good afternoon we can start thank you very much for being here we have many people here today and we are very happy i would like to introduce to you christian dustman he is a labor economist he is the director of cream and also president of the european society of labor economics cream is an independent center for research and analysis of migration my name is paola pica i'm a journalist and a worker at corriere de la sierra daily the impact of migration flows is a topic which is at present debate and not only at universities the intent is of course that of shedding light on reality and dissipates and ungrounded concerns if any as you probably noticed here at the festival we have several sessions on the very topic of migration and some maintain that this is a pokemaking crisis a veritable threat for the eurozone as was the case with the debt crisis in 2012 and professor dustman certainly will tell us whether these uh ideas are correct or not certainly there is in general concern and there are worries in america and also in europe about the fact that we have migrants stealing away jobs from the natives or there is a fear that wages may be reduced by the very presence of migrants several studies actually testify to the fact that it is not so and professor dustman was one of the very first ones to evidence that it was not so at the time it was the focus was on community migrants the focus was again on community migrants and that was also the case with the united kingdom the world bank estimates that by 2025 the world gdp might grow by 350 million dollars with a 3 percent increase in labor in wealthy countries again in 2025 but we're talking about costs and benefits we know that in italy worries actually concentrate on the fact that we cannot host so many refugees and there is an increasing concern on our capability of rescuing human lives of course the rescue activities do have a cost and they agree with what de mauro the director of internationale said who wrote yesterday that we do not want to be the generation or the generations who did not do enough or who were indifferent and turned their head the other side i can't actually remember the name but a judge from sicily said that it would cost less to send the military ships to go and take migrants and bring them to italy then providing assistance to them at sea as a whole experiences a paradox which is that of a demographic crisis while at the same time fences and walls are being built to stop migrants and prevent them from entering our countries now i would like to give the floor to uh professor dustman and my question to professor dustman is whether it is still correct to draw a distinction between economic migrants and refugees or asylum seekers thank you thank you very much i'm speaking about an issue foreign refugee migration because the debate as it is that today is very often pretty uninformed and uh well that is something which hopefully we can fix to something so before i start let me give you some idea about the structure i first want to define who and what actually is a refugee i would like them to talk about asylum and refugee policies in europe about attempts to harmonize these policies and where we are in that particular direction i then talk about the current crisis and i will give you some numbers on recent refugee movements i will then talk about the economic aspects of refugee migration and how refugee migration compares to another type of migration and i always think it is unbelievably important to distinguish those two types of migration and that is economic migration and will then end with the political polarization and how well past experiences european countries have had with refugee migration has impacted on the political spectrum and boat shares by just giving you one particular example and in the end i will then draw some conclusions and make some statements which may help us to open up for discussions and questions well what and who actually is a refugee the term refugee is often used in two different contexts so first of all a person who flees the country of origin is often referred to as a refugee secondly a person who has refugee status in a country of asylum is often also referred to as a refugee and this last definition is the definition which is often used in statistical statistical numbers uh we are we are seeing uh in national statistics in our country so in between these two stages the person may apply to get granted asylum statements to look at that in a graphic diagram somebody who flees the country of origin is by definition a refugee however he is not a refugee in the sense from the perspective of the destination country that person will then go to a particular country and ask for asylum in that particular country the country will look at the claim and will decide that claim so on average about 18 to 20 of claims are decided positively in europe today that person then obtains refugee status if the claim is decided positively and is referred to as a refugee if the asylum application has been unsuccessful the asylum claim is rejected and ideally that person should go back to his home country but not always as i will point out now what is actually the basis for how we think about refugees today now as a result of humanitarian disaster we have seen in the middle east we had a large flow of people coming to our countries and well the countries of the european union and many other countries around the world are signatories to the 1951 geneva convention for refugees and that convention permits countries to give asylum and decide on the refugee status of people who are persecuted for reasons of race religion nationality membership of a particular social group or political opinion now you will see in this definition there is not uh displacement because of war and that is very important for instance during the bosnian crisis refugees who went to germany from bosnia were not considered to be refugees under the geneva convention but they had some intermediate status now these people are then called asylum seekers until they are granted refugee status either by the contracting state which could be any of the eu member states or the united nations high commissioner for refugees short unh cr what does the geneva convention for refugees and in the following slides i will simply refer to that as jcr say about say about refugee status well there are three provisions three important provisions in the geneva convention the first definition is the definition of a refugee or asylum seeker which is the quote i have just read out to you on the previous slide the second is the so-called not refoulement clause so that clause means that an applicant cannot be returned where his life of freedom is threatened even if that person is failing to obtain refugee status now for instance if somebody comes from an area of war however doesn't fulfill the requirements to be granted full refugee status under the geneva convention the country which is deciding upon that particular application can not uh send that person back to that area because his life may be threatened and that has led to many subsidiary reforms of protection across different european countries and across different countries around the world now the third provision is that unauthorized or very often also referred to as illegal migration does not exclude an individual from procedures to determine refugee status so if the many people who are fleeing the disaster in the middle east at the moment enter european countries in an unauthorized way that does not mean that we do not have to decide about their refugee status and that is exactly what we are seeing at the moment happening so that is the entry what about longer term solutions well the convention has not much to say about it what it says is that assimilation and naturalization of refugees is encouraged but the geneva convention does not provide the right for the refugee to have permanent residence that's up to the receiving country and we will see a little bit later down my talk that there is a lot of challenges for receiving countries at the moment how to deal with permanent solutions to the current crisis the unhcr identifies three forms of doable solution for refugees the first form is returned to the country of origin if the source of fleeing a particular country is not existent anymore secondly a local integration in the country of first asylum and third resettlement into third countries and all three tools are actually used currently and have been used in past refugee movements europe has experienced asylum and refugee policies in you now of course if you have an area of free travel like the schengen area or you have an area where you have free mobility like the european union at large then coordination on this very particular aspect is very very important now the geneva convention for refugees provides a framework but it doesn't really give us trick rules so that means there is a lot of interpretation possible how to interpret the geneva convention how to deal with asylum seekers when deciding about their claim there is a lot of leeway for countries to determine what actually is a safe origin country and what is a safe third country and when you look at the different legal texts just at looking at member states of the european union you will see that for instance the definitions of third countries which are safe or of safe origin countries differs dramatically between different european member states that's one source of the coordination problems we are facing at the moment well more generally one can say that the interpretations of the geneva convention became stricter since the late 1980s and the early 1990s when the breakup of the soviet union led to the first large in-floor refugees not surprisingly there have been many attempts in europe to come up with a common european asylum system to create coordination on the various issues which are opened up by individuals who flee persecution or who feel humanitarian disaster coming to european shores there has been a series of eu directives aimed at harmonizing standards procedures and processes probably the most famous one is the dublin convention and it became famous because it failed so utterly over the last two years the dublin convention was set up in 1990 and it was set up to well avoid that asylum seekers who did not get asylum in one european member state simply walked to the next european member state and asked again the dublin convention foresees that responsibility for asylum claims are with that country to which an individual enters the european union and it is very obvious uh in the case of italy and greece and what we have seen in 2015 and in the early month of 2016 that the dublin convention has not been really designed for the type of challenges the european union is facing at the moment there have been other treaties the treaty of amsterdam in 1999 there have been many treaties which tried to build a common european asylum system there has been the establishment of contacts to protect the common european borders but i think overall one could probably conclude that the attempts of harmonization which are very important had relatively little success i want to give you some examples about the challenges we face in the direction of coordinating our asylum and refugee policies for instance the eu agreed in september 2015 on relocating 160 000 refugees over two years from italy and greece to other member states of the european union there were several countries who voted against the scheme but many countries who agreed upon this game as of may 2016 only five percent or seven thousand four hundred of these places have been made available and less than one percent or one thousand four hundred of refugees have actively been relocated and i don't think that uh in the next year we will see much progress on that particular fund to give you another example uh in this graph i have on the horizontal axis for the period between 2000 and 2014 the applications per 10 000 of population for different european countries on the vertical axis is the share of applications which have been processed on a yearly basis so that is the speed with which the asylum system or the system which is deciding about asylum claims of refugees is working in different countries now the first thing i want to point out is that the speed of those institutions is not correlated at all with the number of asylum claims a particular country receives the red line is the regression line and it is simply flat but what you also see is that there is dramatic heterogeneity in the speed of deciding asylum claims for instance while agrees on a yearly basis decides about less than 40 percent of asylum claims countries like great britain and denmark decide uh on more than 70 percent of assad and many countries are in the middle another example is uh well the approved asylum applications again i cannot give you numbers for 2015 but only to 2014 but i think that is enough to make the point what we have here are the 10 main countries in europe which received asylum applications the first column gives you the number of refugee started which have been granted the second column gives you the share of those refugees starting which are granted under the full geneva status as i said earlier some individuals do not get full geneva status but are not sent back because of particular conflict situations in the countries where they are coming from so for instance in the case of austria 79 of applications of refugee study our refugees started under the full protection of the geneva convention that means 21 percent are some subsidiary forms of protection now you see dramatic differences between countries on that particular number overall italy has granted about 17 percent of all refugees 30 which were granted under the full protection of the geneva convention while that number has been 90 percent for united kingdom you may now say well that is maybe due to italy receiving different refugees in the last column i'm giving you the share of syrian refugees with full geneva status and again while the united kingdom granted 97 full protection on the geneva convention that is only the case for 10 for sweden so large heterogeneity in the way the geneva convention or the text of the geneva convention for immigrants or for refugee immigrants from particular parts of the world is interpreted in different member states and of course that is in the times of social media something which is transported very quickly to refugees and is one reason why there are particular preferences for particular countries in refugee population now another example are the recognition rates on the horizontal axis here is again the share of applications cleared which was on the vertical axis in one of the previous diagrams and on the vertical axis this time is the recognition rate so in the case of greece for instance the recognition rate is pretty low it's about three percent while in the case of great britain and denmark again it is just under 20 so this is the weight of asylum applications which are granted some form of refugee status or subsidiary refugee status large differences across different european members so i could i could go on but i think you get the basic message so at the moment the way the geneva convention is interpreted in different member states is quite dramatically different if we want coordination and if we want to make progress on harmonization we have to address these differences and i come back to that a little bit so the current crisis this is not the first refugee crisis we have the first really large refugee crisis was initiated by the potsdam agreement uh after the second world war which basically we drew the borders of europe unfortunately also the borders of many asian countries which led to conflict in those countries and because of that we had large movements of large populations so in the case of germany for instance in the years from 45 to 50 in particular 45-46 about 15 million germans were leaving areas which were formerly germany became then poland or parts of the soviet union and moved westwards the second larger refugee crisis was after the breakup of the soviet union and the fall of the berlin wall in the 1990s europe was very heavily affected by that by the political upheaval in the southeast and in particular in the balkan region so yugoslavia broke up and we had a number of local conflicts in that area which were very violent and very created a large displacement so overall about 2.7 million people were displaced by the mid 1992's from the balkan region of which over 700 000 sought asylum in european member states 400 000 alone in germany and they received a status which was what i would call a subsidiary status they didn't receive the full refugee status under the geneva convention because they were not fleeing persecution but they were fleeing awards a very large part of these refugees about 85 percent where we resettled in the years after the conflict had debated now what is the difference between the balkan priests in the early 1990s and today well those of you who remember that period will remember the unbelievable optimism which gripped europe after the fall of the berlin wall the prospects of an economic future which was right for everybody was there to grab everybody was optimistic and there was a very strong belief in european integration and the european union the problems we had in the balkans were considered as a european they were a problem with which western countries uh had to deal and where western countries had in the end the means to end the conflicts and that is what happened the intervention of nato in the balkan ended that conflict successfully migrants were culturally relatively similar and they came in smaller numbers today the situation is very different today of course the numbers are larger the political context is a very different one we have a european union which is weakened by economic turmoil after the economic crisis of 2008 many countries haven't got a grip on their economic direction and economic reforms are still pending it is far larger and far more heterogeneous than it was in the early 1990s and most importantly it is riddled by by by political populism political populism which i believe is not uh related necessarily and for most to migration or the refugee crisis it is related to economic problems and economic disappointment in many countries but the refugee crisis puts basically oil on that particular fire it restricts many countries from doing what they would probably otherwise do and i can give you many examples and probably you have many examples yourself now the other important aspect is that europe has very little influence on the sources of the crisis the syrian and the afghan conflicts are outside europe's geopolitical remit they are driven at the moment by um well an ever-changing composition of a different interest russia is involved the united states are involved some european countries are involved but also new powers in the our world which the first time became now very outspoken such as iran and saudi arabia are involved in this conflict so it is very difficult for europe to determine the end of that situation and to restore security in that area and that creates a lot of uncertainty about how long this crisis is lasting and a lot of well uh difficulty how we should deal with that crisis and i will come back to that there is also a complex turkish position and there is a very fragile political dialogue between the eu and turkey and turkey of course is a key country in this particular country let me give you some numbers again unfortunately i don't have all the numbers for 2015 because numbers from the unh cr is only available until 2014. so this is the refugee population by area of origin between 1980 and 2014 unfortunately only and you can see immediately that well the last peak in millions here these are worldwide refugees according to the first definition i gave you individuals who flee from one country to another country because of conflict or persecution well in the 1990s it peaked at something like 15 million and already in 2014 we were very close to that number in 2015 we have clearly superseded many of these people are seeking asylum what i have here is the number of asylum applications by origin and here we have 2015 included and you can see that between 2013 and 2015 that number has shut up uh very dramatic from something like half a million uh to something like 2 million applications by 2015 and i would think that 2016 is well maybe getting a little bit calmer but still very significant now how do individuals cross into europe and this is uh for well what what i have in this graph is the wet line with this which is from front x information and that is what we are calling illegal crossings so these are crossings of individuals in some country of the european union of illegal nature and again you can see that from 2014 2015 this has dramatically increased the different bars i have in this diagram give you the three main routes and the difference between say this point in the graph and this point are other rules there are many other ones depending on the origin countries but what is pretty clear here is that the roots are changing dramatically so in 2015 the main route has been the eastern mediterranean that is via turkey and greek islands into europe the second most important route has been the west balkans and the third most important route was the central mediterranean which is a can be separated afghanistan uh uh yes um is um um foreign um um very severe um we um lower probability to be employed than natives across a set of european countries let me let me talk towards the end a little bit about political polarization so one one one dilemma many countries are facing at the moment is that they are pursued by populist parties that is uh well the case to some extent in italy and these populist parties are to be found on the left as well as on the right this is a completely new phenomenon to that magnitude across europe and as we all know this has also gripped now the united states these populist parties are well very often uh thriving on an anti-immigration agenda and it makes it therefore very difficult for politicians to deal with that challenge now to what extent uh refugee allocation or refugees really create political polarization of course is a very important question and we started working on that by looking at um a country uh which which so so so so a major issue in europe is therefore the political fallout of refugee allocation now the question we would want to have answered is whether refugee allocation is creating to some extent an increase in the vote shares of parties on the right side of the political spectrum who have an anti-immigration agenda to answer that question is unbelievably difficult because immigrants and particular refugees are usually not going into areas where right-wing political parties are very strong so what we have used here is an allocation policy in denmark where between 1987 and 1998 refugees have been randomly allocated to different municipalities and we have that went over three parliamentary elections and three municipal elections and what i'm showing you now is how that has affected the political vote share in those different regions and this graph is for the 95 percent rural areas i can't pronounce the r so that's r u r not urban areas in denmark um and what you can see is there is very clear evidence for polarization so the allocation of refugees one percentage point increase in the allocation of refugees to a particular municipality led to an increase in the vote share for anti-immigration parties by more than one percent given that these parties only received about between six and eight percent this is quite a large effect on the other hand at the left side of the spectrum parties have been losing now these are the 95 percent rural municipalities let's compare that to the urban centers if we do that the picture is completely different in blue again i have the google areas in wet i have the urban centers and what you see there is that allocation of refugees had rather the opposite effect it decreased the vote share for anti-immigration parties and it increased the vote share for centre-left parties now why that is is something we are exploring at the moment but what is the message here is the different regions within a country and probably also different countries have a different potential to absorb refugees and that has to be taken very seriously if we now talk about allocation mechanisms so you will hear tomorrow a talk by by a spanish economist who will talk about a possible quota system where we can compensate countries who find it politically too risky to accept refugees and there are a number of solutions by economists on the table but what i want you to take from this year is the potential of absorption differs across areas in a country and certainly will differ across countries as well so let me conclude what do we learn from all that or what do i take from all that well first of all i think in the future and unfortunately we haven't learned very much from the second iraq war but i think in the future we should be much more cautious to avoid situations which actually create large refugee flows while in the past these refugee flows were confined to neighboring countries this crisis has shown us that well for many reasons social media communication and transportation there is a large potential for people to actually arrive at our shores so we have to avoid these situations in the first place if they occur nevertheless we need decisive restoration of security in those areas and we need coordination and we shouldn't be driven by political vanity which i think has been partly responsible for the very long conflict we are seeing in parts of the middle east we need decisive and early support for temporary settlement of refugees in my view in countries close to the borders so we have been well not just not very supportive uh with respect to italy and greece but we also haven't been very supportive with respect to lebanon with respect to turkey in the early days of the crisis in the middle east and that of course creates issues of the thought we are facing at the moment now how do we deal with the crisis well most important i believe is to secure europe's outer borders something from which we are at the moment still some steps away we need quick decisions on asylum applications with possibly first filters at the outer borders of the eu so the share of well valid refugee claims is actually very low as i've pointed out before so there is a lot of um there are there are many people who don't come uh for humanitarian reasons but for reasons which have to do with economic necessities which of course is also very important to be considered but it doesn't fall under the jailer convention and we need to coordinate policies and as i show you before well coordination at the moment is still in its very first well very very first steps we need coordinated actions that include agreed allocation mechanisms and declared common eligibility rules if we don't have declared common eligibility rules of course if the father doesn't give you the chocolate you just simply ask the mother and that's not good in this particular situation perhaps it is achievable by a new institution with wide-ranging powers i don't know but in any case what we need to do is we need to improve transparency we need to improve information and we need to reduce uncertainty if we don't do that we give we put oil on the fire of populist movements and that is definitely not what europe needs at this moment now how we deal with refugees in my view the first objective should be resettlement if at all possible if it is unachievable in the short one or if it is unachievable at all we need decisive incentive-based integration policies and labour market integration which is coordinated between member states so that means if we have different welfare rules or if we have different possibilities of asylum seekers to actually look for work while they are still in the asylum process and that is the case across different european countries then of course the burden of refugee movements will be on some countries but not on others we need we are location mechanisms within the eu and within european countries we need in my view pre-agreed compensation mechanisms and we just have started to talk about we need coordination of transfer payments and labor market access across different eu countries and equal level market opportunities across countries of the eu now that of course is the most problematic aspect of all that the problems are that many of the issues which have to do with refugee migration and this have to do with coordination touch on compromises of countries sovereignty and sovereignty in probably the most sensitive aspect and that is who is allowed to live in your country we see that in the case of the uk immigration and who is allowed to live and to work in the uk is probably the biggest issue in the current brexit debate so that makes this issue so difficult and so sensitive whenever we try to coordinate we know we need to impose mechanisms on countries which will force giving up some of that sovereignty and that can be quickly exploited by populist movements furthermore many of the problems are inherently linked to the to what i think is the key issue in the european economic crisis and that is rigid labor markets and institutions so if you come to the uk it's very easy to find a job if you go to germany it's already more difficult if you don't have the right qualifications if you go to southern europe that is even more difficult and of course that determines where refugees would want to go to and where they want to live and that determines the burden different countries are sharing in this particular crisis thank you very much we have a couple of minutes for questions if there are any is there a microphone um so thank you for the presentation was very surprised by the result from the danish municipalities in which there was this huge difference between rural and urban area i was wondering whether you investigated the channels and if this effect this difference is more due to composition of voters in rural versus sovereign area or to a different number of migrants so probably maybe urban area receive the on percentage of population more migrants more refugees than um urban areas thank you we collect some questions i have two questions regarding your conclusions so the first question is why should the citizen give up part of his or her sovereignty unless this sovereignty is restored at a higher level with the very same rights that are present in the sovereignty the citizen enjoys in his own country and then i have a second question how can we believe that a less this labor market would be a solution i mean we can also say that jobs must be defended why should working people in a certain country give up the rights the labor rights that have conquered that many years why should they accept that i mean if the solutions you propose are these well i believe that populism will expand significantly in the coming years i think that your perspective is economical i would like to ask you why should not the countries be able to choose the refugees according to the anthropological and cultural characteristics of these countries why should we not give priority to christians who are suffering in the middle east that's my question we always hear of the political problems can you hear the translation so we hear about political problems related to wars that have been triggered off by careless policies but within the framework of the rich western countries and the eu countries we never mentioned the crisis brought about by climate change we do not realize that in 20 30 years if we continue like this there will be huge migrations caused by floods and drafts so this long-term scenario is never taken into consideration and we always think that migration is a phenomenon that can span over a few years or a few dozens of years maximum which is your opinion in this respect yes well you can already see from thank you very much beautiful presentation excellent data wonderful diagrams my question is i believe you have a very orthodox approach in a world that is proving that orthodoxy in economic approaches is actually failing if you collect the data about the european union where we have the liechtenstein with hundred and seventy thousand dollars as a per capita income per year versus southern italy or greece in southern italy life expectancy has turned around with significant social and human catastrophes well considering this this homogeneity i believe that if we phase our idea on a pool of data that put together greece where children mortality has gone up by 75 in the last two years and lichtenstein where you have people who earn so much money well how can we draw some conclusions from such a dish homogeneous situation thank you very much for all these excellent questions and i hope i understood them correctly now one thing the five questions which were asked are showing is that the opinions and views on the current crisis are very heterogeneous and that's of course part of the challenge that politicians are facing now i would i want to say i don't take a stand on this crisis what i try to do here today is not to make any statements about the state of greece or liechtenstein in accepting refugees i have just tried to give you some information about what is going on at the moment and from that i have drawn some conclusion which of course we can discuss now um clearly different european countries have different potentials to deal with this crisis and you are perfectly wide that greece is in a very vulnerable position and liechtenstein is certainly in a much stronger position but the idea of the european union has always been to redistribute and we will redistribute in this instance as well new european member states like the southern enlargement and very recently the eastern enlargement of course lead to large redistribution of funds of development funds into those countries which are economically weaker and i don't see any reason why we wouldn't do that with the current refugee crisis well the long-term scenario you were pointing out climate change is certainly one reason for why we can actually expect refugee migration or migration for economic reasons or the pressure on europe not abating in the near future i am pretty sure that the issues we are talking about today will be with us for the next decades they will not go away the demographic developments are pointing in that direction uh developments of geopolitical dynamics are pointing in that direction and well the answer i can give to that is that i really hope that we are kind of speeding up the process of getting ourselves ready to deal with these challenges well on with a slightly faster pace than what we have been doing so far but of course the challenges are really dramatic and i don't want to make some of the decisions politicians actually have to make on these issues today um well i i absolutely and totally agree disagree with your views about whom we should get that reach so the geneva convention was partly due to the horrors which happened during and before the second world war the persecution of jews now if you take the stand that because they didn't have the christian religion they shouldn't have i don't so i i well okay so here we can we can we can have different we can have different views on that for me a human being is a human being and i don't make a difference if a human being if a human being is a refugee under the geneva convention for me the cultural background and the religion is absolutely not important you are right it matters because it creates different political challenges but there what the solution you propose is that we interpret the geneva convention differently for individuals with different cultural background the solution i propose is that we find political solutions to that particular challenge but we apply the geneva convention to everybody regardless of religion regardless of ways in exactly the same way we can we can that's a different that's a different that's a different discourse so um there was the question on um super energy unfortunately i only uh could um kind of listen to that in so so well i mean i'm living in the uk for many years and i've lived in italy and i've lived in uh in in germany sovereignty is something and i don't take a stand on that i may agree with you i don't take a stand on that what i'm all i'm saying is that sovereignty of countries with respect to who lives in the country is seen as very important by the citizens of countries i just described that and we need to take that into consideration so that means that migration more generally and refugee migration more specific is creating particular non-economic based dynamics in the way individuals form attitudes towards policies which are very important to consider to give you an example when the small kurdish boy was found on a turkish beach i think you remember last year in i think it was october or september there was a wave of empathy across european countries and in particular in germany towards refugees coming from syria that's led to a political optimism in germany how we can deal with this crisis which i thought at that moment already was a little bit out of place when we had the events in cologne which probably didn't even have much to do with refugees the whole thing changed completely the attitudes towards that crisis change completely so there is a high volatility of populations in eu member states when it goes towards migration and refugee migration and i think that has to be taken into account by politicians when they make decisions and in order to reduce that volatility we need to reduce uncertainty we need transparency and we need to inform people and to give people the idea that actually their governments are in some way still in charge and i think that is very important to avoid populist movements and the rise of populist parties the first question was on denmark now this is something which is still very much a work in progress and it is certainly on our agenda to look for the different reasons but to give you a number of other examples uh why that hasn't really surprised me so in the uk the area where we have a very high share of migrants is london so close to 40 percent of people living in london are born in a different country at the same time the possibility of ukip the uk independence party who also wants a very strong anti-immigration agenda in london is dismantled so they don't get they don't get to vote shares but they get workshares in areas where actually migration is not a big issue so the rhetoric of these parties is perceived i think differently by populations in different parts of a country why actually that is something which we really have to understand better but it suggests that the potential of absorption may be different across countries and coming back to your point liechtenstein may find it probably easier to give refuge to a certain percentage of their population than greece does because of economic circumstances lunch unless there are additional questions i would like to thank professor dussman very much for his contribution he has been extremely interesting and transparent as well and we all know how important it is to discuss based on transparent information thank you very much you