After Brexit, can the UK pursue its own national interest while still benefiting global development? A Global Skills Partnership (GSP) is a bilateral arrangement linking skill creation and skill mobility. The two countries participating in a Partnership craft a pre-migration agreement: targeting a specific skills gap, deciding how to allocate and finance training for potential migrants, and agreeing on employment terms and conditions for participants.
CGD Policy Blogs
Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has assured people that post-Brexit labour policy will be about the “cream of the crop,” making sure that high-skilled workers won’t face excessive red tape or heavy-handed visa rules if they want to work in the UK. The “migration problem,” in Hammond’s words, is not with “computer professors, brain surgeons, or senior managers.” A migration policy built on that creaky premise misses at least three key points: gains from trade, mutual productivity, and huge welfare gains.
Displacement can threaten regional stability. And it fuels divisive politics in countries that perceive themselves to be at risk of large inflows of refugees. So why is displacement still a tough, unchecked challenge? One major reason is that displacement isn’t—yet—a development problem.
Whatever you think about Brexit, it doesn’t make sense to secure Britain’s economic future by adding red tape. Theresa May’s government wants to tamp down net migration. That’s has opened space for some new self-defeating proposals.
Australia’s recent election has ended in a stalemate, with neither party scraping together enough seats to form a majority government. But amidst the flurry of election promises, one topic was conspicuous by its absence from both major parties’ platforms: the expensive, embarrassing problem of the country’s offshore detention centres for migrants and refugees.
Although the real value of global aid has grown 9% in the last five years, all of that increase has been eaten up by the rising costs of humanitarian aid and refugees. Instead of condemning more and more people to a long-term future as aid-dependent refugees, what if we turned the support they would receive from donors over many years into an endowment that would enable them to start a new life in a new country?
There’s growing recognition that the situation in Syria can’t be “fixed”. Western governments have instead lowered their sights to negotiating some kind of detente. That means that many more people will leave their homes in search of safety overseas. A key question coloring Europe’s debate over immigration policy is whether those new arrivals will hurt the wages of existing workers.
Britain’s highly charged debate about immigration means that migration systems and policies are potentially in flux—a chance, perhaps, for innovation. We believe there are opportunities to tweak these policies so that they deliver big benefits for poor people, avoid the most harmful unintended consequences, and make British people better-off.