by Poles and Czechs - either their encounters with it, or their own racist sentiments towards Romani. I recall, though, reports of murderous racism in Romania and Moldavia.

There is one rather obvious reason that you would be far less likely to see Romani moving freely at music concerts and sports events in Britain than in Bulgaria. We do not have a large noticeable native population. This is not to say that we haven’t received Romani over the centuries. This started at least 500 years ago. In fact, Morningside in Edinburgh was marked as a gypsy colony in the 15th century.

We do, however, have British Asians or Chinese or Afro-Caribbean or Africans, who you will see at music concerts and sports events (how I laughed when a Pole told me the other month that there were too many foreigners in Edinburgh).

Again, you’re not comparing like with like.

You didn't get it. Chalga music is something that unites Bulgarian and Gypsy musical traditions. If you are not talking about specific UK concerts with music uniting the English musical traditions with those of British Asians or Chinese or Afro-Caribbean or Africans, then you are wrong. You can always have some postmodern fusion experiments with Afro-Asian elements, but this has nothing to do with traditions. You cannot have Arabic elements in the Italian musical tradition in the same way that you can have them in Spain. I told you – you are far away from the picture, and I am not comparing like with like.

As to your "B to A" example, it is irrelevant because there is a substantial flaw in it. "Two hard-working B-ers move to Country A" is not a valid assumption according to my scheme. All B-ers that move to country A for a higher pay, should be more lazy than the other workers in country B, because their motive is to have more money for the same work, or the same amount of money for less work.

To conclude with it, with the citation below, I think, you can understand my "second class" statement. If you can't, probably I will not be able to explain it more clearly.
http://www.pinsentmasons.com/media/852316494.htm#Sainsbury
In a written submission to a House of Lords inquiry into the impact of immigration, Sainsbury's has praised immigrant workers' work ethic which is "in many cases superior to domestic workers". In its submission Sainsbury's said immigrant workers: "tend to be more willing to work flexibly, and be satisfied with their duties, terms and conditions and productivity requirements." Sainsbury's also believes the work ethic of immigrant workers is having a positive effect on its domestic staff: "In the long term, this could have a positive effect on their domestic colleagues.  In some areas we have definitely seen a positive shift in culture where migrant workers have been introduced, which has led to a more diverse workforce fostering a more engaged group of workers."

Here is another quote on the same subject.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldeconaf/999/econ161007_ev2.pdf
Q101 Lord Layard: Some employers, like Sainsbury’s, have described migrant workers as
having a superior work ethic. What exactly do you think they mean by “work ethic”? Are
they including willingness to take low pay and work longer hours?
Ms Anderson: I think you will have to ask Sainsbury’s what Sainsbury’s mean.

I am sure you will easily notice that Ms Anderson didn't want to say "no".

Bulgarian, in my experience, answering a question with another question shows that the speaker cannot answer the original question.

==> As to your "B to A" example, it is irrelevant because there is a substantial flaw in it. "Two hard-working B-ers move to Country A" is not a valid assumption according to my scheme.

I’m sorry, I burst out laughing at that point. Of course it’s not a valid assumption according to your scheme, because you have started with the assumption that Bulgarian workers are superior to UK workers, and are working backwards from there. You do not examine UK or Bulgarian workers on their individual merits; only against pre-conceptions that Bulgarian workers are superior. You are, to be perfectly honest, the optical isomer of the insular nationalists who read the Daily Mail or London Evening Standard.

Why, may I ask, do you believe you have the right to work in this country? Or, at the very least, do you believe the UK has the obligation to accept Bulgarian workers? I will repeat, I entirely support the decision to approve work-permits to a determined number of Bulgarian workers; despite our, as far as I can see, not being obliged to. There exists a historical link between us and our former colonial possessions. There is no such link with Bulgaria.

At the very least, accession rules provide Bulgaria with access to EU-wide markets and freedom of movement The UK, however, also has its own citizen to consider as priority. Again, I would be happy to be corrected on this, but I suspect that if they were a glaringly obvious law we obliges us to accept each and every Bulgarian who wants to, you… and I mean you personally… would be thrusting it in our faces. As it stands, your only argument is “Bulgarian workers = good; British workers = lazy”. You will understand if we in the UK consider this attitude to suggest freeloading.

==> All B-ers that move to country A for a higher pay, should be more lazy than the other workers in country B, because their motive is to have more money for the same work, or the same amount of money for less work.

You really didn’t think that one through, did you? From the beginning, you have been arguing… no, that’s not right, argument is acceptable in robust debate… from the beginning you have been demanding higher pay for Bulgarian workers. You have not given examples of professionals - health care workers, managerial positions, etc - receiving less pay. You have not explained the £4,000 versus £1,000 claim. You have, instead, spoken consistently in vague allusion and unfalsifiable example.

Now you claim that any Bulgarians moving here for higher pay would be lazy. Were they teleported to the UK? Did they leave higher paid jobs to migrate to the UK. No, in Methodius’ name, of course they didn’t. They moved here for higher pay. And, I wouldn’t blame them. By your own reasoning, though, they are “lazy”.

But they aren’t lazy, are they? They are Bulgarian, so are, by definition, superior workers, whereas UK workers are, until proven otherwise, lazy.

==> Chalga music is something that unites Bulgarian and Gypsy musical traditions.

Once again, it is ridiculous to compare the fusion of “Bulgarian and Gypsy musical traditions” with the UK, because WE DON’T HAVE A HISTORICALLY NOTICABLE ROMANI POPULATION. You might as well dismiss Sri Lanka for her failure to assimilate with Jewish society. Plus, I note how you consider “Bulgarian” to be distinct from “Gypsy”. (Sorry if this is below the belt, but frankly you deserve it.)

==> You cannot have Arabic elements in the Italian musical tradition in the same way that you can have them in Spain.

Of course you can. It starts with an R- and ends with -enaissance.

I am currently listening to Madness, a group of white-boys from 1970s London. Except they’re playing ska which derives from English folk as well as Jamaican reggae and New Orlean blues.

Does Bulgaria have anything like that?

No.

Oooo, you big fat racist, you.

If we don't have exactly Madness, we have plenty of bands who eperiment to mix all kinds of music. It seems to be fashionable, therefore marketable. If they can put all the music "traditions" in one style, they will. The year 1970 reminds me of a single of George Harrison, My Sweet Lord - you will probably tell me that it unites Jewish-Christian tradition with that of Krshna followers. I have to disappoint you. These are just experiments.

Yes, you're are right - I do not examine UK or Bulgarian workers on their individual merits. Doing so would mean that I deliberately choose not to look at the forest but only at some of the trees. I prefer looking at the forest rather than appealing to some old fashioned deconstructivist. The question "Why, may I ask, do you believe you have the right to work in this country?" is, unfortunately, not the question of a nationalist. LePen might vote in the European Parliament against me working in the UK, but at least he knows what the four freedoms are supposed to mean. There is one different question, but having the same answer. "Why does supposedly poor Bulgaria have to pay to the supposedly rich UK a portion of the famous UK rebate?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4721307.stm#whopays

I leave the answer to you.

Last but not least, you have immigrants from country B with working ethic superior to that of A-workers and this is a fact. This fact doesn't mean that their work ethic has to be superior to that of the B-workers. It's that simple.

Once again, Bulgarian, you fail to answer the £4,000 versus £1,000 claim, or provide examples of inequality of pay. You insist that your claims are “fact” whilst patently refusing to provide verifiable data. Excuse me if I think you’re disassembling and being dishonest.

As for the George Harrison example. That song was the result of one man’s experience in India. Skiffle (which, incidentially, the Beatles started off in) and ska are whole sub-genre of music resulting from fusion between English and Caribbean folk. I did not call chalga a mongrel style. You, however, persisted with your attack on UK culture and UK workers. My advice is not to pursue this mealy-mouthed abuse in any job interviews you attend.

==> Yes, you're are right - I do not examine UK or Bulgarian workers on their individual merits. Doing so would mean that I deliberately choose not to look at the forest but only at some of the trees.

Another comment you really didn't think through. Societies are made up of individuals, not some nationalistic group definition. You judge UK workers by the motes in their eyes, whilst you exponent away the log in the eyes of Bulgarian workers. The individuals you have cherry-picked as the best examples of Bulgarian workers may well, indeed, demonstrate a better work ethic than a group average of UK workers who, even if they include 80% hard-workers, still include 20% lazy workers.

I daresay if I went to a Sofia slum or Thracian village I’d find a proportion of louts or alcoholics, but your biased selection method declines this as it’ll dispute your pre-determined conclusion. Thus, you are guilty of academic fraud. (And please don’t tell me that Sofia is the Singapore of the Black Sea, or that Thrace is a agricultural paradise. Not knowing Bulgarian geography, I chose those two as entirely subjective examples. Such conditions and relative poverty do exist, whether you care to admit to or not, BECAUSE WHY ELSE WOULD BULGARIANS WISH TO MIGRATE TO BETTER WORK?????)

This is mild racism, plain and simple, which I'm afraid Evan gave currency to in his original article. I imagine he is not in competition for the low-paid jobs which the majority of various accession state migrants took. His praise for the work ethic of Polish bakers and call for more permits is - whilst the individual worker deserve it, no doubt - with little personal sacrifice.

As far as I can see it, you and he are both in love with the ideal of Bulgarian workers as honest, hard working additions to the happy multi-cultural family of the UK.

Italians are excitable. Chinese are inscrutable. Germans are humourless. French are good lovers.
Bulgarians are hard workers.

No. It’s racial stereotyping.

Societies are made up of individuals as much as forests are made up of trees. You can put it this way - to see the trees and not the forest is like to see the individuals (a certain X.Y., or Y.Z with low pay) and not the society. In order to have some examples concerning low pay of X.Y., or Y.Z., you have to prove that you can make a conclusion out of them. And in this case a reasonable person wouldn't conclude over several examples. Therefore your interest in concrete facts of low pay will be, of course, disregarded. For an intelligent person the question Q101 of Lord Layard would be enough to know that these facts exist.

I have to repeat - in many cases migrant workers, to your surprise, are not the best workers in their native countries. You may wish they would, but they are not, and this is widely known by those who at least have some notion of immigration. You might notice that Sainsbury's has praised immigrant workers' work ethic in general. Bulgarian, or Polish - it was neither specified, nor excluded. Moreover, Sainsbury's are not unique, and Lord Layard mentioned "some employers". I think at the end you will call these employers anti-British because they tend to prefer immigrants, and in many cases are less than happy with the work culture of aborigines.

You seem to derive too much pleasure from calling other people "racists" and from making unnecessary qualifications, so you are not exactly the type of consultant I would hire if I need to prepare for a job interview. As far as honesty is concerned - I have no idea about your own honesty, so your statement about mine is of no interest to me.

Some of my best friends are racists.

I do not reflexively call you a racist. I explained why I believe you judge one population group, i.e. Bulgarian workers, by the most favourable terms imaginable whilst you damn another, i.e. UK workers, according to the most harsh terms.

Just to ask again:

[a] What was the £4,000 versus £1,000 claim?;

[b] Please tell me of cases where Bulgarian workers have received less, e.g. checkout assistants, nurses, managers;

[c] Why are you an insular, Little Bulgarian?;

Factually based answers will be preferred, and not those from the backs of cornflake packets or appeals to authority of some Sainsbury's HR director.

Anything else will strike as an attempt to avoid answering questions which, if your case is so obvious, should be easy to answer.

If you were a little girl, I woud understand you sticking out for your little doll. But you seem to be a big boy. Which reminds me that I am not here to teach you the basics of immigration. You can do it alone
http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/1487/Come-to-Britain-and-get-rich

You obviously need it but, unfortunately, in the link above you don't have the lesson about the difference between a worker and an employee.

A factually based answer on your [c] question may not please you. The fact is that the excess in the question itself shows traces of a strong inferiority complex.

Some of my best friends are racists.

I do not reflexively call you a racist. I explained why I believe you judge one population group, i.e. Bulgarian workers, by the most favourable terms imaginable whilst you damn another, i.e. UK workers, according to the most harsh terms.

Just to ask again:

[a] What was the £4,000 versus £1,000 claim?;

[b] Please tell me of cases where Bulgarian workers have received less, e.g. checkout assistants, nurses, managers;

[c] Why are you an insular, Little Bulgarian?;

Factually based answers will be preferred, and not those from the backs of cornflake packets or appeals to authority of some Sainsbury's HR director.

Anything else will strike as an attempt to avoid answering questions which, if your case is so obvious, should be easy to answer.

If you were a little girl, I would understand you sticking out for your little doll. But you seem to be a big boy. Which reminds me that I am not here to teach you the basics of immigration. You can do it alone
http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/1487/Come-to-Britain-and-get-rich

You obviously need it but, unfortunately, in the link above you don't have the lesson about the difference between a worker and an employee.

A factually based answer on your [c] question may not please you. The fact is that the excess in the question itself shows traces of a strong inferiority complex.

Kindly answer my questions, Bulgarian. I have responded to your various attempts to deflect from, I think, my perfectly reasonable requests for you to substantiate your various attacks on UK society and work-ethic.

Here's a tip, you're not Jack Nicolson, and I can handle the truth. Go on, big boy.

Read the linked article, big boy. It always helps reading first, then thinking, and only then writing comments.

Translation - having written a whole load of substantiated bollocks about the inherent laziness of one population group, in the hope that either because it was merely British workers I was insulting or that only the hand-wringing PC brigade would read this site, I am now flapping in the wind and chucking about secondary reports in the hope that no-one notices my absolute lack of any integrity or argument.

Yes, I noticed.