ELECTION 2015: What the parties say on Europe and immigration

Many of the parties are calling for the public to have their say on whether the country remains within the EU, with the Conservatives pledging to hold an in/out referendum in 2017 if they win and UKIP calling for the UK to withdraw to “take back our borders”.

However Tory MPs are split on the question of EU membership, and other parties have argued that pulling out of the union would have dire impact on the nation's economy and jobs, as well as reducing the UK's voice on the international stage.

In the latest of a series of features looking at the key issues voters will be considering ahead of the election, we asked five candidates in Hampshire what their views are on the EU and immigration.

EUROPEAN UNION: Should the UK remain within the European Union?

John Spottiswoode, Green Party, Southampton Itchen: “The Green Party is in favour of staying in the European Union.. It is essential to have a European wide organisation to deal with the cross border issues, such as Climate Change and to agree common standards, for instance for human rights and workers protection.

“We need to prevent beggar-my-neighbour races to the worst environmental and employment rights standards because it is may be more 'economic' to destroy the planet quickly. However we are against EU centralisation. Decision making must be devolved to the lowest practical level.

“So, for instance, we oppose the Euro as that requires centralised financial controls and restricts the freedom of action for countries to define their own fiscal policies that are appropriate for that country.”

Ben Nicholls, Liberal Democrat, Romsey and Southampton North: “Politicians don't know everything; we need to listen to experts. The vast majority of business leaders, including 78 per cent of CBI members, want our country to remain in the EU, as do the experts in education, health and other fields I speak to. They, like me, know that our EU membership means more jobs, better business, improved prospects for our students and scientists, and being part of the world's single market.

Politicians should listen to the wider public, too. Support for our membership of the EU is at a record high.

"I'm pro-Europe because I'm pro-British. I want the best for our country, the only country I've ever called home, and the majority of people I speak to agree that this means staying in the EU. Leaving the EU would mean fewer opportunities for British businesses, for British students, for British research and agriculture and trade - and that doesn't seem pro-British to me at all.

“Is the EU perfect? Far from it. But to bring about reform of the EU which works better for us here in Britain - like exempting smaller business from EU legislation, and abolishing the EU's unnecessary bureaucracy - we need a seat at the table. Walking away won't solve anything, and especially not the problems like climate change and international crime which we can only solve by working across borders.”

Alan Whitehead, Labour, Southampton Test: “I wholeheartedly believe that the UK should remain part of the EU; our membership of the European Union contributes enormously to our prosperity and security. The economic case for membership of the EU is overwhelming. Over three million jobs in the UK are linked to trade with the European Union, and almost half of our trade and foreign investment comes from the EU.

“However, this doesn't mean that I think the EU in its current state is perfect. It is why we will work to change the EU, so that it operates better in the interests of our country. And it is why we will re-engage with our European allies to protect our national interest after five years of Britain being sidelined in Europe and isolated abroad.

“Labour will continue to open up EU decision-making, and implement institutional reforms to help build levels of trust among European citizens. We will work to strengthen the influence national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a 'red-card mechanism' for member states, providing greater parliamentary scrutiny.”

Julian Lewis, Conservative, New Forest East: “Britain should not participate in any project to create a single country called "Europe" - and that is exactly what the EU aims to do.

“Therefore, we should leave the European Union and deal directly, instead, with those countries which choose to stay. Our trading relationship with the EU states is extremely valuable.

“Yet, that is no justification for merging our economy with theirs, combining our army with theirs, subordinating our laws to theirs, or subsuming our foreign policy in theirs.

“We have important economic, military and diplomatic relationships with the United States, but no-one uses those links to argue that we should become part of the USA. The same should apply to the European Union; but it is led by incorrigible federalists who are determined to create a superstate. Ultimately it will fail, and it is better that we are not part of it when the crash finally takes place.”

Patricia Culligan, UKIP, Eastleigh: “No. The EU is an overbearing, unwieldy monster that, at £55m per day, costs us far more than we will ever gain in return. “Its stated intention is to gain ever more control over its member states.

There are 28 members and there is every intention to expand further. The Ukraine, of course, Albania and Turkey are in its sights. With every new member, our influence shrinks while the demands on our finances increase.We cannot control our borders, or negotiate trade agreements for ourselves with the outside world. Membership has destroyed our fishing industry. Cheap European immigrant labour, while a benefit to big business, our NHS and care services, forces down wages and creates poverty and poor working conditions.Despite every denial, the EU is headed towards the creation of a federal State with control of foreign policy, law, defence and policing taken away from individual member states. The European Parliament is an undemocratic farce with policy and all meaningful decision-making in the hands of unelected Commissioners.

“This is not what we British foresaw when we joined the Common Market in 1972. It is not an organisation we should be party to anymore.”

REFERENDUM: Should there be a referendum for the public to decide?

John Spottiswoode, Green Party, Southampton Itchen: “The Green Party supports a referendum on Europe to put the issue 'to bed'. It has a major impact on people and people need to be given the choice.

“However once decided we need to stop re-debating the issue as that creates uncertainty and damages the economy and our relationships with other European countries.”

Ben Nicholls, Liberal Democrat, Romsey and Southampton North: “There is, I believe, a strong case for a referendum: many of us have never had a say in our membership of the EU.

“A true democracy does give people a say over the really big questions - which is why the Lib Dems have said we'll call for a referendum if there's a further treaty involving a transfer of sovereignty.

“But any referendum also needs to come after a proper, balanced debate, which I don't think we've had yet. Sometimes emotive statements about the EU get in the way of the facts, and I don't think that helps.”

Alan Whitehead, Labour, Southampton Test: “I believe that Labour's focus in government should be protecting the NHS, reducing the deficit and tackling the cost-of-living crisis. “Taking Britain out of Europe would not be one my priorities.

“An in/out referendum in the absence of any of new proposals to transfer powers from Britain to Brussels, would simply paralyse the UK economy during an extended run-up to a referendum. This would badly damage the UK's economic performance and make the task of tackling the cost-of-living crisis far more difficult.

“However, if there were any plans for a further transfer of powers to the EU, it is right that people in Southampton should be able to vote in an in/out referendum. Labour will legislate for a lock that guarantees that this would happen.”

Julian Lewis, Conservative, New Forest East: “Definitely. The un-elected bureaucrats who run the EU fear a referendum, just as Dracula dreads the Crucifix. They know that their creeping process of European federalisation has no democratic legitimacy.

“Countries joined the Common Market on the basis that it was primarily (if not solely) a vehicle for economic co-operation. Time and again, our people were promised that our political sovereignty - that is, the right to govern ourselves - would not be compromised. But that is exactly what has happened.

“The promises have proved worthless, and the attempt to construct a single European economy, by means of creating a single European currency, has predictably led to tension and upheavals in EU states with widely divergent social and economic systems. Don't forget that those who are desperate for us to remain in the EU, previously insisted that we had to join the single currency. They were wrong then and are wrong now.”

Patricia Culligan, UKIP, Eastleigh: “Of course there should be but without the pressure UKIP MPs would exert you can guarantee any referendum, in the unlikely event of any UK Government actually holding one, would be carefully worded and manipulated to deliver the desired outcome of that Government: Yes to staying in. The funds provided for a No vote would be vastly less than the taxpayers' money spent by the Government in campaigning for the Yes vote.

“This is what happened in 1975 and in every referendum ever held.

“Last year proved decisively that the majority of the public here in Eastleigh is unhappy with the European Union. That is why UKIP swept the board here. The same was repeated up and down the country.

“It would be criminal for a democratically elected government to ignore that indisputable fact.

Even if the referendum did not deliver a No vote, a close call might encourage the European Commissioners to allow the sort of renegotiation of the terms of membership they are presently flatly refusing to even consider.”

IMMIGRATION: Is there too much immigration into the UK? If so, what issues does this cause and what would your party do to tackle it?

John Spottiswoode, Green Party, Southampton Itchen: “The Green Party values the ability for people in Britain and the rest of Europe to move about and work in different countries easily. We would like this to become balanced so that net immigration roughly matches net emigration.

“When it is not balanced then the effects of extra immigration needs to be managed by providing more services, such as school places, NHS facilities and so on. This should be funded from the extra income generated by more people working here and paying tax, plus possibly a European fund to support the mobility of people.

“Immigrants are a net economic benefit to the country, and perhaps ALL of the recent growth in the economy can be attributed to the fact that there are more people live and work in the UK now. In addition it is imperative that working people are not adversely affected by being unable to find work and by worsening employment conditions.

“To do this the Green Party would strengthen employment legislation (e.g. over zero hour contracts) and raise the minimum wage to a living wage of £10 per hour by 2020. We would also guarantee a minimum income for all citizens so that no-one needs to live in poverty, whilst at the same time encouraging people to work, even for a few hours a week, by making sure that there is always an incentive to work.”

Ben Nicholls, Liberal Democrat, Romsey and Southampton North: “My mum was born abroad. People like her who have worked hard and paid their taxes here are a fantastic part of our society, which is strengthened by being diverse.

“Students, visitors, people contributing to our economy - that's all great. But crooks, cheats and scroungers - that's not. We need proper border controls to make sure we know who's here and why, with visible security and firm control. In my view, it's right that people living here contribute, speak English, and work or study - rather than claim benefits. Those who overstay their visa, or who aren't contributing to our society, shouldn't be here.

“It's right and proper to acknowledge that our country is small and, in some places, very crowded. Immigration has come down, and we need to do more to get a fair and firm system. But it's also completely wrong to pretend that immigration hasn't brought huge benefits to our country - whether that's doctors, entrepreneurs, or teachers like my mum. I want those people to be welcomed here, and to carry on contributing to our British life and livelihood.”

Alan Whitehead, Labour, Southampton Test: “Britain has seen historically high levels of immigration in recent years, including low-skilled migration, which has given rise to public anxiety about its effects on wages, on our public services, and on our shared way of life.

“Despite the Conservatives' promise to reduce net migration to tens of thousands, it is now higher than it was when David Cameron entered Downing Street. Broken promises erode trust. Labour will never cut Britain off from the rest of the world. Our economy and our society benefit from the talent and investment of many of the people who come here, including university students coming to study. But the system needs to be controlled and managed so that it is fair. Low-skilled migration has been too high and needs to come down. We need much stronger action to stop illegal immigration.

“We need to strengthen our social integration and ensure that migrants can play their part in British society. People working in public services, in public facing roles, will be required to speak English. Those who come here will not be able to claim benefits for at least two years, and we will stop child benefit being sent to families living abroad.

“We need fair rules at work to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers, which undercuts local wages and increases demand for further low-skilled migration. Labour will introduce a new law to stop employers undercutting wages by exploiting workers. We will ban recruitment agencies from hiring only from overseas and crack down on rogue agencies by extending the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority where there is evidence of abuse.”

Julian Lewis, Conservative, New Forest East: “Most mainstream Parties accept that immigrants contribute much to British society and to our economy, but that their numbers must be controlled and their quality approved.

“Such arrangements are not now in place. In striving to become a single European State, the EU has created not only a single European currency, but also a single European workforce whose movements we cannot control. Furthermore, non-EU immigrants who enter and become citizens of another EU state cannot be prevented from moving here.

“My grandparents came to the UK from Eastern Europe 100 years ago, so I understand the benefits of taking in people who admire the United Kingdom, respect its laws and wish to integrate with its society. Yet, the totals must always be manageable; the infrastructure for housing and schooling must always be available; and those who come must not be hostile to our values or enemies of our democratic system.”

Patricia Culligan, UKIP, Eastleigh: “UKIP is not against immigration. We are not fools, we are well aware that there is a need for imported labour, not least for the Care Industry and the NHS. Our watchword is “Common Sense” and that tells us there is such a need. We know that Britain has a history of beneficial immigration. We are as proud as anyone of our reputation for tolerance and multiculturalism.

“But is there too much immigration? Yes.

“An understaffed business would seek to recruit more. But would it then throw open its' doors to every jobless person in the area? Surely it would decide how many and with what qualifications were needed. And having filled its' vacancies it would turn away further applicants.

“We have absorbed 5million immigrants since 1998 and we cannot build houses fast enough for our indigent population. Our NHS is underfunded but spends millions on providing interpreters and on health tourists. Nor can it import enough GPs to meet demand. In Eastleigh you often have to wait a month to see your GP.

“Too many, too quickly creates tensions. You see it between neighbours let alone between races. Common Sense tells us we are asking too much of our people. It is just not fair.”

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: What would you do to tackle illegal immigration?

John Spottiswoode, Green Party, Southampton Itchen: “The treatment of illegal immigrants by putting men, women and children into prison-like establishments is inhumane. No prospective immigrant will be held in detention for migration-related reasons, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, e.g. a prospective migrant who poses a serious danger to public safety.

“Decisions on asylum seekers and the like must be made much more rapidly. The Green Party considers that trafficking in human beings is also a gross violation of human rights. Any proposals to deal with this problem should not further victimise those who are already its victims.

“So the Green Party will treat illegal immigrants humanely whilst applying the law about residence rights.”

Ben Nicholls, Liberal Democrat, Romsey and Southampton North: “Put simply, we need proper border checks. For too long, governments have guessed at the numbers.

“We need to know them for sure, so that people overstaying visas, or coming here illegally, are dealt with effectively.”

Alan Whitehead, Labour, Southampton Test: “Labour's plan starts with stronger borders. We need to know accurately who is entering and leaving the country, which is still unclear.

“We will recruit an additional 1,000 borders staff, paid for by a small charge on non-visa visitors to the UK. We will introduce stronger controls to prevent those who have committed serious crimes coming to Britain, and to deport those who commit crimes while they are here.

“We will introduce full exit checks, so that we can count people in and out of the country. Short-term student visitor visas have dramatically increased, so we will tighten the system to prevent abuse, whilst welcoming overseas university students who bring billions of pounds into Britain. And we will keep the cap on workers from outside the EU.”

Julian Lewis, Conservative, New Forest East: “Illegal immigration can never be prevented without strict entry and exit passport and visa checks.

“However, so far as I can see, it is the sheer scale of legal immigration which is causing concern, together with the problems caused by the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and its sometimes perverse interpretation by judges at home and abroad.

“Given the EU's obsession with the "free movement of peoples" between all the member states, it seems doubtful that changes to restore British control over legal immigration from within the European Union will ever be possible without our departure from the EU.

“On human rights, by contrast, the Conservatives hope to bring in a UK Bill of Rights to take precedence over the Convention in such matters. It would almost certainly need a Conservative majority government to be able to pilot this through the House of Commons.”

Patricia Culligan, UKIP, Eastleigh: “Put at its' simplest, illegal immigration has to be tackled where it occurs and that, obviously, is at our borders, be it ferry ports, Channel Tunnel or our airports.

“What is needed is an expanded Border Agency and Customs and Excise. We are asking too few officers to cope with too great a workload. Common sense again!

“Countries like the USA, Australia, Japan and Singapore are spending more per capita than the UK on their Customs and their Border services.

“But, of course, we are struggling with our Budget.

“Well, we are paying £55 million a day for our membership of an organisation that is at least partly responsible for the demands that illegal immigration puts on that budget.

“A fraction of that sum would pay to increase our resources to tackle this problem.

“There have, also, to be fundamental changes in international Law that determines the right of a victim nation to repatriate illegal immigrants but that is a far more complex matter and, again, is impeded and confused by the EU policy of freedom of movement of workers within Europe.”