EU Migration - Brexit scare stories must be challenged
A woman from the audience on Newsnight’s immigration debate (10 May) claimed her small taxi business in Boston, Lincolnshire, had been put out of business by a cut-price competitor staffed exclusively by low paid EU migrant drivers. There were some ugly voices in that debate, but hers wasn’t one of them, and it left me determined to do some proper thinking on the subject.
It is now clear that EU migration is the leave camp’s main - indeed only - shout and they will continue to exploit it as often as they can, however hard Mr Cameron tries to get the argument back to the economy. For some – particularly the low paid – it is a real concern. But there are positive arguments on migration, and getting the case right will be key in the last month of campaigning.
The first of the key Brexit arguments is that EU migrants are unaffordable in benefits and other resources - the red flag of benefit tourism. Remain’s response to this has been that EU migrants pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits - five times more according to HM Revenue and Customs. This is a very strong argument, but a recent Migration Watch study threw cold water on it, claiming there was in fact a considerable net cost to hosting so many EU migrants. Calculating how much migrants take out of the economy is apparently very difficult depending on how deeply you go in attributing costs – the direct benefits they receive is clear but – for example - what proportion of new school building should be included in the figure? If the truth about the net cost lies somewhere in the middle – as seems most likely - that would still mean EU migrants pay their way, even if not by multiples of five. It is a very important case for Remain and some robust and unchallengeable figures would help.
If migrants are paying in taxes for the services they use, why do people perceive they are a drag on local services – particularly in schools and the NHS? Of course the main answer to this is that high levels of migration, increasing over a relatively short period of time, have coincided with a period of austerity and severe strains on public services for all. If the perception that migrants are a particular drain is to be avoided the provision of adequate services to those communities dealing with high influxes of migrants is vital and David Cameron and George Osbourne need to promise this loudly and make it happen fast.
The second key area is the overall numbers and the potential for Britain to be literally ‘overrun’ by ‘uncontrolled’ migration. This is where the Brexit scaremongering is worst and the ‘take back control’ slogan has been seductive.
On the streets of London and elsewhere, the ubiquitous sound of Slavic languages supports the estimates of three million EU migrants in the UK (of which one in three is in London). Whether or not short term migrants are included or whether or not National Insurance number allocation is a legitimate measure, the numbers are clearly considerable.
While levels are high now, the aim is that the economies of the newer EU member states will gradually improve to meet the EU average through access to the single market and the EU structural funds for the poorest regions - which are mostly going to central and eastern Europe. As the economies of these countries improve, migration from them is likely to slow down. This is already starting to happen in relation to the EU 8 (those that joined in 2004 including Poland), whose migrants coming to the UK appear to have plateaued. The recent increases are being caused by Bulgarians and Romanians who have only recently gained access to EU freedom of movement (and who have further to go in terms of approaching equal wealth with other member states); and to migrants from the older member states resulting from week economic growth in southern Europe.
What about future enlargements and the potential for that to result in even higher numbers? Turkey is the big cloud on the horizon that the leave camp is citing (who’s doing the fearmongering now?). David Cameron was right to scold his minister for getting the facts wrong on future accession. Turkey is not likely to be a member for the foreseeable future and Remainers need to say this repeatedly. The EU has often gone way ahead of public opinion – but there is shared understanding (so no single country is likely to have to use their veto) that Turkish accession would be a step too far with the current EU crisis, as well as the recent reversals in democratic progress in Turkey itself. Yes, the EU needs Turkey to deal with Syrian migrants but its goodwill will not stretch to quick free entry to the club.
Leaving the vexed issue of Ukraine to one side, the next realistic (and modest in terms of size) enlargements will be in the Balkans. This is where the EU is at its best – taking troubled countries into the fold of democracy and the rule of law and thereby stabilizing the continent. The benefits of extension in the Balkans are clear - but we can learn from experience and include transitional measures on freedom of movement - possibly linked to economic development towards the EU average.
The last of the big Brexit argument is that EU migrants are forcing down wages in the UK, as the anecdotal evidence of the failed taxi business suggests. A few days after the Newsnight migration debate, an LSE study claimed to show that this was not the case because wages were decreasing due to recession, before the recent upswing in migration. Despite wanting to be convinced, I found myself wondering how it is possible to tell whether hard times alone have forced wages down or whether other factors - like migration - have played a part. Whatever the real reasons, there is at least the feeling that migrants are partly responsible for stagnating wages in lower paid jobs and completely denying this won’t work. More helpful is a recognition of the need for much stronger enforcement of a decent minimum wage to prevent Britain attracting unskilled migrants to work in unregulated slave wage jobs. David Cameron has promised an agency to deliver on this but he needs to repeat that promise loud and often, and then make it work.
In addition to rebutting Brexit’s claims on migration, there are also purely positive arguments about EU migration which Remain must also make.
Freedom of movement is a two-way street, and we can ourselves work, study or live anywhere else in the EU. There is something between 700,000 and a million UK citizens living in Spain, for example. They can also claim benefits there – many of them are pensioners and are entitled to claim a Spanish pension if they have worked there for just one year. Our students can study abroad using the EU’s Erasmus program, and many young people have worked, or look forward to working, in other EU countries. Better teaching of languages in the UK would make it possible for more to take advantage of these opportunities. And whilst, at the moment, there is net migration to the UK, we cannot rule out that, in the long term, our economy might weaken in comparison to our neighbors’ (this referendum takes a decision for the very long term after all) and net migration could be in the opposite direction at some point in the future.
Between 700,000 and one million British citizens live in Spain - many of them pensioners.
But, we need to look at the bigger picture to see the real prize. It is an extraordinary EU achievement that central and eastern European countries were brought in from the cold so rapidly when, as little as thirty years ago, they lived behind an iron curtain as part of the Soviet bloc. Those of us who grew up with the fear of nuclear annihilation should understand that living side-by-side is very much better. And few would dispute the real benefits that the various waves of immigrants have brought to the UK.
But the killer argument for Remain on migration is economic – like nearly everything in this debate. Remain has won the case on the economy because of the single market. The EU sees the four freedoms for goods, services, capital and people as indivisible. None of the possible Brexit deals we could strike with the EU will give us even moderate access to the single market – like Switzerland - without having to accept freedom of movement of people in and out of the UK. Case closed. And, incidentally, the European country with the highest per capita number of EU migrants is none other than… Switzerland.
So, I commiserate with the lady whose taxi business in Lincolnshire failed. But the sort of recession likely to follow Brexit, would hurt all business, small and large (excepting perhaps debt collectors and loan sharks), and is not in the interest of anyone. And though it will be of little comfort to her now, stronger enforcement of a decent minimum wage might have helped her and could help others in similar circumstances in the future.
